guzzi Posted November 25, 2017 Share Posted November 25, 2017 I have seen satellites with my own eyes, many times as can you. No need to Google images from the internet. So straight answers, please, PGW, based on your own observations if you have them. There's no point resorting to images from the internet, rebut like with like, direct observation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted November 25, 2017 Share Posted November 25, 2017 PGW you will not get an apology from me because I have no reason to apologise. You again post lots of words but say nothing. You deflect and divert attention elsewhere. You will not bring the results of your own research to the discussion. If you were really interested in doing real science and research then you would draw up your hypothesis, perform repeatable and measurable experiments to prove or disprove your hypothesis and share all of that for others to test and replicate. If you can not or will not do this then there is no reason for continued discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted November 25, 2017 Share Posted November 25, 2017 1 hour ago, guzzi said: I have seen satellites with my own eyes, many times as can you. No need to Google images from the internet. So straight answers, please, PGW, based on your own observations if you have them. There's no point resorting to images from the internet, rebut like with like, direct observation. guzzi i would say thats a ufo in such an instance. given you are looking up into the sky, and seeing something you have not identified to begin with. natural science deals with tangibles before visuals. it's chronological logic dealing with substance. even your post is nothing more than your subjective experience. unless you can provide evidence to support your story. not that i doubt you saw something, or that i can indeed see the same thing. im not trying to rebut the observation. i understand that. but i know its not something i have verified and identified. it's a ufo. if you want to say that other people have identified and verified it for you, so that means you know what it is when you see it. well, that means you have faith and belief in what it is. it absolutely is not first hand knowledge of the object in the sky you and i can see. so you cant go around trying to make other people believe what you believe. but you are entitled to have them it's fine by me. i provided google images as an offer to you to find a real picture of a working satellite maybe. or something other than that long list of computer images i first glanced. the point is how do you know? you dont, you just believe. but given the claims made, and the fact that many of these claims are being questioned, i prefer to do the research without jumping to conclusions. for me it's about investigating the claim and counter claims, and seeing where the truth lies, pardon the pun. so all the info is not in yet this is an ongoing process. i'm not here making any claims. i'm researching the claim made to us all, and the counter claims. that is my natural right, and is in accordance with the scientific method. you should try it instead of going in with a pre formed bias. its more fun. we still need to analyze the original telemetry data from the moon landings. but nasa cant find them! not kidding look it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted November 25, 2017 Share Posted November 25, 2017 1 hour ago, manxman1980 said: PGW you will not get an apology from me because I have no reason to apologise. You again post lots of words but say nothing. You deflect and divert attention elsewhere. You will not bring the results of your own research to the discussion. If you were really interested in doing real science and research then you would draw up your hypothesis, perform repeatable and measurable experiments to prove or disprove your hypothesis and share all of that for others to test and replicate. If you can not or will not do this then there is no reason for continued discussion. well you made false allegations and i challenged you to provide proof or apologise. so it says everything about your poor form, thats fine by me.i dont think the amount of words one posts are an indication of what one says. the proof of the pudding is in the eating, is it not. i havent reached the results of my research! no wonder i havent posted them. no need to jump to conclusions is there really. im not here making claims i'm here for the discussion gerry started ages ago. i havent got a hypothesis for the shape and size of the earth. i'm gonna have to research the subject before i would be in that sort of position. which i am doing. but maybe the proof is already out there, and it will be revealed so we can all test it and measure it for certain. i know people already believe this to be the case. but further scrutiny is required in my opinion. and what harm can it do to be more diligent in our research? so of course anyone can form a hypothesis, but i'd rather take the time to understand the subject matter first. like i say it may be solved before any of us get the chance to even formulate an hypothesis, such is the nature of scientific discovery. do you have an hypothesis about the shape and size of the earth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojomonkey Posted November 25, 2017 Share Posted November 25, 2017 Tim Berners-Lee has a lot to answer for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted November 25, 2017 Share Posted November 25, 2017 here's the latest from our lovable ball expert freddie, on the flat earth stance he took on the bbc5 radio show discussing the topic x http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5113317/Freddie-Flintoff-convinced-Earth-FLAT.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted November 25, 2017 Share Posted November 25, 2017 https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/662290/Flat-earth-conspiracy-theory-andrew-freddie-flintoff-bbc-radio-5-live-robbie-savage-ashes now british media are onto the subject matter. it's growing rapidly as a topic for discussion, as predicted in this thread a long time ago, in direct opposition to the naive naysayers. wonder who the next ball expert will be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finlo Posted November 25, 2017 Share Posted November 25, 2017 I'm just looking up at Barrule and Snaefell and nope they're definitely not flat! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojomonkey Posted November 25, 2017 Share Posted November 25, 2017 Hold the press, I found proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guzzi Posted November 25, 2017 Share Posted November 25, 2017 PGW in the instance I referred to I positively identified it as the ISS from published data, based on place that it rose in the sky, the arc that it followed and the time at which it set, or passed into the shadow of the Earth. So it certainly wasn't a UFO. Of course, you could take the tack that the published data is false in some way, but the fact that it'll accurately predict the appearance of the ISS at any point on the surface of the Earth tends to suggest otherwise. Do you watch Sky? (Rhetorical question, don't bother answering). I pointed my own satellite dish at the Astra satellites at an orbital position of 28.2 E (That means 28.2 degrees East of the point at which the Greenwich meridian intersects the equator) where they orbit just over 35,500 km above the equator in a geostationary orbit. Bingo, there it was, a TV signal. Move the dish a fraction, and there was a different satellite, Badr, at 26 E. Given that I was pointing my dish into the empty sky, not at any terrestrial location, I am inclined to believe that the Astra birds are up there, 35,500 km above the equator, right where the published data says they will be. I did all this myself, so again, I consider it direct observation. Yet another, just to keep you going. Last year I flew from Santiago de Compostella to Gatwick. As you might by now suspect, I am a bit of a nerd so I love to have a window seat with a view. The flight was late. Easyjet, what can you say? What would have been a late afternoon flight North over Biscay turned into an evening one, taking off a good 10 minutes after I had watched the sun set below the horizon. But at 35,000 feet, guess what? The sun, big and beautiful and a good hands width above the horizon. Direct, personal observation. Specific rebuttals, pleased, based on personal observation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted November 25, 2017 Share Posted November 25, 2017 This is something you can do yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarne Posted November 25, 2017 Share Posted November 25, 2017 http://www.desertsun.com/story/news/2017/11/25/mad-mike-hughes-cancels-rocket-launch-prove-earth-flat/894587001/ There's a shocker, he couldn't get off his driveway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted November 26, 2017 Share Posted November 26, 2017 The battery was flat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted November 26, 2017 Share Posted November 26, 2017 Dodgy earth... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted November 26, 2017 Share Posted November 26, 2017 I really don’t like it when journalists leave their brains behind and just blindly report what people say rather than analysing the situation. How the heck is the farce reported in that link going to “prove” the world is flat other than in the mind of the nutter in the rocket and his fanboys. But here is the press lapping it up and misrepresenting the issue with the nutter getting loads of misguided publicity as a result. This stunt won’t prove anything other than human gullibility and we’ve known about that since the year dot. Pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.