Instead we seem to be clarifying what is a Burden of Proof Fallacy

i should've approached this ''how is the picture taken of the satellite true'' i can agree with you. the point is that these pictures requires a lot of faith in an organization that lied/deceived people in the past

i never stated i am not claiming that, i stated that i never claimed that as you suggested i did

In a basic sense, someone makes Claim A with some rudimentary backing (like a photo, quote, or the like) person 2 makes a rebuke to Claim A with counterclaim B

It is then their burden to prove the counterclaim

Can we use pictures of amateur astronomers who arent affiliated with NASA?

my problem is that Authoritative figure A can make any extraordinary claim and make it irrefutable, since the people have no way of disproving nor provingg it there's no way it should be real and used as evidence for such but people will still use it as proof

sure we can yeah

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcRKNaNSg48bVf0jn6OnLpCA6STrtRpuk_dTGx-ZbtQseuZPEEbt

https://www.cnet.com/news/spectacular-space-station-photo-taken-from-a-back-yard/

https://images.ctfassets.net/cnu0m8re1exe/29RdtG8TOuI5UBnGaTgKW2/3b2ec5cd0a5876f0e3c39b4b68886af8/vandebergh_kh111.jpg

Most technology used by NASA is developed by universities

@Flat earth BEAST That is why Authoritative Figure A is required to have some form of backing

Be it initial photos, quotes from reports, etc.

Failing to do so means the claim can be disregarded without need for counter evidence

Actually I retract that

we agree that the iss is out there but not the other satellites, the iss can be observed but not the other sattelies. to what it's properties or if it orbits the earth is that is for debate

especially when those people are tiny with susceptible highly absorb-able brains such as junior school kids for example

Simply put, claims made without evidence can be disregarded without evidence

Most technology thought to be used by NASA is developed and operated by universities

Well, or the DOD

Atlas comes to mind

The Arecibo Radio Telescope was built by Cornell University

@Thinky yeah, what i didn't hear is your backing of the picture that the satellite is there

Wait why is the ISS believable but smaller satellites are not now? I'm super confused.

well, if evidence is being deliberately hidden then the opposing stance doesn't stand a chance to gather that evidence .. quite a fair setup they've got running ey

Atlas is big meme

we are saying that the ISS is observable from the ground, by normal people such as us , but the satelites aren't

@Flat earth BEAST It is still there.

Feel free to see it.

I cannot post images directly, after all.

those small satellites? you can see them with a telescopee?

KH-11, KH-12

AKA 01010

I get you, but I'd they can put the iss up there, why cant they put satellites?

"Key Hole" Class Satellites

are there any articles or guide videos that have stated they've seen and how to like with the iss?

How to like with the ISS?

because, like i already said, if the ISS is a small slow low tethered balloon or hologram, then what does that have to do with 'satelites'?

Why can you not see the balloon?

Because we just established that those theories are less likely than it being a satellite.