The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Trevor on October 11, 2008, 09:09:00 PM
-
My theory: Most of the people who claim to believe in the Flat Earth do not, and that this "Flat Earth Society" is being used as a tool to inspire people to question the things that they are told. To perform experiments to practice the scientific method, and try and prove the things we take for granted for themselves. I consider this a noble cause, and if there is any truth to my hypothesis I applaud all involved.
The alternative is rather silly, considering the sheer number of people that would have to be involved in such a conspiracy.
-Starting first with the over 450 people from all over the world (in countries that are somehow all collaborating together on this one huge cover-up) who have allegedly been to space, ranging from pilots, to scientists, to people in varying other positions.
-Moving down to the even larger group of people who actually put together the space program, and spend large chunks of their lives collecting and analyzing (sorry, faking) data. After all, if this conspiracy is to make money off of a fake space program, the people who would be spending all that funding on actual technology (including people not associated with NASA, but who still wish to utilize the space program) have to be told about it.
Take for example Dr. Samuel T. Durrance who, along with a large group of researchers and technicians at various levels, decided to build a UV telescope that would be used on the orbiter. Dr. Durrance was one of two scientists who would be sent up with it to operate the device. Did they spend all the trouble lugging that thing across the center and into the (fake) orbiter attached to a cord to keep the vacuums running so that it would be in optimal working condition, and then tell him "Oh, sorry, there is no space program. There is no way you can use that machine you, and the students and workers with you, spent years of your lives on. However, you must still hide out here and pretend to be in space, then go back to them and tell them you did, and write an emotional note about your experiences with accompanying pictures and videos we will fake for you and tell everyone you took."
It's not just space sciences either. I know researchers currently developing manufacturing processes that will be used in space labs. Specifically, to make solar cells in zero gravity, where it is more feasible to construct the crystal structures required to boost energy efficiency.
And it's not like all scientists are in on the conspiracy too, right?
-It continues to branch out further from there, probably including those in aviation who would be in a position to observe the improper distances resulting from a flat earth.
-
Can you prove that a conspiracy is not feasible?
-
Can you prove that a conspiracy is not feasible?
A conspiracy is feasible. Myths are feasible. Urban legends ar feasible. That does not make it true.
A theory that a group has conspired against the public at large can be applied to anything and any group. For example, I could easily claim a theory that FE'rs are conspiring against the public and the scientific community by inventing a false earth scenario. That theory could also be evidenced by actions from mods here. For example. I have had posts indiscriminately deleted by a mod for having a contrary opinion about FE. This would tend to support a conspiracy by FE'rs would it not?
-
See. The very first reply is one asking me to try and further support my argument against FE with proof.
That supports my theory quite nicely.
-
See. The very first reply is one asking me to try and further support my argument against FE with proof.
That supports my theory quite nicely.
No, you have a hypothesis. I am not talking to someone who does not know the difference.
-
I am not talking to someone who does not know the difference.
Excuse me but you just did. Also, an opinion based on an observed response (a hypothesis) can be used to suport a theory. So his statement that it suports his theory is actually correct.
-
He does have some point. Though for these purposes, the difference is arbitrary.
Besides, the post falls into the same logical trap as usual.
-
Do we now expect to be asked to prove that something doesn't exist? That would be a hoot.
-
My theory: Most of the people who claim to believe in the Flat Earth do not
Congratulations! You beat the FES game in only six posts. Your options now-
1) spend some time in Complete Nonsense
2) go back home and feel very proud of the time you saved solving it so quickly, which you can now devote to a hobby or interest
-
Trevor. I congratulate you ;D. Amazing conclusion. Now we are entitles to the same responses that most FEers use. "the opposing point of view is based on a conspiracy" :P
-
See. The very first reply is one asking me to try and further support my argument against FE with proof.
That supports my theory quite nicely.
Why?
-
I should agree with you Trevor
In my opinion some of so called flat earth believer dont believe in a flat earth. They are just pissed off about the fact that people believe what they are being told. I should tell you however that there are people here who geniunly believe in a flat earth and heaven and hell, hell being underneath the earth (disney cartoons) and heaven being over the skies.
I love the cause of the people questioning "common sense" and I think they chose something fundamental like earth's shape to say "Ah screw you, just because you say it is true, doesnt mean that it actually is"
To be honest I've seen SOME fairly intelligent people in these forums and there was no way they could beleive in a flat earth because it would controdict with most of other things they believed. and only one thing could have them here and it is to question the bullshit we are being told everyday by people who claim they know better than us.
Ofcourse thats just what I think
-
Even if this forum is a noble effort to get people to question their beliefs, it still pisses me off. There can be no constructive discussion whatsoever when people like Tom Bishop get involved. Every argument devolves into wild speculation and gross defiance of Occam's razor on the part of the FEers and just rage on the part of the REers.
Not to mention that this entire forum is like backwards land. For some reason FET is the accepted norm here and us REers have to defend what is, in the real world, widely accepted scientific fact. Even Einstein, when he first came up with relativity, had to defend his new theory against the onslaught of skeptical physicists. Just because this is a FE forum doesn't mean you can go around starting every argument with "Assume FET is true...". That's no way to get the respect of unbelievers.
The only valid method is proof by contradiction:
1. Assume the Earth is round
2. We know X to be true
3. A round Earth cannot explain X
4. Therefore the Earth is not round
Once you do that, then you can start talking about all of this UA nonsense and whatnot.
-
I agree
you should ignore people like Tom Bishop, they really dont know what they talk about and someone told them if they'd talk total nonsense, people will assume they are intelligent , and thats what theyre doing
-
Every argument devolves into wild speculation and gross defiance of Occam's razor
Defiance? You do know what Occam's Razor actually states right?
-
Can you prove that a conspiracy is not feasible?
Can you prove the Matrix is not feasible? Does this mean the entire world is an illusion? Should we begine the VES (Virtual Earth Society) forums?
-
Can you prove that a conspiracy is not feasible?
Can you prove the Matrix is not feasible? Does this mean the entire world is an illusion? Should we begine the VES (Virtual Earth Society) forums?
I don't get the analogy. We don't have any evidence that Matrix is real (unless you think the Wachowskis were making documentaries, but that's just silly).
-
Can you prove that a conspiracy is not feasible?
Can you prove the Matrix is not feasible? Does this mean the entire world is an illusion? Should we begine the VES (Virtual Earth Society) forums?
I don't get the analogy. We don't have any evidence that Matrix is real (unless you think the Wachowskis were making documentaries, but that's just silly).
We don't have any evidence for the Conspiracy either. Yet your theory relies on it.
-
We don't have any evidence for the Conspiracy either. Yet your theory relies on it.
What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter straight up at 7 miles per second (third stage of the Saturn V), and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis, explore the cosmos, and constantly wow the nation by landing a man on the moon and sending robots to mars; or is the simplest explanation that they really can't do all of that stuff?
-
Can you prove that a conspiracy is not feasible?
Can you prove the Matrix is not feasible? Does this mean the entire world is an illusion? Should we begine the VES (Virtual Earth Society) forums?
I don't get the analogy. We don't have any evidence that Matrix is real (unless you think the Wachowskis were making documentaries, but that's just silly).
We don't have any evidence for the Conspiracy either. Yet your theory relies on it.
Yes we do. The earth is flat.
-
We don't have any evidence for the Conspiracy either. Yet your theory relies on it.
What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter straight up at 7 miles per second (third stage of the Saturn V), and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis, explore the cosmos, and constantly wow the nation by landing a man on the moon and sending robots to mars; or is the simplest explanation that they really can't do all of that stuff?
i think spaceflight is easier than a conspiration
-
We don't have any evidence for the Conspiracy either. Yet your theory relies on it.
What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter straight up at 7 miles per second (third stage of the Saturn V), and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis, explore the cosmos, and constantly wow the nation by landing a man on the moon and sending robots to mars; or is the simplest explanation that they really can't do all of that stuff?
Tom, we've been over this before. The simplest explanation is irrelevant. It's the correct explanation that matters.
-
I have been lurking on this site for awhile and had to join up to say that I find it hilarious that people do not know that "Tom Bishop" is actually the poster known as "Saddam Hussein". I agree with the first poster, but its hilarious that someone would actually make a thread about it. After reading the FAQ and a couple of other threads its actually quite easy to get a feel for the true nature of this forum.
:P
-
Tom, we've been over this before. The simplest explanation is irrelevant. It's the correct explanation that matters.
Should the burden of proof be on the group proponing the simplest explanation, or the group proponing the unobservable and most complex explanation?
-
Tom, we've been over this before. The simplest explanation is irrelevant. It's the correct explanation that matters.
Should the burden of proof be on the group proponing the simplest explanation, or the group proponing the unobservable and most complex explanation?
The simplest explanation is that the sky fairy did it, but you don't seem to like that one for some odd reason or other.
-
The simplest explanation is that the sky fairy did it, but you don't seem to like that one for some odd reason or other.
The last time I checked God wasn't observable. Why do you feel that the supernatural is a simpler explanation than the natural?
-
The simplest explanation is that the sky fairy did it, but you don't seem to like that one for some odd reason or other.
The last time I checked God wasn't observable. Why do you feel that the supernatural is a simpler explanation than the natural?
You didn't say anything about observable. You just wanted the simplest explanation.
-
I have been lurking on this site for awhile and had to join up to say that I find it hilarious that people do not know that "Tom Bishop" is actually the poster known as "Saddam Hussein".
Saddam, is this true? :o
-
You didn't say anything about observable. You just wanted the simplest explanation.
One group is suggesting the simplest and most easily observable claim, and another group the unobservable and most complex claim. With which group should the burden of proof lay?
The answer is that the burden is on you guys is to prove these things to us. You're the one making the claim. We're not. The simplest explanation is that NASA really can't do all of that stuff.
In a discussion on the existence of ghosts should the burden of proof be on the group mumbling "just because you can't see something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist," or should the burden of proof be on everyone else to prove that ghosts *don't* exist?
A company called Mollar International (http://) claims to have invented a flying car with safety comparable to a land vehicle, an outstanding performance of a 400 mile range, and sophisticated never before seen computer control. They claim that the Sky Car is ready to be mass produced if only they got a few more big investments. They've released a few videos of it hovering a short distance off the ground in test flights. Should the burden of proof be on the Moller proponents who are absolutely certain that all of Moller's claims are true, or should the burden of proof be on everyone else to prove that Moller's claims are *not* true?
So where's your proof for all of these sci-fi claims of yours?
-
You didn't say anything about observable. You just wanted the simplest explanation.
One group is suggesting the simplest and most easily observable claim, and another group the unobservable and most complex claim. With which group should the burden of proof lay?
The answer is that the burden is on you guys is to prove these things to us. You're the one making the claim. We're not. The simplest explanation is that NASA really can't do all of that stuff.
In a discussion on the existence of ghosts should the burden of proof be on the group mumbling "just because you can't see something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist," or should the burden of proof be on everyone else to prove that ghosts *don't* exist?
A company called Mollar International (http://) claims to have invented a flying car with safety comparable to a land vehicle, an outstanding performance of a 400 mile range, and sophisticated never before seen computer control. They claim that the Sky Car is ready to be mass produced if only they got a few more big investments. They've released a few videos of it hovering a short distance off the ground in test flights. Should the burden of proof be on the Moller proponents who are absolutely certain that all of Moller's claims are true, or should the burden of proof be on everyone else to prove that Moller's claims are *not* true?
So where's your proof for all of these sci-fi claims of yours?
The proof is there.
But to answer your question; When two claims exist that are contrary and one of them is provable, then the burden lies upon the one that is not.
Modern space flight is provable and it's history taceable and understood by millions. To ignor this is to believe that humans have no ability to learn: that we have no ability to advance ideas. But it is easily seen. Fire - wheel - levers - math - steam engines - internal combustion engines - jet engines - rocket engines - computers. Man's ability to learn and advance IS the simple explaination.
However, a conspericy is based on not what we know but on what we don't know.
So why would you base your belief on what you don't know when there is evidence to the contrary?
Also; in a court of law, eye witness testimony is given a heavy weight of evidence. I personally witnessed a launch in Florida. Now it's your turn. Give some evidence the conspiracy exists and space travel does not.
-
Indeed evidence for space flight is overwhelming, while "evidence" for the conspiracy is usually based on conjecture and claims of fakery.
Space organisations launch craft regularly and provide a constant stream of images and videos. Private space companies are starting to do the same. Amateur ballonists have sent photographic equipment up to heights of around 30km, from which the curvature of the Earth is clearly visible.
-
Indeed evidence for space flight is overwhelming, while "evidence" for the conspiracy is usually based on conjecture and claims of fakery.
Space organisations launch craft regularly and provide a constant stream of images and videos. Private space companies are starting to do the same. Amateur ballonists have sent photographic equipment up to heights of 30km, from which the curvature of the Earth is clearly visible.
Sorry but I don't think that is creative enough for Tom Bishop. Can you change it a little so that the cameras for the show were provided by the government and later changed by computer imaging and that the 'private' crafts were actually CIA owned an operated? He might go along with it then.
Wow! Look! I can do the conspiracy thing too! My God the government is devious arn't they? I've heard that they actually operate this website to cover up what is really going on!
-
We don't have any evidence for the Conspiracy either. Yet your theory relies on it.
What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter straight up at 7 miles per second (third stage of the Saturn V), and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis, explore the cosmos, and constantly wow the nation by landing a man on the moon and sending robots to mars; or is the simplest explanation that they really can't do all of that stuff?
What about computers Tom? Scientists claimed to have made a never before seen punch card fed machine that could do complex mathematics in minutes that would take a room full of human calculators years or more. Then they claimed it was possible to have direct input into those machines, making punchcards unnecessary. Then then claimed they could use never before seen transistors to make the vacuum tubes of the old system unnecessary. Then they claimed they could condense all the transistors, diodes, etc into smaller never before seen integrated circuits. Then they claimed they could condense even more parts into never before seen micro-processors. Then they claimed they could make those integrated circuits and micro-processors smaller, and smaller, and smaller still, till you get to our current point of reference where you could fit the txt equivalent of 16 million 300 page books on a $50 8gb memory stick.
If you looked at computers the same way you look at aeronautics you'd be forced to say that looks farcical as well. How could they make those advances? A computer scientist in the 1940's shown a quarter sized stick and told it had 16 million books on it would say "nonsense". The simplest explanation is that they really couldn't do all of that stuff. You're not inclined to open up your hard drive to see if there's a conspiracy inside though are you? You live in our age and take those advances as signs of progress.
The point I'm getting at is researching, or even just casually looking up info, on the advances of computer tech is as easy as researching/looking up info on aeronautics. You always cite the Saturn V rocket accelerating 100 tons of matter straight up at 7 miles per second as an impossibility. Why, the 100 tons part? Is 100 tons just too heavy to lift in your opinion? Newtons third law says with sufficient thrust you can lift any mass, and accelerate it to almost any speed. Did you research the thrust capabilities of the Saturn V before choosing it as your poster child? Can you cite where any stage of it's engines would be insufficient to move the mass of the rocket to those speeds? If you can't cite any obvious flaws with the math, then why do you use this example so often?
Likewise, the rest of your post, where you look at all that the various space agencies have accomplished, and say "how could this technology have advanced to this stage?" just makes apparent you're not keeping up with the current tech. I'm not going to cite every experiment/project/mission done by every space agency just to prove their validity. Cite some examples you have problems with. Examples where you feel the math doesn't add up. I, and others most likely, will offer our insights.
You didn't say anything about observable. You just wanted the simplest explanation.
One group is suggesting the simplest and most easily observable claim, and another group the unobservable and most complex claim. With which group should the burden of proof lay?
The answer is that the burden is on you guys is to prove these things to us. You're the one making the claim. We're not. The simplest explanation is that NASA really can't do all of that stuff.
In a discussion on the existence of ghosts should the burden of proof be on the group mumbling "just because you can't see something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist," or should the burden of proof be on everyone else to prove that ghosts *don't* exist?
A company called Mollar International (http://) claims to have invented a flying car with safety comparable to a land vehicle, an outstanding performance of a 400 mile range, and sophisticated never before seen computer control. They claim that the Sky Car is ready to be mass produced if only they got a few more big investments. They've released a few videos of it hovering a short distance off the ground in test flights. Should the burden of proof be on the Moller proponents who are absolutely certain that all of Moller's claims are true, or should the burden of proof be on everyone else to prove that Moller's claims are *not* true?
So where's your proof for all of these sci-fi claims of yours?
First off, your link, it goes nowhere...
Second off, I don't see how NASA is the same as the flying car scam, or the water car scam, or the free energy generator scam. I don't see how it's the guy who believes in ghost and talks about it at parties either.
There's too much to the fields of aeronautics and space exploration for us to be expected to lay it all at your feet for inspection. Give us solid examples that you dispute and we'll defend those.
-
First off, your link, it goes nowhere...
Second off, I don't see how NASA is the same as the flying car scam, or the water car scam, or the free energy generator scam. I don't see how it's the guy who believes in ghost and talks about it at parties either.
There's too much to the fields of aeronautics and space exploration for us to be expected to lay it all at your feet for inspection. Give us solid examples that you dispute and we'll defend those.
There is a good reason why the flying car thing never 'took off'. It's because no matter how good they are, when they break down on the way to work you can't just pull over to the shoulder and coast to a stop. You drop. To find someone to fund this kind of loosing proposition would be like deciding to bring back the Pinto!
-
Has Tom Bishop left the building?
-
Indeed. He got too close to the window
-
Tom Bishop = Saddam Hussein
Wow.... people are actually having an argument with a figment of someone elses imagination. This forum is so comical. I always wonder how many of the newbie REers like me actually read the old threads....
-
Tom Bishop = Saddam Hussein
Wow.... people are actually having an argument with a figment of someone elses imagination. This forum is so comical. I always wonder how many of the newbie REers like me actually read the old threads....
As I recall, Thomas Bishop was a Saddam Hussein alt, not Tom Bishop.
-
(http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff101/Yiak/brokenlink.jpg) != http://www.moller.com/
Also, simplest explanation is RE. ::)
-
Tom Bishop = Saddam Hussein
Wow.... people are actually having an argument with a figment of someone elses imagination. This forum is so comical. I always wonder how many of the newbie REers like me actually read the old threads....
For some reason there's something about Tom which means that even though everyone knows he's a troll that's not worth anyone's time - and his whole argument rests on the fact that no-one can really prove anything to him, and if they do it's just a new aspect of FET - people still feel compelled to have a go at breaking him anyway, knowing it will never work
-
Well, this entire site seems to be aimed at;
1. Real FE'rs that will not listen to anything.
2. RE'rs trying to convice those who will not listen.
3. People who get Lolz out of noobs who are not aware of what is going on.
4. Friends just hanging out talking about mindless shit.
There doesn't seem to be a basis for an enlightened or serious conversation to continue in the advertised claims of this site.
I find the whole thing rather sad. This is undoubtedly one of the worst forums I have seen on the net to date.
I'm gone.
-
Tom Bishop = Saddam Hussein
Wow.... people are actually having an argument with a figment of someone elses imagination. This forum is so comical. I always wonder how many of the newbie REers like me actually read the old threads....
You can tell this from old threads?
-
I find the whole thing rather sad. This is undoubtedly one of the worst forums I have seen on the net to date.
I'm gone.
Well, I can't say we'll miss you.
-
The only valid method is proof by contradiction:
1. Assume the Earth is round
2. We know X to be true
3. A round Earth cannot explain X
4. Therefore the Earth is not round
Once you do that, then you can start talking about all of this UA nonsense and whatnot.
I'm still waiting for an FEer to try and answer that one.
-
I'm still waiting for an FEer to try and answer that one.
Read Earth Not a Globe.
-
Read Earth Not a Globe.
I did. It wasn't very good, and really doesn't give any answers to his questions. Many of the observations that he makes are flawed, so it calls into doubt the entire book. Of course, there is that chapter at the end that go talking about how regardless of what we observe, the bible says that the Earth is flat, and that is the ultimate evidence.