Making money off the conspiracy theory

It sure does.

And you gotta love the go-faster-rockets

I think he already is, he asked where I live

Thats nice. Its good to see him getting out of that house. He spends too much time with that window of his.

And you gotta love the go-faster-rockets

It's the low-hanging brass balls that truly make it a work of art.

Tom sure does love his window

I have to agree with you there Roundy

And on that note, its bedtime

And on that note, its bedtime

No. 

Yes. I'm tired and I have to be up in time to watch the budding young engineers get plunged into the freezing water of the rapids. And have a picnic.

It's not that late.

its quarter past 4

Fine, go to bed.

Good night. 

Night night 

 

Quote from: Ski on April 30, 2008, 02:44:18 PM

You certainly implied there wasn't enough money to go around for SOME reason. I guessed that it was the number of people you think are involved. My apologies for (mis-?)interpreting your ambiguous statement.

It was not an ambiguous statement, it was a general statement.

You try accomplishing the task of worldwide GPS with low altitude pseudolites or antennae and see how much it costs compared to a satellite based one.

That's silly.. DARPA is researching the technology right now because satellite launches are so expensive. I don't think they are looking for more expensive options. If they only knew NASA has already got the technology, think of the money DARPA would save!

Quote from: Kill-9 on April 30, 2008, 02:46:10 PM

Quote from: Ski on April 30, 2008, 02:44:18 PM

You certainly implied there wasn't enough money to go around for SOME reason. I guessed that it was the number of people you think are involved. My apologies for (mis-?)interpreting your ambiguous statement.

It was not an ambiguous statement, it was a general statement.

You try accomplishing the task of worldwide GPS with low altitude pseudolites or antennae and see how much it costs compared to a satellite based one.

That's silly.. DARPA is researching the technology right now because satellite launches are so expensive. I don't think they are looking for more expensive options. If they only knew NASA has already got the technology, think of the money DARPA would save!

I've already made a post about that. If satellite launches are cheaper, that means less money per satellite for NASA.

More importantly, there is GPS which would have to be part of the conspiracy. Without orbitting satellites you're restricted to antennae, pseudolittes, and magic. All of which don't cover the distance that a satellite does. Someone here suggested a 4000:1 ratio of pseudolites to satellites. IF his data is true, then that would be a giant cost to get running. For antennae, its the same. You have to pay workers enough to keep their mouths shut, even if they're not in on the conspiracy, and they have to cover most of the earth with them.

THEN they have to pay the few workers they have giant sums of cash to keep them quiet. Then they might have to pay a country that is just joining the space race so they don't squeal. Then they gotta stage all these launches. Then they have to imitate satellites by somehow providing satellite internet, satellite TV, and satellite phone service.

The list goes on. You add up all that cost with the pittance they get now, and the constantly decreasing funding... and it looks like the conspiracy falls apart. Now THATS silly.

Kill-9 FTW!

I've already made a post about that. If satellite launches are cheaper, that means less money per satellite for NASA.

More importantly, there is GPS which would have to be part of the conspiracy. Without orbitting satellites you're restricted to antennae, pseudolittes, and magic. All of which don't cover the distance that a satellite does. Someone here suggested a 4000:1 ratio of pseudolites to satellites. IF his data is true, then that would be a giant cost to get running. For antennae, its the same. You have to pay workers enough to keep their mouths shut, even if they're not in on the conspiracy, and they have to cover most of the earth with them.

How can we know what kind of technology the conspiracy is capable of?

THEN they have to pay the few workers they have giant sums of cash to keep them quiet.

Possibly not that much.  I'm sure intimidation is part of their repertoire.

Then they might have to pay a country that is just joining the space race so they don't squeal.

I think they all just get incorporated into the conspiracy.

Then they gotta stage all these launches.

It's already been covered that such stagings would be far less expensive than the launching themselves.

Then they have to imitate satellites by somehow providing satellite internet, satellite TV, and satellite phone service.

Once again, we have no idea the technology the conspiracy is capable of.

The list goes on. You add up all that cost with the pittance they get now, and the constantly decreasing funding... and it looks like the conspiracy falls apart. Now THATS silly.

Not really.  Nothing you've said here makes the conspiracy theory look the least bit implausible.

Whats more plausible? A small group of secretive people keeping the true shape of the earth secret, staging launches and technologies that can't exist, making up stories just for shits and giggles, and collecting all this money to somehow develop secret technologies that are so advanced that appear to be majic and yet STILL make a profit....

or....


the earth is round like we've seen time and time again?


The reason the conspiracy is so implausible is because it'd need to be so big, with so little people supporting it, it just wouldn't work. It's way more plausible that it doesn't exist.

Whats more plausible? A small group of secretive people keeping the true shape of the earth secret, staging launches and technologies that can't exist, making up stories just for shits and giggles, and collecting all this money to somehow develop secret technologies that are so advanced that appear to be majic and yet STILL make a profit....

or....


the earth is round like we've seen time and time again?


The reason the conspiracy is so implausible is because it'd need to be so big, with so little people supporting it, it just wouldn't work. It's way more plausible that it doesn't exist.

I've shown time and again why that is wrong.  You just ignore it.

Perhaps you could give us some highlights? Show us what kind of magic they'd use to somehow make money after spending all that green on upkeep alone maybe?

Perhaps you could give us some highlights? Show us what kind of magic they'd use to somehow make money after spending all that green on upkeep alone maybe?

No magic.  It costs much more money to fake going to space than to actually do it.  HUGE profits there; perhaps you can provide some kind of evidence that it wouldn't be more than enough to cover the costs of upkeep?

Quote from: Kill-9 on May 01, 2008, 11:57:39 AM

Perhaps you could give us some highlights? Show us what kind of magic they'd use to somehow make money after spending all that green on upkeep alone maybe?

No magic.  It costs much more money to fake going to space than to actually do it.  HUGE profits there; perhaps you can provide some kind of evidence that it wouldn't be more than enough to cover the costs of upkeep?

Lets start at the base of the argument. Do you have proof of a conspiracy?

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 01, 2008, 12:14:38 PM

Quote from: Kill-9 on May 01, 2008, 11:57:39 AM

Perhaps you could give us some highlights? Show us what kind of magic they'd use to somehow make money after spending all that green on upkeep alone maybe?

No magic.  It costs much more money to fake going to space than to actually do it.  HUGE profits there; perhaps you can provide some kind of evidence that it wouldn't be more than enough to cover the costs of upkeep?

Lets start at the base of the argument. Do you have proof of a conspiracy?

Yes.  The observations of Rowbotham proving the earth is flat.  Next question?

Quote from: Kill-9 on May 01, 2008, 12:22:23 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 01, 2008, 12:14:38 PM

Quote from: Kill-9 on May 01, 2008, 11:57:39 AM

Perhaps you could give us some highlights? Show us what kind of magic they'd use to somehow make money after spending all that green on upkeep alone maybe?

No magic.  It costs much more money to fake going to space than to actually do it.  HUGE profits there; perhaps you can provide some kind of evidence that it wouldn't be more than enough to cover the costs of upkeep?

Lets start at the base of the argument. Do you have proof of a conspiracy?

Yes.  The observations of Rowbotham proving the earth is flat.  Next question?

Thats not proof. Just like 'Physical Education' isn't proof that phlogoston exists. It's a book thats wrong and has been proven wrong. So is enag. Next proof.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 01, 2008, 12:23:35 PM

Quote from: Kill-9 on May 01, 2008, 12:22:23 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 01, 2008, 12:14:38 PM

Quote from: Kill-9 on May 01, 2008, 11:57:39 AM

Perhaps you could give us some highlights? Show us what kind of magic they'd use to somehow make money after spending all that green on upkeep alone maybe?

No magic.  It costs much more money to fake going to space than to actually do it.  HUGE profits there; perhaps you can provide some kind of evidence that it wouldn't be more than enough to cover the costs of upkeep?

Lets start at the base of the argument. Do you have proof of a conspiracy?

Yes.  The observations of Rowbotham proving the earth is flat.  Next question?

Thats not proof. Just like 'Physical Education' isn't proof that phlogoston exists. It's a book thats wrong and has been proven wrong. So is enag. Next proof.

Well there's nothing concrete, and obviously it's impossible to prove anything outside of the realm of mathematics, but if the earth is flat, there must be a conspiracy.  Where has Earth Not a Globe been proven wrong?

It hasn't been proven right. It's just one delusional guy.

The mountain of proof that it IS round is much more substantial that one book, however even the fact that there isn't a recognized scientific study proving the earth is flat is good enough to show that it aint the truth.

We seem to have gone off-track here.  Can you respond to this question

It costs much more money to fake going to space than to actually do it.  HUGE profits there; perhaps you can provide some kind of evidence that it wouldn't be more than enough to cover the costs of upkeep?

or do you want to keep changing the subject?

We seem to have gone off-track here.  Can you respond to this question

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 01, 2008, 12:14:38 PM

It costs much more money to fake going to space than to actually do it.  HUGE profits there; perhaps you can provide some kind of evidence that it wouldn't be more than enough to cover the costs of upkeep?

or do you want to keep changing the subject?

Do a search for the guy who found the 4000:1 ratio. That should help. Also, get me some data on the conspiracy's books and I'll do the math.

I also have the option of taking the tom way out with "I can't prove a negative". I can't prove something is impossible if it doesn't exist for me to get data from. My argument was merely that it's so implausible that it can't exist.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 01, 2008, 12:33:26 PM

We seem to have gone off-track here.  Can you respond to this question

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 01, 2008, 12:14:38 PM

It costs much more money to fake going to space than to actually do it.  HUGE profits there; perhaps you can provide some kind of evidence that it wouldn't be more than enough to cover the costs of upkeep?

or do you want to keep changing the subject?

Do a search for the guy who found the 4000:1 ratio. That should help.

Certainly the validity of this point depends on how much it would actually cost to produce and send up pseudolites.  Did he prove that the 4000:1 ratio is valid?

Quote from: Kill-9 on May 01, 2008, 12:36:14 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 01, 2008, 12:33:26 PM

We seem to have gone off-track here.  Can you respond to this question

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 01, 2008, 12:14:38 PM

It costs much more money to fake going to space than to actually do it.  HUGE profits there; perhaps you can provide some kind of evidence that it wouldn't be more than enough to cover the costs of upkeep?

or do you want to keep changing the subject?

Do a search for the guy who found the 4000:1 ratio. That should help.

Certainly the validity of this point depends on how much it would actually cost to produce and send up pseudolites.  Did he prove that the 4000:1 ratio is valid?

He indicated the cost of a satellite and the cost of a pseudolite yes. However I'd really like proof of the conspiracy before I run the numbers. I don't want to waste my time.

I don't want to waste my time.

Then why in the world would you be defending Round Earth?