1
Flat Earth Q&A / The reason
« on: October 13, 2006, 02:41:39 AM »
Bump.
Hello? I'm kinda curious to hear someones take on this.
Hello? I'm kinda curious to hear someones take on this.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Pages: [1]
2
Flat Earth Q&A / The reason
« on: October 11, 2006, 02:52:44 AM »
Sorry to dig up an ancient thread, but for what so far seems to be the most plausable motive for the conspiracy, I can see a rather large hole:
Why would the conspirators speed up the total destruction of all life (except theirs) on earth in order to make a profit that would be completely useless if everyone was dead!? Maybe they could make billions of dollars from the conspiracy, I'll be discussing this at a later date, but what use would it be to them if everyone was dead? Obviously there would be a certain degree of funds required for the initial set-up and stocking of their self-induced-apocolypse-bunker, but these would not amount to anything near the profits of a century spanning conspiracy. And if the people who instigated the conspiracy are basically big polluting buisnesses then they would have enough money to safeguard their future without the need to finance it via conspiracy. Hell, if they new all about global warming before the rest of us, they've probably finished it decades ago...
I know that this is just one possible explanation, but to me it doesn't seem very possible...
Why would the conspirators speed up the total destruction of all life (except theirs) on earth in order to make a profit that would be completely useless if everyone was dead!? Maybe they could make billions of dollars from the conspiracy, I'll be discussing this at a later date, but what use would it be to them if everyone was dead? Obviously there would be a certain degree of funds required for the initial set-up and stocking of their self-induced-apocolypse-bunker, but these would not amount to anything near the profits of a century spanning conspiracy. And if the people who instigated the conspiracy are basically big polluting buisnesses then they would have enough money to safeguard their future without the need to finance it via conspiracy. Hell, if they new all about global warming before the rest of us, they've probably finished it decades ago...
I know that this is just one possible explanation, but to me it doesn't seem very possible...
4
Flat Earth Q&A / TheEngineer Is A Liar
« on: September 06, 2006, 10:17:05 AM »
Round Earthers put forward an image and Flat Earthers say it is distorted, due to an illusion, faked, edited, incomplete, inconclusive, unclear etc.
The Earth: Not A Globe, listed as evidence for FE, conducts experiments in 1881 including measuring the height of flags from a boat 6 miles away and atmospheric distortions suddenly make themselves scarce.
Odd.
The Earth: Not A Globe, listed as evidence for FE, conducts experiments in 1881 including measuring the height of flags from a boat 6 miles away and atmospheric distortions suddenly make themselves scarce.
Odd.
5
Flat Earth Q&A / Serious thoughts
« on: September 06, 2006, 09:04:53 AM »
Correct me if I am wrong, but according to FEers, scientists (using the RE Model), based on data (which is fake) of the RE Universe (which is impossible/non existent) theorised Dark Energy. Yet FEers use Dark Energy to explain how the FE moves upwards?
Pogmothoin, it is my understanding that observations of Redshift have lead scientists to believe the universe is expanding, and to postulate a type of energy (Dark) that automatically fills the spaces in the universe that would occur if it were indeed expanding.
Pogmothoin, it is my understanding that observations of Redshift have lead scientists to believe the universe is expanding, and to postulate a type of energy (Dark) that automatically fills the spaces in the universe that would occur if it were indeed expanding.
6
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Serious thoughts
« on: September 06, 2006, 07:33:10 AM »Quote from: "TheEngineer"
QuoteCompleteness- The Big Bang, Singularities, the expanding universe, blue shift/red shift, gravity, gravitons, quantum field theory, accretion theory, formation of the solar system, the formation/shape/existence/stability of earth. These all fit together! They make sense and can be backed up by elemetary science and observation of the world around us and the universe above us.
How can it be complete? You can't explain what gravity is. No one has discovered the graviton yet. What happened at the big bang event is still disputed. Use your elementary science to show me a graviton.
And no one has discovered, seen or proved the existence of the Ice Wall! Or proved the existence of, or even seen the Dark Energy (another theoretical force, just like gravitons...) apparently pushing the earth up infinately. Show me the Dark Energy under the FE.
Once again, you seem to be completely ignoring my main point:
Science vs Speculation
I know the existence graviton is not confirmed, niether is Dark Energy. Gravitons are one theory among many that explain gravity, relativity (which has cited as the evidence for the possibility of the existence of FE countless times already) is the major alternative, which also fits in with everything else around us and is backed up by elementary science and the smartest people the world has ever seen.
7
Flat Earth Q&A / Flights from Australia to Argentina.
« on: September 05, 2006, 04:17:29 PM »Quote from: "dysfunction"
Do you know how many times holes have been pointed out in FE, yet this site continues? Do you really think yours will convince anyone?
No. I honestly can't see this or any of the hundreds of pieces of counter evidence to the FE Theory ever causing the FEers to admit defeat or ending this site.
Its kinda fun to imagine them squirming though. :roll:
As such, I still emplore FEers everywhere to dispute this claim with credible evidence.
8
Flat Earth Q&A / Flights from Australia to Argentina.
« on: September 05, 2006, 11:14:39 AM »
Bump!
Come on FEers! This looks like it is unanswerable from your point of view, lets see some of your evidence egainst this.
Come on FEers! This looks like it is unanswerable from your point of view, lets see some of your evidence egainst this.
9
Flat Earth Q&A / Explain to me the Ice Wall.
« on: September 05, 2006, 09:22:17 AM »Quote from: "Cillian"
Quote from: "jesusofwales"Question:
Has anyone here ever seen the Ice Wall?
Only really important goverment officials and the gaurds.
Of course! And they would never talk about it so by logical deduction* there must be an Ice Wall!
* The government officials never talk about the Ice Wall, thus they must be covering it up.
10
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Serious thoughts
« on: September 05, 2006, 09:19:06 AM »
First off, I was in a rush with the last post so I had to water it down as much as humanly possible.
The kicker is this:
The gravitons that this theory relies upon are also required by the FET! Picking holes in this theory is the same as picking holes in yours.
As I have mentioned before now, I am not a physisist. I do not wish to become engrossed in a debate about advanced physics. Right now we are picking holes in gravity! Gravity is required in both theories. A flat Earth might be technically possible in a round earth universe (just different from the one you people have envisioned - ie sans eclipses), just as a round earth would be technically possible in a flat earth universe because they both rely on the same forces and laws of physics, just with different applcations.
Seeing as you seem to be unable or unwilling to read my posts, I will reiterate one of my previous points:
The point of my argument is this:
Round Earth Theory:
Arrival- Analysis of evidence
Evidence/Support- Every physisist on the planet can testify for it, countless experiments, hundreds of space flights with thousands of pictures from them. Observation of the universe from ground and from space. Thousands of trips around the world with distances that fit with the RET. Accurate explanations and predications for phenomenon that the FET cannot match or disprove, suh as eclipses.
Counter evidence- Experiments carried out using a boat, a telescope and human eyes to measure the minute variations in the hieght of flags 6 miles away, all done in 1880.
Completeness- The Big Bang, Singularities, the expanding universe, blue shift/red shift, gravity, gravitons, quantum field theory, accretion theory, formation of the solar system, the formation/shape/existence/stability of earth. These all fit together! They make sense and can be backed up by elemetary science and observation of the world around us and the universe above us.
Flat Earth Theory:
Arrival- Speculation
Evidence/Support- The aforementioned "scientific" experients and the fact we can't see the curvature of the earth with our naked eyes.
Counter Evidence: Thousands of orbital/near orbital pictures from hundeds of of sources and the testimonies of hundreds of astronauts. Thousands of experiments and observations on the nature of gravity and of earth.
Completeness- No solid or even plausible creation theory. Ditto for many fundamental aspects of the theory such as how and why the earth is moving, why and how the "Ice Wall" was created or why there is a massive cover up.
Basically, it boils down to:
Science vs Speculation
1000s of testimonies, photos and videos vs They are all liars/brainwashed/conspirators
Logic and evidence vs Its all faked (but we don't know why)
Full, scientific theory vs Pseudo science with huge holes. *
So basically, I was wondering why you all choose to believe something that has so many problems? I don't want an advanced scientific discussion on how the FET is physicaly possible; maybe it is, I couldn't say. What I am trying to get across that there is no real evidence against the RET, and no scientific backing for the existence of the FE. To say otherise you are blatenly ignoring mountains of evidence by saying it faked by a global conspiracy of titanic proportions with no discernable motive. We have a phrase for that: Selective Ignorance.
* See the above 4 points (especially the one about seismic waves - it pretty much kills the FET!), and ECLIPSES!
The kicker is this:
The gravitons that this theory relies upon are also required by the FET! Picking holes in this theory is the same as picking holes in yours.
As I have mentioned before now, I am not a physisist. I do not wish to become engrossed in a debate about advanced physics. Right now we are picking holes in gravity! Gravity is required in both theories. A flat Earth might be technically possible in a round earth universe (just different from the one you people have envisioned - ie sans eclipses), just as a round earth would be technically possible in a flat earth universe because they both rely on the same forces and laws of physics, just with different applcations.
Seeing as you seem to be unable or unwilling to read my posts, I will reiterate one of my previous points:
Quote from: "jesusofwales"
I'm going to keep off the science side of things mostly because I would prefer to keep this debate going in one direction
The point of my argument is this:
Round Earth Theory:
Arrival- Analysis of evidence
Evidence/Support- Every physisist on the planet can testify for it, countless experiments, hundreds of space flights with thousands of pictures from them. Observation of the universe from ground and from space. Thousands of trips around the world with distances that fit with the RET. Accurate explanations and predications for phenomenon that the FET cannot match or disprove, suh as eclipses.
Counter evidence- Experiments carried out using a boat, a telescope and human eyes to measure the minute variations in the hieght of flags 6 miles away, all done in 1880.
Completeness- The Big Bang, Singularities, the expanding universe, blue shift/red shift, gravity, gravitons, quantum field theory, accretion theory, formation of the solar system, the formation/shape/existence/stability of earth. These all fit together! They make sense and can be backed up by elemetary science and observation of the world around us and the universe above us.
Flat Earth Theory:
Arrival- Speculation
Evidence/Support- The aforementioned "scientific" experients and the fact we can't see the curvature of the earth with our naked eyes.
Counter Evidence: Thousands of orbital/near orbital pictures from hundeds of of sources and the testimonies of hundreds of astronauts. Thousands of experiments and observations on the nature of gravity and of earth.
Completeness- No solid or even plausible creation theory. Ditto for many fundamental aspects of the theory such as how and why the earth is moving, why and how the "Ice Wall" was created or why there is a massive cover up.
Basically, it boils down to:
Science vs Speculation
1000s of testimonies, photos and videos vs They are all liars/brainwashed/conspirators
Logic and evidence vs Its all faked (but we don't know why)
Full, scientific theory vs Pseudo science with huge holes. *
So basically, I was wondering why you all choose to believe something that has so many problems? I don't want an advanced scientific discussion on how the FET is physicaly possible; maybe it is, I couldn't say. What I am trying to get across that there is no real evidence against the RET, and no scientific backing for the existence of the FE. To say otherise you are blatenly ignoring mountains of evidence by saying it faked by a global conspiracy of titanic proportions with no discernable motive. We have a phrase for that: Selective Ignorance.
* See the above 4 points (especially the one about seismic waves - it pretty much kills the FET!), and ECLIPSES!
11
Flat Earth Q&A / Serious thoughts
« on: September 05, 2006, 07:30:17 AM »Quote from: "TheEngineer"
I'm ready for that explanation now.
Try to imagine space as something of a trampoline. The Sun is a Bowling ball in the center. Gravity is the force that pulls objects put on the trampoline towards the center.
I'm in a rush so I'll leave you trying to figure the below out:
1.
This explains siesmic waves.
http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~braile/edumod/waves/WaveDemo.htm
And these explain how they can be measured from the other side of the earth
http://www.sci-tech.co.uk/seismic.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seismic_wave
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-wave
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/Earthquake_wave_paths.gif
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bd/Earthquake_wave_shadow_zone.gif
2.
What about their length? They should be way longer than they are in a little place I like to call "reality".
3.
Vauge? How can clouds go in to the South Pole and come out on the other side of the world in a predictable shape.
4.
Could you convince several million people to keep quiet on the biggest cover up in Earths history? See the main section of my original post and come up with some credible evidence against my take on this "conspiracy". Then come up with a credible motive.
Eclipses?
12
Flat Earth Q&A / Explain to me the Ice Wall.
« on: September 04, 2006, 03:52:40 PM »
Question:
Has anyone here ever seen the Ice Wall?
Has anyone here ever seen the Ice Wall?
13
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Serious thoughts
« on: September 04, 2006, 03:42:45 PM »Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Quote from: "jesusofwales"
The scale drawings I saw (and linked to) were more like 6 miles, now I'm not a physisist, so if you show me the page you are talking about I might not understand, but what I have seen of this work requires a planet with a radius of a few miles.
The experiment was conducted over 6 miles. How you think this requires the earth to have a radius of 6 miles, I have no idea.
The scale was badly represented and I except my mistake.
One minor point though, when you are talking about ships masts disappearing, there is refraction that invalidates this , but on the same scale an "experiment " promoting your views becomes immune to any optical distortion and is completely infallible.
Quote
Quote
I'm looking for intelligent discussion.
You just said you would not find it here, so why bother?
I said I was looking, I didn't say I expected to find.
Quote
Quote
The RET explains how gravity came about, how it exists and continues to exist using scientific proccess. The FET says that the earth is moving, but we don't know how, and we can't prove it, in other words a guess against scientific proccess. Also, all gravity is reliant upon the theorised gravitons, even your gravity coming from the movement of the Earth.
Ok, explain to me how gravity originates from a body.
Sure, but first, explain to me how a giant disk can accelerate up infiniteley without breaking up and what could possibly make it move.
Quote
QuoteThat is called reading between the lines.
Also called reading too much into it.
Would you give up the FET if you could be proven to fly over the South Pole and around to the other side of the Earth in a straight line?
Quote
Quote
Plate tectonics, transpacific cables, weather systems over the South Pole, the "conspiracy" being completely impossible?
1. The earth has a crust.
2. They are fiber optic.
3. It happens due to thermodynamics.
4. Completely, I don't think so.
1.
This explains siesmic waves.
http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~braile/edumod/waves/WaveDemo.htm
And these explain how they can be measured from the other side of the earth
http://www.sci-tech.co.uk/seismic.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seismic_wave
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-wave
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/Earthquake_wave_paths.gif
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bd/Earthquake_wave_shadow_zone.gif
2.
What about their length? They should be way longer than they are in a little place I like to call "reality".
3.
Vauge? How can clouds go in to the South Pole and come out on the other side of the world in a predictable shape.
4.
Could you convince several million people to keep quiet on the biggest cover up in Earths history? See the main section of my original post and come up with some credible evidence against my take on this "conspiracy". Then come up with a credible motive.
Eclipses?
14
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Serious thoughts
« on: September 04, 2006, 11:59:48 AM »Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Quote from: "jesusofwales"
c) http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za06.htm
Listed as evidence for FET, these experiments and scale diagrams, if extrapolated, quite successfully prove the earth is not a sphere with a radius of 6 miles.
No it proves the earth is not a sphere with a radius of 3963.17 miles.
The scale drawings I saw (and linked to) were more like 6 miles, now I'm not a physisist, so if you show me the page you are talking about I might not understand, but what I have seen of this work requires a planet with a radius of a few miles.
Quote
Quote
Final Point:
And why hasn't the government made up some excuse like "its to dangerous to send civilians into space
They have. The first civilian to go up into space was on the Challenger. The last civilian to go up on the shuttle was on the Challenger. They said, "never again."
If you took the care to read to the end of that sentence, you would discover I was talking about Richard Branson's space tourism. And they haven't disallowed that.
Quote
QuoteI want to have my view challenged by valid points and evidence and have an interesting conversation piece. The FET does not do this.
Then why are you here?
Quote from: "jesusofwales"
I'm looking for intelligent discussion.
Quote
QuoteThe RET disproves and offers better and fuller explanations of all that we can see around us than the FET does.
The mechanism for gravity comes to mind again. In the FE, it is the acceleration of the earth that causes it. In the RE it is the warpage of spacetime by messenger particles called gravitons, which have yet to be discovered. Which one is fuller and better?
The RET explains how gravity came about, how it exists and continues to exist using scientific proccess. The FET says that the earth is moving, but we don't know how, and we can't prove it, in other words a guess against scientific proccess. Also, all gravity is reliant upon the theorised gravitons, even your gravity coming from the movement of the Earth.
Quote
QuoteThe “scientific” Flat Earth Theory is pseudo-science at absolute best, with gaping holes and support only coming from an outlandish grand-conspiracy idea that is, in a word, impossible. The “serious evidence” I have seen for the FET consists of:
-I've never been in a plane flying over the South Pole, thus it doesn't exist.
-I've never been near the South Pole, thus it doesn't exist.
Those are not serious replies.
That is called reading between the lines.
Quote from: "Erasmus"
So, this is a nice story that you're telling, but I've heard exactly the opposite claims being made. Why should I trust your word over that of people who say there is no south pole, or that the ice wall does exist?
From this thread:http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4374&highlight=fly+south+pole
I have also seen quite a few people here say that they would give up FEing if they could fly over the South Pole.
Quote
Quote-There is an optical distortion effect caused when ships sail away, thus completely invalidating all evidence for the RET.
Refraction, to be exact.
Fair enough, I don't doubt refraction, it doesn't mean the ain't round though.
Quote
Quote
The above points can be blown out of the water by bringing up any of the points I mentioned in the main body of my post.
Sorry, I must have missed those points.
Eclipses?
If you want some more:
Plate tectonics, transpacific cables, weather systems over the South Pole, the "conspiracy" being completely impossible?
15
Flat Earth Q&A / Serious thoughts
« on: September 04, 2006, 10:22:03 AM »Quote from: "Mephistopheles"
You're talking about CONSPIRACY THEORIES. The whole point is that you do not know the motive! You come UP with the motive based on the information given to you.
Why is this so hard to grasp? The only way for you to get the exact motive is if the conspiracy failed, which would mean it existed in the first place.
I fail to see how this invalidates my argument. I was merely stating my counter argument to one of the Flat Earth Society's possible "motives" to their "conspiracy". I chose this one because it appeared (to me) to be the most popular version among the FE'ers. I did not come up with this motive, nor do I defend it as the true one (obviously), yet you seem to be attacking me for it. I think you misunderstand the purpose of my post.
16
Flat Earth Q&A / Serious thoughts
« on: September 04, 2006, 09:07:26 AM »
I'm not going to post this on the rant board because this is not a rant. It is a serious set of points in opposition to the FET, I have put thought and time into this post, so please set you flame switches to their off position, I'm looking for intelligent discussion.
Holes in the Flat Earth Theory (FET):
1. The Conspiracy.
a)No motive.
Why would the government(s) keep this from us? What did they have to gain?
Faking the moon landings. Motive: keep up public morale, competition in the Cold War.
Hiding the Roswell aliens. Motive: aliens = religious uproar, possible anarchy.
I have heard "money and power" thrown around a lot on this subject and the whole idea that the governments wanted people to throw their money into space exploration when they really weren't going anywhere, to which I say: WTF! This is a completely separate and irrelevant to the FE or conspiracy theories! If the world was round, they still could have done exactly the same thing; launching dud rockets etc. and faked all the data in the way you say they did. If the world was flat and the people knew it, they still could have sent up dud rockets and just faked slightly different data. All in all, it would be more risky for them to fake data based on erroneous beliefs (ie the world is round) than it would be tell the truth about the shape of the world/universe and then fake the data from that standpoint because it would be much harder to falsify in the long run (which presumably they are planning for). Maybe there is a huge conspiracy surrounding space travel and most of the pictures are fake, perhaps only a few people have ever made it to space in the cheaper rockets, if this is so, then it is more evidence for the world being round than it is for it being flat if anything. In conclusion: saying NASA faked the space program might be true, but it in no way supports the FE theory.
b)No one "involved" in the conspiracy has spoken out.
Approximately 453 people have been into space. NASA employs one or two (thousand) educated people. Pilots who fly over the "South Pole" are in on it too, and/or their air traffic controllers and the people who fix their equipment. Then there all the researchers who work in Antarctica. Politicians, at many, many levels. Government operatives; CIA, FBI, MIB and some higher ups in the army for discussions on logistics, not forgetting the rather huge force of "Ice Guards" who protect the Ice Wall. Now, I am aware that to some point, the whole conspiracy could still be hidden from those actively involved in it, but this only works to a certain point, so, in conclusion, at absolute minimum, there would have to be about a million people who actually know the "truth", with several million more passively involved and probably getting a little suspicious as to why they aren't allowed to let anyone into Antarctica. Not all of these people would be highly paid and would stand to make a great deal of money from the ever-popular conspiracy mad media. Add the fact that a lot of the people mentioned would be the kind of people who would want this sort of information in the public domain, ie scientists, some Politicians etc. It is quite frankly ludicrous to believe that not one of the millions involved would mention it in their memoirs, diaries, interviews or that they weren't working undercover. Heh, that would be a good episode of Horizon (pun intended).
c)The logistics of this conspiracy are mind boggling.
All of the superpowers would have to be working in complete harmony for the better part of a century, and for those not paying attention, for the better part of the last century, there was a little thing called the cold war, when the super powers were just a little pissed with each other. Presumably all the nations near “Ice Wall” would have to be in on it and we all know how crooked South Africa was under apartheid... Then there is the moving of thousands of troops to the “Ice Wall” without any questions being asked by the taxpayers or the soldiers.
(I'm going to keep off the science side of things mostly because I would prefer to keep this debate going in one direction)
2. The Actual Flat Earth
a)How was it created?
There are theories that effectively explain the creation of the solar system as the majority of people know it. Namely the solar nebular and accretion theories. These are backed science and evidence that can be seen from earth. Theories surrounding the Big Bang also have evidence and fit in with the aforementioned accretion theory. I have not seen a single scrap of evidence satisfactorily explaining how this Flat Earth has been created. Science explains deserts, ice caps, weather systems, eclipses, the shape of the earth, the rest of the universe etc. with evidence and predictions. FET remains vague and defends itself by shouting “conspiracy”.
b)Eclipses people!
c) http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za06.htm
Listed as evidence for FET, these experiments and scale diagrams, if extrapolated, quite successfully prove the earth is not a sphere with a radius of 6 miles.
Final Point:
Richard Branson is working on commercial flights to space. When he and some civilians with a camera make it into space, will you guys shut up? And why hasn't the government made up some excuse like "its to dangerous to send civilians into space, we won't let you do it". For that matter, why didn't they just say that space travel was impossible in the first place and avoid the having a half century spanning elaborate hoax which is so horrifically risky? If they wanted taxpayers to pour their money somewhere, they could have just made a virus and an antidote, released the virus (also solving the homelessness problem by cutting down the population a bit) and requested money to find a cure and prevent future outbreaks. Other options include: Cold War II, Terrorism, Global Warming etc. (All much easier targets for conspiracy theorists)
Real Final Point:
What would it take to convince you guys that you are wrong, and what will you do when you finally see irrefutable evidence for the RE theory?
My conclusions and personal views on the Flat Earth Theory are as follows:
I like conspiracies. Most people do. I want to have my view challenged by valid points and evidence and have an interesting conversation piece. The FET does not do this. There is a minuscule amount of circumstantial evidence that does not even come close to rebuking centuries of scientific, falsifiable evidence linked with basic logic. The RET disproves and offers better and fuller explanations of all that we can see around us than the FET does. The “scientific” Flat Earth Theory is pseudo-science at absolute best, with gaping holes and support only coming from an outlandish grand-conspiracy idea that is, in a word, impossible. The “serious evidence” I have seen for the FET consists of:
-I've never been in a plane flying over the South Pole, thus it doesn't exist.
-I've never been near the South Pole, thus it doesn't exist.
-There is an optical distortion effect caused when ships sail away, thus completely invalidating all evidence for the RET.
-Anyone who tries to disprove the FET has been brainwashed by the media and/or is using faked documents.
The above points can be blown out of the water by bringing up any of the points I mentioned in the main body of my post. I'm sorry people, a shoddy theory presenting vague ideas as fact, backed up by yelling “CONSPIRACY!!!” at non-believers is not only an astoundingly pathetic attempt at “science” it is also quite sad.
Thoughts?
Holes in the Flat Earth Theory (FET):
1. The Conspiracy.
a)No motive.
Why would the government(s) keep this from us? What did they have to gain?
Faking the moon landings. Motive: keep up public morale, competition in the Cold War.
Hiding the Roswell aliens. Motive: aliens = religious uproar, possible anarchy.
I have heard "money and power" thrown around a lot on this subject and the whole idea that the governments wanted people to throw their money into space exploration when they really weren't going anywhere, to which I say: WTF! This is a completely separate and irrelevant to the FE or conspiracy theories! If the world was round, they still could have done exactly the same thing; launching dud rockets etc. and faked all the data in the way you say they did. If the world was flat and the people knew it, they still could have sent up dud rockets and just faked slightly different data. All in all, it would be more risky for them to fake data based on erroneous beliefs (ie the world is round) than it would be tell the truth about the shape of the world/universe and then fake the data from that standpoint because it would be much harder to falsify in the long run (which presumably they are planning for). Maybe there is a huge conspiracy surrounding space travel and most of the pictures are fake, perhaps only a few people have ever made it to space in the cheaper rockets, if this is so, then it is more evidence for the world being round than it is for it being flat if anything. In conclusion: saying NASA faked the space program might be true, but it in no way supports the FE theory.
b)No one "involved" in the conspiracy has spoken out.
Approximately 453 people have been into space. NASA employs one or two (thousand) educated people. Pilots who fly over the "South Pole" are in on it too, and/or their air traffic controllers and the people who fix their equipment. Then there all the researchers who work in Antarctica. Politicians, at many, many levels. Government operatives; CIA, FBI, MIB and some higher ups in the army for discussions on logistics, not forgetting the rather huge force of "Ice Guards" who protect the Ice Wall. Now, I am aware that to some point, the whole conspiracy could still be hidden from those actively involved in it, but this only works to a certain point, so, in conclusion, at absolute minimum, there would have to be about a million people who actually know the "truth", with several million more passively involved and probably getting a little suspicious as to why they aren't allowed to let anyone into Antarctica. Not all of these people would be highly paid and would stand to make a great deal of money from the ever-popular conspiracy mad media. Add the fact that a lot of the people mentioned would be the kind of people who would want this sort of information in the public domain, ie scientists, some Politicians etc. It is quite frankly ludicrous to believe that not one of the millions involved would mention it in their memoirs, diaries, interviews or that they weren't working undercover. Heh, that would be a good episode of Horizon (pun intended).
c)The logistics of this conspiracy are mind boggling.
All of the superpowers would have to be working in complete harmony for the better part of a century, and for those not paying attention, for the better part of the last century, there was a little thing called the cold war, when the super powers were just a little pissed with each other. Presumably all the nations near “Ice Wall” would have to be in on it and we all know how crooked South Africa was under apartheid... Then there is the moving of thousands of troops to the “Ice Wall” without any questions being asked by the taxpayers or the soldiers.
(I'm going to keep off the science side of things mostly because I would prefer to keep this debate going in one direction)
2. The Actual Flat Earth
a)How was it created?
There are theories that effectively explain the creation of the solar system as the majority of people know it. Namely the solar nebular and accretion theories. These are backed science and evidence that can be seen from earth. Theories surrounding the Big Bang also have evidence and fit in with the aforementioned accretion theory. I have not seen a single scrap of evidence satisfactorily explaining how this Flat Earth has been created. Science explains deserts, ice caps, weather systems, eclipses, the shape of the earth, the rest of the universe etc. with evidence and predictions. FET remains vague and defends itself by shouting “conspiracy”.
b)Eclipses people!
c) http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za06.htm
Listed as evidence for FET, these experiments and scale diagrams, if extrapolated, quite successfully prove the earth is not a sphere with a radius of 6 miles.
Final Point:
Richard Branson is working on commercial flights to space. When he and some civilians with a camera make it into space, will you guys shut up? And why hasn't the government made up some excuse like "its to dangerous to send civilians into space, we won't let you do it". For that matter, why didn't they just say that space travel was impossible in the first place and avoid the having a half century spanning elaborate hoax which is so horrifically risky? If they wanted taxpayers to pour their money somewhere, they could have just made a virus and an antidote, released the virus (also solving the homelessness problem by cutting down the population a bit) and requested money to find a cure and prevent future outbreaks. Other options include: Cold War II, Terrorism, Global Warming etc. (All much easier targets for conspiracy theorists)
Real Final Point:
What would it take to convince you guys that you are wrong, and what will you do when you finally see irrefutable evidence for the RE theory?
My conclusions and personal views on the Flat Earth Theory are as follows:
I like conspiracies. Most people do. I want to have my view challenged by valid points and evidence and have an interesting conversation piece. The FET does not do this. There is a minuscule amount of circumstantial evidence that does not even come close to rebuking centuries of scientific, falsifiable evidence linked with basic logic. The RET disproves and offers better and fuller explanations of all that we can see around us than the FET does. The “scientific” Flat Earth Theory is pseudo-science at absolute best, with gaping holes and support only coming from an outlandish grand-conspiracy idea that is, in a word, impossible. The “serious evidence” I have seen for the FET consists of:
-I've never been in a plane flying over the South Pole, thus it doesn't exist.
-I've never been near the South Pole, thus it doesn't exist.
-There is an optical distortion effect caused when ships sail away, thus completely invalidating all evidence for the RET.
-Anyone who tries to disprove the FET has been brainwashed by the media and/or is using faked documents.
The above points can be blown out of the water by bringing up any of the points I mentioned in the main body of my post. I'm sorry people, a shoddy theory presenting vague ideas as fact, backed up by yelling “CONSPIRACY!!!” at non-believers is not only an astoundingly pathetic attempt at “science” it is also quite sad.
Thoughts?
Pages: [1]