"Conspiracy" is not a valid argument

FE'rs have done a good job of trying to point out holes in physics and scientific findings I will give you that. I will even concede that your argument is well thought out on many many levels and is not as quirky and crazy as most are going to think upon first hearing about it.

It is just the absurdity of not having any proof of something and saying "it's a conspiracy" which makes any solid research you have found look invalid.

Sorry but "it's a conspiracy" is not an answer that holds any weight in any reasonable or intelligible argument.

If you put any thought as to how lame it is to use such an argument you would agree. If it was a valid argument then no one would ever go to jail (in America) for a crime.  You could present all the evidence in the world against someones claim of innocence and they would just have to say that it is a set up and conspiracy to convict them. Any argument or proof that you throw at them in a court of law could be disputed with a "conspiracy". But it isnt.

So answers such as these dont hold water and should be dropped from your defense of FE.

Government


Q: "Why do the all the world Governments say the Earth is round?"

A: A Conspiracy among world Governments claiming to have space programs has disseminated the lie to the other governments of the world, as well as to the media and the general public.

Q: "What about NASA? Don't they have photos to prove that the Earth is round?"

A: NASA is part of the conspiracy too. The photos are faked.

Q: "Why has no-one taken a photo of the Earth that proves it is flat?"

A: The government prevents people from getting close enough to the Ice Wall to take a picture.

Q: "How did NASA create these images with the computer technology available at the time?"

A: Since NASA did not send rockets into space, they instead spent the money on developing advanced computers and imaging software instead

I can prove anything I want to prove if I use "conspiracy" as an argument. For instance, I can tell you that the entire world revolves around me. My entire exisitence is a game I must win. "God" put me here to win the game of life and everyone outside of myself is in on it but cant tell me they know. Prove me wrong. You cant say "well, Im not part of the conspiracy" to me because I will just say that you are part of it and are programmed not to tell me you are. Sounds lame doesnt it?

So, go about your arguments from physics, math, and science but please take out the ridiculousness that is a "conspiracy". I dont mind reading and listening to the debates on the grounds of scientific or physical proof, but every time I see a RE making good solid points I see another FE using the "conspiracy" argument to try and prove themselves correct. Sorry, again, you have proved nothing if you are using that as your basis of proof. It is speculation.

It is quite simple really.

[1] Observational data imply the Earth is Flat;
[2] Space agancies get money for projects that can only work if the Earth is round
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hence:
[3] Space agencies are not telling the truth, i.e. they are lying.

From The Free dictionary

con·spir·a·cy (kn-spîr-s)
n. pl. con·spir·a·cies

• 1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
• 2. A group of conspirators.
• 3. Law An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
• 4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design: a conspiracy of wind and tide that devastated coastal areas.

It is quite simple really.

[1] Observational data imply the Earth is Flat;
[2] Space agancies get money for projects that can only work if the Earth is round
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hence:
[3] Space agencies are not telling the truth, i.e. they are lying.

From The Free dictionary

Quote

con·spir·a·cy (kn-spîr-s)
n. pl. con·spir·a·cies

• 1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
• 2. A group of conspirators.
• 3. Law An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
• 4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design: a conspiracy of wind and tide that devastated coastal areas.

Wrong

You would have to have valid evidence to prove this. You cant just call something you dont have any proof of a "conspiracy".

If you had actual proof of the government conspiring against the human population then it would be best to list these "proofs" in the FAQ instead of just claiming it to be conspiracy.

Again, prove to me that the world does not revolve around me and that I was not put here to win a game. My answer will be a simple "its a conspiracy" and you will think I am an idiot because I dont have any factual or provable evidence to back up my claim. Again, it holds no water.

NASA has evidence of space exploration. It is up to you to disprove that evidence with actual facts. Not to just claim it to be a conspiracy.

What's the simplest explanation; that man has successfully designed and built multi-trillion dollar rocket technologies from scratch to send massive payloads into space, and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis, win the Space Race, and constantly wow the nation by landing a man on the moon and sending robotic rovers to mars; or that they really can't do all of that stuff and it's all just a lie?

So you see, since you claim that NASA can do all of these wonderful, miraculous, unthinkable things which come straight from a science fiction novella, the burden of proof is on you to prove it to us.

To ellaborate:

• Observational evidence points to the conclusion of a flat earth.
• There are instances when there is "evidence" of a round earth that contradict a flat earth (e.g. photos).
• This "evidence" that contradicts what one observes is obviously fraudulent.

From there you just have to look at how rampant this "evidence" is (e.g. photos etc.) and it becomes more likely that there is a collaborative effort (rather than independent hoaxes for example), as this collaborative effort is secretive (unless you can provide evidence of the collaboration for us) then this by its very nature is a conspiracy.

What's the simplest explanation; that man has successfully designed and built multi-trillion dollar rocket technologies from scratch to send massive payloads into space, and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis, win the Space Race, and constantly wow the nation by landing a man on the moon and sending robotic rovers to mars; or that they really can't do all of that stuff and it's all just a Conspiracy?

So you see, since you claim that NASA can do all of these wonderful, miraculous, unthinkable things which come straight from a science fiction book, the burden of proof is on you to prove it to us.

Wrong again.

They claim they have done it yes. We have eye witness testimony that says they have. They have scientific evidence and physical evidence that says they have.

The burden still remains on you to prove they did not do it. Sorry, again "it's a conspiracy" is not proof of anything.

Just as if someone said they saw me commit a murder with their own eyes and even presented the bloody knife I used to commit the crime and yet all I said was "its a conspiracy" against me, I did not do it. They are lying and the knife was not mine. I have to PROVE that I really did not do it. Just saying it is conspiracy holds no weight.

I am not arguing that you may find flaws in NASA's claims. I am not arguing the earth is flat or round. I am arguing that saying "it is a conspiracy" is not factual proof or evidence of anything.

The burden lies on you to prove the conspiracy, not just claim it.

Show me your detractors that have validified your claim. Give me documentation of such a claim. Anything is better then a "conspiracy" answer.

More like:

• There are heaps of evidence that support a Round Earth and go against a Flat Earth (e.g. photos).
• There is a small amount of observational evidence pointing to the conclusion of a flat earth.
• This "evidence" that contradicts what one observes is wrong, probably because of bias/incompetence in the observers.

The burden still remains on you to prove they did not do it.

Nope.

I'm not the one claiming that NASA can blast off into space in rocket ships and travel between worlds here. You are.

The burden of proof is on he who makes the claim. So where is your proof that NASA can do all of these ground-breaking things?

What's the simplest explanation; that man has successfully designed and built multi-trillion dollar rocket technologies from scratch

Actually, the entire apollo program from start to finish cost a grant total of 19 billion dollars, not trillion.

to send massive payloads into space,

Why not?  Independently made simulators can verify that NASA's rockets are fully capable of putting massive payloads into orbit.  There's nothing inconsistent about their side of the story.

and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis,

Actually, the above shows it to be entirely possible (given a RE, but of course, that's your probelm with it).

win the Space Race, and constantly wow the nation by landing a man on the moon and sending robotic rovers to mars;

While they may have "wowed" the nation during your generation, I'm afraid to say that the current youtube/myspace generation generally doesn't care.  

or that they really can't do all of that stuff and it's all just a Conspiracy?

Let's see how hard the latter option is:
Nearly half a million people worked on the apollo program.  If it was a conspiracy that's half a million conspirators, and not a single leak, even from disgruntled fired employees nor are there any deathbed confessions 30 years later.  Couple that with the insurmountable difficulty of creating the illusion of weightlessness on video for long periods of time and you have an even less likely option than the actual moon landing.

To ellaborate:

• Observational evidence points to the conclusion of a flat earth.
• There are instances when there is "evidence" of a round earth that contradict a flat earth (e.g. photos).
• This "evidence" that contradicts what one observes is obviously fraudulent.

From there you just have to look at how rampant this "evidence" is (e.g. photos etc.) and it becomes more likely that there is a collaborative effort (rather than independent hoaxes for example), as this collaborative effort is secretive (unless you can provide evidence of the collaboration for us) then this by its very nature is a conspiracy.

Nope. You have to prove to me that with actual evidence there is a collaboration.

Again, I am not arguing whether or not the earth is round. I am aruging that you do not have proof of such an elloborate conspiracy. The observational evidence I have has been shown to me by NASA whom I trust is not conspiring to deceive me. I trust that the photo's they have shown me are correct. You have no factual evidence to prove your claim. You cant prove to me the pictures are fake or at least you havent.

The burden lies on those claiming the conspiracy to actually prove it to me.

Quote

The burden still remains on you to prove they did not do it.

Nope.

I'm not the one claiming that NASA can blast off into space in rocket ships and travel between worlds here. You are.

The burden of proof is on he who makes the claim. So where is your proof that NASA can do all of these ground-breaking things?

I know I've shown you photos of the space station and space shuttle in orbit, tracked by a telescope that finds them exactly where and when they should appear in the sky according to their orbit (and I'm hoping to get another photo tonight if the weather is good, which it probably won't be ), but you refuse to accept the proof.  Why bother to prove it to you if your dogma prevents you from having an open mind about it?

The burden lies on those claiming the conspiracy to actually prove it to me.

You're the one claiming ridiculous things here. You're claiming that NASA can build space ships and send space men beyond the earth to explore the great unknown mysteries of the universe. The burden of proof is on you to prove your claim.

Quote

The burden still remains on you to prove they did not do it.

Nope.

I'm not the one claiming that NASA can blast off into space in rocket ships and travel between worlds here. You are.

The burden of proof is on he who makes the claim. So where is your proof that NASA can do all of these ground-breaking things?

NASA claimed they have done all those things, not me. They have people that work there or that claim it to be true. I actually know people who have worked there, doctors in physics, who vouch for the validity of space exploration and the science that backs up their claims.

The burden lies upon you to prove to the rest of us that they are collaborating and conspiring against the human population.

Again, I claim the earth revolves around me and that everyone on earth is conspiring against me because that is what I have observed with my own eyes. It is not up to you to prove me wrong. It is up to me to prove myself correct. Which I cant do with evidence but I can sure do it with a simple conspiracy theory.

And you would think I was insane.

Please list the detractors you have on record claiming they worked for the government and or NASA who say they are tricking us all into believing the earth is flat. I just need a list with credentials is all.

NASA claimed they have done all those things, not me. They have people that work there or that claim it to be true. I actually know people who have worked there, doctors in physics, who vouch for the validity of space exploration and the science that backs up their claims.

An appeal to authority is a fallacy.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

The burden lies on those claiming the conspiracy to actually prove it to me.

Sorry but you are wrong.

We measure the Earth and find it to be flat.  We assume a conspiracy is a likely explanation for certain social phenomena (people claiming the Earth is round).  This has nothing to do with our evidence about the Earth being flat.  It is a result of our claim, not supporting our claim.

You do not measure the Earth, and try to use certain social phenomena as evidence.  In other words, you are using the lack of conspiracy as evidence to support your claim of a round earth.  We deny that evidence, so the burden is entirely on you to either (a) provide evidence that said conspiracy cannot exist, or (b) talk about the shape of the Earth directly, instead of drawing conclusions based on authority figures.

From the link

"This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject....


.....this sort of reasoning is fallacious only when the person is not a legitimate authority in a particular context"

You're going to have to provide some evidence that NASA is not a legitimate authority.

Quote

NASA claimed they have done all those things, not me. They have people that work there or that claim it to be true. I actually know people who have worked there, doctors in physics, who vouch for the validity of space exploration and the science that backs up their claims.

An appeal to authority is a fallacy.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

That is completely out of context of what I am saying.

That would mean that every time you, which I see it all the time reading your posts, refer to the forefathers of FET and refer people to a book which backs up your claim is a fallacy as well.

Sorry but refering to the scientific research of others is not a fallacy. Relying on experts in a field of study to gather information is not a fallacy.

If it was then they would not allow "expert" analysis in a court of law. We would never be able to prove anything unless we did the research ourselves.

Quote from: Shaydawg on June 10, 2008, 10:27:27 AM

The burden lies on those claiming the conspiracy to actually prove it to me.

Sorry but you are wrong.

We measure the Earth and find it to be flat.  We assume a conspiracy is a likely explanation for certain social phenomena (people claiming the Earth is round).  This has nothing to do with our evidence about the Earth being flat.  It is a result of our claim, not supporting our claim.

You do not measure the Earth, and try to use certain social phenomena as evidence.  In other words, you are using the lack of conspiracy as evidence to support your claim of a round earth.  We deny that evidence, so the burden is entirely on you to either (a) provide evidence that said conspiracy cannot exist, or (b) talk about the shape of the Earth directly, instead of drawing conclusions based on authority figures.

You need to learn to read and comprehend. I specifically said that I was not arguing for or against the earth being flat. I am just arguing that the claim of "conspiracy" is not a valid point and should be taken out of the FAQ section.

If you have actual proof of such a conspiracy then replace that evidence with the "it's a conspiracy" garbage.

You don't get it Shaydawg. For the Earth to be flat there simply must be a conspiracy. If you don't like it then there's nothing anyone can do.

An appeal to authority is a fallacy.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

So why do you keep citing "Earth not a Globe"?

Quote from: lived_eht_asan on June 10, 2008, 10:38:32 AM

Quote from: Shaydawg on June 10, 2008, 10:27:27 AM

The burden lies on those claiming the conspiracy to actually prove it to me.

Sorry but you are wrong.

We measure the Earth and find it to be flat.  We assume a conspiracy is a likely explanation for certain social phenomena (people claiming the Earth is round).  This has nothing to do with our evidence about the Earth being flat.  It is a result of our claim, not supporting our claim.

You do not measure the Earth, and try to use certain social phenomena as evidence.  In other words, you are using the lack of conspiracy as evidence to support your claim of a round earth.  We deny that evidence, so the burden is entirely on you to either (a) provide evidence that said conspiracy cannot exist, or (b) talk about the shape of the Earth directly, instead of drawing conclusions based on authority figures.

You need to learn to read and comprehend. I specifically said that I was not arguing for or against the earth being flat. I am just arguing that the claim of "conspiracy" is not a valid point and should be taken out of the FAQ section.

If you have actual proof of such a conspiracy then replace that evidence with the "it's a conspiracy" garbage.

Oh, well in that case you need to learn to stop being a douche.

The answers to the questions in the FAQ are exactly as I have stated- corollaries resulting from our claim the Earth is flat.  They are responses to questions from people who, as I stated, are trying to use social phenomena as evidence the Earth is round.

If you are not one of those people, then STFU about the conspiracy answers.  If you are one of those people, then read what I've written above.

Nope. You have to prove to me that with actual evidence there is a collaboration.

Again, I am not arguing whether or not the earth is round. I am aruging that you do not have proof of such an elloborate conspiracy. The observational evidence I have has been shown to me by NASA whom I trust is not conspiring to deceive me. I trust that the photo's they have shown me are correct. You have no factual evidence to prove your claim. You cant prove to me the pictures are fake or at least you havent.

The burden lies on those claiming the conspiracy to actually prove it to me.

Again, I'm not suggesting such a collaboration exists, merely that it is more likely than a bunch of independent hoaxes.

You see the problem you're coming to here is that  you think conspiracy is being used as evidence - it's not. It's a theory used to explain all of the faked evidence (e.g. NASA photos) that cannot be correct if the earth is flat.

The conspiracy is not evidence for a flat earth, nor is it used as such. The evidence for the conspiracy is the fact that the earth is flat.

Take a step back for a moment and delve into hypothetical land, you go to the edge of the earth, look over the Ice Wall and see that the earth is indeed flat (and while you are there you might like to try bunjee jumping). Now that you know the earth is flat how would explain things such as NASA? As I said, the conspiracy grows from Flat Earth Theory, not the other way around.

[/thread]

The answers to the questions in the FAQ are exactly as I have stated- corollaries resulting from our claim the Earth is flat.  They are responses to questions from people who, as I stated, are trying to use social phenomena as evidence the Earth is round.

Surveyors simplifying their calculations by assuming a flat earth when measuring (and ignoring the use of geodesy to correct for the earth's curvature later) is using social phenomena as evidence, manned spaceflight in action is not a "social phenomenon," it's scientific evidence.  As you admitted, you started with the assumption that the earth is flat and tried to use that to discredit all spaceflight without actually disproving the evidence spaceflights presented, let alone evidence presented supporting the existence of spaceflight.  On the contrary, evidence from (and of) spaceflights contradicts any evidence pointing to a flat earth, and it generates questions over the validity of the "flat earth measurements."

Quote from: lived_eht_asan on June 10, 2008, 10:52:18 AM

The answers to the questions in the FAQ are exactly as I have stated- corollaries resulting from our claim the Earth is flat.  They are responses to questions from people who, as I stated, are trying to use social phenomena as evidence the Earth is round.

Surveyors simplifying their calculations by assuming a flat earth when measuring (and ignoring the use of geodesy to correct for the earth's curvature later) is using social phenomena as evidence, manned spaceflight in action is not a "social phenomenon," it's scientific evidence.  As you admitted, you started with the assumption that the earth is flat and tried to use that to discredit all spaceflight without actually disproving the evidence spaceflights presented, let alone evidence presented supporting the existence of spaceflight.  On the contrary, evidence from (and of) spaceflights contradicts any evidence pointing to a flat earth, and it generates questions over the validity of the "flat earth measurements."

How do you not understand this?

Read what Garhartra wrote.  If you looked over the edge of the Earth, and walked right around its rim, and knew it to be flat, what would you conclude about NASA?  We conclude this based on our measurements of the Earth, not the other way around.  I fail to see how one cannot grasp that.

Quote from: Shaydawg on June 10, 2008, 10:27:27 AM

Nope. You have to prove to me that with actual evidence there is a collaboration.

Again, I am not arguing whether or not the earth is round. I am aruging that you do not have proof of such an elloborate conspiracy. The observational evidence I have has been shown to me by NASA whom I trust is not conspiring to deceive me. I trust that the photo's they have shown me are correct. You have no factual evidence to prove your claim. You cant prove to me the pictures are fake or at least you havent.

The burden lies on those claiming the conspiracy to actually prove it to me.

Again, I'm not suggesting such a collaboration exists, merely that it is more likely than a bunch of independent hoaxes.

Considering that NASA contracts out the construction of its spacecraft, if there is "no conspiracy" then NASA is not lying because NASA is not a single self-contained entity operating independently.

Quote from: messierhunter on June 10, 2008, 11:10:06 AM

Quote from: lived_eht_asan on June 10, 2008, 10:52:18 AM

The answers to the questions in the FAQ are exactly as I have stated- corollaries resulting from our claim the Earth is flat.  They are responses to questions from people who, as I stated, are trying to use social phenomena as evidence the Earth is round.

Surveyors simplifying their calculations by assuming a flat earth when measuring (and ignoring the use of geodesy to correct for the earth's curvature later) is using social phenomena as evidence, manned spaceflight in action is not a "social phenomenon," it's scientific evidence.  As you admitted, you started with the assumption that the earth is flat and tried to use that to discredit all spaceflight without actually disproving the evidence spaceflights presented, let alone evidence presented supporting the existence of spaceflight.  On the contrary, evidence from (and of) spaceflights contradicts any evidence pointing to a flat earth, and it generates questions over the validity of the "flat earth measurements."

How do you not understand this?

Read what Garhartra wrote.  If you looked over the edge of the Earth, and walked right around its rim, and knew it to be flat, what would you conclude about NASA? 

Too bad you have absolutely jack for evidence of anyone doing this.  Your hypothetical doesn't apply to reality because you have no direct evidence of a "flat earth."

We conclude this based on our measurements of the Earth, not the other way around.  I fail to see how one cannot grasp that.

So you're infering the shape of the earth on what could be faulty measurements that fail repetition.  How is that a stronger standard of evidence than direct observations of spaceflight in progress?  They're both inferences to the shape of the earth.  One is repeatable, the other is not.  I fail to see how one cannot grasp that.

Quote from: Garhartra on June 10, 2008, 10:58:06 AM

Quote from: Shaydawg on June 10, 2008, 10:27:27 AM

Nope. You have to prove to me that with actual evidence there is a collaboration.

Again, I am not arguing whether or not the earth is round. I am aruging that you do not have proof of such an elloborate conspiracy. The observational evidence I have has been shown to me by NASA whom I trust is not conspiring to deceive me. I trust that the photo's they have shown me are correct. You have no factual evidence to prove your claim. You cant prove to me the pictures are fake or at least you havent.

The burden lies on those claiming the conspiracy to actually prove it to me.

Again, I'm not suggesting such a collaboration exists, merely that it is more likely than a bunch of independent hoaxes.

Considering that NASA contracts out the construction of its spacecraft, if there is "no conspiracy" then NASA is not lying because NASA is not a single self-contained entity operating independently.

Therefore if NASA is lying...?

Quote from: messierhunter on June 10, 2008, 11:13:40 AM

Quote from: Garhartra on June 10, 2008, 10:58:06 AM

Quote from: Shaydawg on June 10, 2008, 10:27:27 AM

Nope. You have to prove to me that with actual evidence there is a collaboration.

Again, I am not arguing whether or not the earth is round. I am aruging that you do not have proof of such an elloborate conspiracy. The observational evidence I have has been shown to me by NASA whom I trust is not conspiring to deceive me. I trust that the photo's they have shown me are correct. You have no factual evidence to prove your claim. You cant prove to me the pictures are fake or at least you havent.

The burden lies on those claiming the conspiracy to actually prove it to me.

Again, I'm not suggesting such a collaboration exists, merely that it is more likely than a bunch of independent hoaxes.

Considering that NASA contracts out the construction of its spacecraft, if there is "no conspiracy" then NASA is not lying because NASA is not a single self-contained entity operating independently.

Therefore if NASA is lying...?

Then you have a conspiracy to prove.  Don't bother though, I've personally witnessed NASA spacecraft in orbit, so there is no lie.

Your hypothetical doesn't apply to reality because you have no direct evidence of a "flat earth."

It's a hypothetical, not an analogy.

Again, how would you explain all the contradicting "evidence" if you knew for certain that the earth was flat?

Then you have a conspiracy to prove.  Don't bother though, I've personally witnessed NASA spacecraft in orbit, so there is no lie.

Right, and by proving a flat earth the conspiracy is also proved because if the earth is flat then NASA has to be lying.