"Conspiracy" is not a valid argument

The problem with that is that it is not flat, and NASA didn't really even have good photoshop stuff in 1969.

How do you know what kind of technology NASA had access to in 1969?

This is the basic premise of your argument: that space travel is so difficult that a worlwide conspiracy is the more logical answer.

This is nonsense. Humanity was building pyramids 4000 years ago. The Nazis made a rocket that travelled almost to space in 1942. Since then we've made integrated circuits, Concorde, the Channel Tunnel, the internet, nanotechnology, supercomputers, the Burj Dubai, nuclear power, the LHC etc. etc. etc. Compared to these, space travel really isn't that difficult.

Nope. Comparing existing technologies to your fictitious technologies is not an argument. If it were, the man who claims to have a time machine could claim that because that Egyptians built pyramids in 3,000 B.C. and because IBM builds computers, he can build a time machine and travel through time.

It's a faulty argument.

Tom, you keep talking about the burden of proof being our responsibility.  Well, what about your responsibility to at least consider the evidence posed with an open mind?  Just because someone provides evidence that contradicts your beliefs, that does not automatically mean that they are lying.

I don't see any reason why we should open our minds to your fantasies. It's your job to prove your fantasy claims of "space exploration" to us. We're the skeptics here. You're the one preaching ludicrous claims.

Quote

Tom, you keep talking about the burden of proof being our responsibility.  Well, what about your responsibility to at least consider the evidence posed with an open mind?  Just because someone provides evidence that contradicts your beliefs, that does not automatically mean that they are lying.

I don't see any reason why we should open our minds to your fantasies. It's your job to prove your fantasy claims of "space exploration" to us.

Open mind, insert idea.

How can we prove our "fantasy claims" when you refuse to even consider the evidence? 

Open mind, insert idea.

How can we prove our "fantasy claims" when you refuse to even consider the evidence? 

We'll open our minds when you actually have evidence for us. A blind appeal to authority isn't evidence. It's a fallacy.

When you can personally prove that man has stepped on the moon or has traveled through space we'll be willing to consider the evidence.

Quote

Open mind, insert idea.

How can we prove our "fantasy claims" when you refuse to even consider the evidence? 

We'll open our minds when you actually have evidence for us. A blind appeal to authority isn't evidence. It's a fallacy.

When you can personally prove that man has stepped on the moon or has traveled through space we'll be willing to consider the evidence.

Are you saying that you would believe me if I said that I had personally traveled in space?  Or would you believe me if I told you that I had personally seen real live astronauts talking about their experiences in space (including one of the Mercury 7)?

fictitious technologies

fantasy claims

It seems you have already made up your mind that space travel doesn't happen. Any evidence to the contrary (videos, photos, amateur astronomy sightings, personal testimonies, moon samples, reams and reams of scientific data etc. etc.) you dismiss as conspiracy.

Quote

Open mind, insert idea.

How can we prove our "fantasy claims" when you refuse to even consider the evidence? 

We'll open our minds when you actually have evidence for us. A blind appeal to authority isn't evidence. It's a fallacy.

When you can personally prove that man has stepped on the moon or has traveled through space we'll be willing to consider the evidence.

Idiotic statement.

We have evidence, pictures, and eye witness accounts.

The burden lies with you to prove that it is all a conspiracy.

And your argument earlier about a religious man not having to prove that God exists is wrong. Every atheist will tell you that the burden lies on the religious man to prove his claim. Not that it matters, but the burden lies on both people to prove their claim.

Also, dont give us this bs about us coming here and arguing. This board would have hardly any members if it were not for the discussion it generates. All you FErs would be circle jerking each other talking about your next mission to the ice wall and how you are going to defeat the guards.

Speaking of guards, did it ever occur to you how big the ice wall would have to be and how hard it would be to guard it? Or how easy it would be to go there and produce pictures? The US cant even guard its own border against illegal aliens flooding in the country what makes you think they could guard the enormous ice wall? lame

Burden of proof is still on you to provide evidence of a conspiracy. If you have no evidence then the claim of such a conspiracy is false. 

If you have no evidence then the claim of such a conspiracy is false. 

That's terrible logic, by the way.

Quote from: Shaydawg on June 11, 2008, 05:34:18 AM

If you have no evidence then the claim of such a conspiracy is false. 

That's terrible logic, by the way.

From the stand point of saying it has to be false with no evidence in a pure logic discussion yes it is bad.

But it is not any worse then claiming something is a conspiracy because you dont have an answer.

And there is still no proof of a conspiracy.

He isn't claiming a conspiracy because he doesn't have an answer. Under his belief that the Earth is flat, a conspiracy has to exist. It is no more simple than that.

And yes, there is no evidence of a conspiracy.

And yes, there is no evidence of a conspiracy.

QFT

I understand, but proving that there is a conspiracy is needed.  Just saying there is one with no burden of proof is not good enough and not worthy of a response when you are making such claims.

The entire idea of there even being a conspiracy and the effort it would take to cover one up is more unbelievable then the claim of a flat earth.

Again, "it's a conspiracy" is not a valid answer or argument.

I try to avoid conspiracy talk because there are too many unknowns. If there really was a conspiracy, logical estimates can be made to answer questions, but it'd be to an extreme point of speculation.

Answers to such questions that involve the conspiracy are made, as least for me personally, with the attempt to showcase the possibility of it. Or even possibly filling a hole in the ignorant statement or assumption of the person. Whether or not the people receiving the answers have the capacity to understand those very answers is a completely different story.

The entire idea of there even being a conspiracy and the effort it would take to cover one up is more unbelievable then the claim of a flat earth.

This is usually echoed by newcomers, although, I have seen nothing to suggest that it would be unbelievable.

I understand, but proving that there is a conspiracy is needed.  Just saying there is one with no burden of proof is not good enough and not worthy of a response when you are making such claims.

The entire idea of there even being a conspiracy and the effort it would take to cover one up is more unbelievable then the claim of a flat earth.

Again, "it's a conspiracy" is not a valid answer or argument.

Again, conspiracy is a hypothesis to explain phenomena (such as NASA photographs, voyages to the "South Pole"). While it is a weak hypothesis as there is no solid evidence it doesn't nullify the hypothesis (indeed, you'd expect a conspiracy to cover its tracks). It's sort of like Dark Matter and Dark Energy, they're speculations without solid evidence - the only evidence (that I'm aware of) is that they're necessary.

Repeated ad nauseum: The conspiracy is not proof of a flat earth, it is a resultant hypothesis from the earth being flat. If you assume a flat earth can you think of a better hypothesis to explain said phenomena?

Now what you're probably going to do is quote only that last point and highlight assume. Feel free to do so but then realise we're not discussing the conspiracy anymore we're back to talking about the shape of the earth. One more time: the conspiracy is not an argument for a flat earth, it is the result of a flat earth.

Quote from: messierhunter on June 10, 2008, 12:27:28 PM

You have yet to prove me wrong, so what does that make you?

Correction.  You have yet to prove me wrong.  But my claim is about the Earth being flat (based on measurements) not about the conspiracy.

If I can observe satellites based on their orbital elements, then flat earth theory is invalidated.  You have yet to prove my data wrong.

The subject of this thread is the use of conspiracy as an argument.  You have yet to prove that anyone is doing that.

No valid reason has yet been given to explain my data.  The only reason given is that "it's a conspiracy."

Regarding the conspiracy, it is not an argument for our position.  It is a consequence of our position.  Accept that, and move on.

It's only a "consequence" until someone comes along and challenges it with contradicting data.  Using it after that point against said data without further proof or reason is using "conspiracy as an argument."

the conspiracy is not an argument for a flat earth, it is the result of a flat earth.

Not really. The conspiracy is a result of a flat earth theory -- it's needed to explain away the mountain of evidence that points to a RE (e.g. space travel, worlwide acceptance of RET, lack of evidence for the ice wall etc.).

The conspiracy is not an argument for a flat Earth, but the lack of a conspiracy is evidence for a round earth, hence the importance of debating it.

When you can personally prove that man has stepped on the moon or has traveled through space we'll be willing to consider the evidence.

I can prove it, and indeed I've offered to prove it person.  You've refused to accept the evidence so far.  You claim you'd be willing to accept the evidence, yet you never give the evidence a chance to be irrefutably presented in person.  What does that say about your honesty in the matter?

Not really. The conspiracy is a result of a flat earth theory -- it's needed to explain away the mountain of evidence that points to a RE (e.g. space travel, worlwide acceptance of RET, lack of evidence for the ice wall etc.).

Worldwide acceptance of RE is not evidence, and the Ice Wall (depending on your beliefs) has photos.

the lack of a conspiracy is evidence for a round earth, hence the importance of debating it.

Lack of evidence isn't really evidence. It just changes the odds.

Quote from: ghazwozza on June 11, 2008, 08:11:56 AM

the lack of a conspiracy is evidence for a round earth, hence the importance of debating it.

Lack of evidence isn't really evidence. It just changes the odds.

If it was proved that there was almost certainly not a conspiracy, that would be evidence against FET (or rather, it would mean photos from space etc. were better evidence).

If you were to say that more evidence arrived that made the already extremely unlikely theory even more unlikely, I don't think you'd be able to change much. Things around here would still operate the same, because all that changed are the odds.

Things around here would still operate the same, because all that changed are the odds.

That's because so few people around here think rationally.

Says the fallacy invoker? Please.

Says the fallacy invoker? Please.

Me!? I'm outraged 

Me too.

Me three.

Can anyone tell me what efforts have been made by FEr's to expose the conspiracy?  What research has been done?

Currently I am in the slow process of drafting a letter that I will send to NASA confronting them about the conspiracy.

Currently I am in the slow process of drafting a letter that I will send to NASA confronting them about the conspiracy.

I am sure they are eagerly awaiting your letter.

What is the preferred method of delivery?

Carrier pigeon. Or the postal service like a normal person...

Not really. The conspiracy is a result of a flat earth theory -- it's needed to explain away the mountain of evidence that points to a RE (e.g. space travel, worlwide acceptance of RET, lack of evidence for the ice wall etc.).

The conspiracy is not an argument for a flat Earth, but the lack of a conspiracy is evidence for a round earth, hence the importance of debating it.

It's not needed to explain anything. It is an explanation that does explain a lot of things but it's certainly not needed. The simple retort could just be, "I don't yet know how that is possible." But for you to then go and say that because we can't explain something like NASA photos then the only explanation is that they are real and accurate representations of a round earth is like saying that just because something's evolution can't be shown exactly step by step for every mutation that came along then intelligent design must be true. Alternative explanations of NASA photos could be an optical illusion or something else, I just happen to believe that a conspiracy fits best. Repeated yet again: the conspiracy theory comes from the idea that the earth is flat. Debunking the conspiracy would do nothing to prove a round earth, it would just mean that new hypothesis would be needed to explain various phenomena. Now you could point out that a round earth theory explains the phenomena quite succinctly and I would completely agree with you, I would also understand if you held on to your round earth beliefs. However, I happen to know that the earth is flat and am trying to explain phenomena based on that knowledge. I'm not trying to prove anything to you and I don't really care what beliefs you come away with (flat or round), you're more than entitled to them. I hope you stick around and keep asking questions because occasionally REers come on here with something that hasn't been thought of yet that needs an explanation (though I doubt that's you).

I think you're biggest mistake is you believe people here give a shit about what you think and are trying to prove the flat earth model to you. Trust me we don't and we're not.