The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Spherical Earth Society Leader on June 10, 2007, 08:25:08 AM
-
RE'ers believe that satellites orbit the Earth, and I agree. If you look at pictures taken from space, they are all above the equator, because thats the height it needs to be to orbit correctly. How does FE explain why the pictures taken are at that angle every time? Just part of the conspiracy or what?
About the conspiracy, what really is the motive behind it? What do they get out of tricking people into thinking the Earth is a globe? Many people say money, but how are they getting all this "conspiracy money" anyways? Also, why hasn't anyone "spilled the beans" yet. They'd be killed if they talked, but some people wouldn't care. Many people in the past have spoken the truth and be killed. With all the governments in on it, why hasn't someone spilled the beans? And, are the conspirators really willing to go to war and kill people to make a convincing conspiracy?
-
Many people say money, but how are they getting all this "conspiracy money" anyways?
NASA's budget is $16 700 000 000 this year, so, the government.
-
RE'ers believe that satellites orbit the Earth, and I agree. If you look at pictures taken from space, they are all above the equator, because thats the height it needs to be to orbit correctly. How does FE explain why the pictures taken are at that angle every time? Just part of the conspiracy or what?
You're actually wrong. According to RE quack science, there are various different possible orbits, not all of which require the satellite to be above the equator.
About the conspiracy, what really is the motive behind it? What do they get out of tricking people into thinking the Earth is a globe? Many people say money, but how are they getting all this "conspiracy money" anyways?
The modern conspiracy earns its money through the space programs of the world, which never actually send anything to space.
Also, why hasn't anyone "spilled the beans" yet.
Stop and think. You're posting on the FLAT EARTH SOCIETY forums. We are the ones spilling the beans.
They'd be killed if they talked, but some people wouldn't care.
Evidently not.
Many people in the past have spoken the truth and be killed. With all the governments in on it, why hasn't someone spilled the beans?
Besides my previous points, there have actually been cases of assassination by the conspiracy, where the stakes were high. Use the search function to dig up some of my writings on the assassinations of Scott of the Antarctic, Charles K Johnson, and various other Flat Earth bean-spillers and would-be bean-spillers.
And, are the conspirators really willing to go to war and kill people to make a convincing conspiracy?
Many wars are fought by nations who don't even have space programs, and are not necessarily in on the conspiracy. The only major exception is the Cold War, in which yes, the conspiracy was willing to go to "war" to make a convincing conspiracy. Notice that not that many people actually died in the Cold War considering how long it went on for.
-
You're actually wrong. According to RE quack science, there are various different possible orbits, not all of which require the satellite to be above the equator.
Little kid, don't call the RE a quack science when it has no HOLES and has an answer for everything. The FE has uncountable HOLES and many unanswerable topics.
-
it has no HOLES and has an answer for everything.
I know you didn't just put that...
-
Little kid, don't call the RE a quack science when it has no HOLES and has an answer for everything. The FE has uncountable HOLES and many unanswerable topics.
Your religious praise of your theory proves nothing. "RE HAS AN ANSWER TO EVERYTHING", "FE SUCKS"... it's not legitimate debate. And why little kid?
-
Your religious praise of your theory proves nothing. "RE HAS AN ANSWER TO EVERYTHING", "FE SUCKS"... it's not legitimate debate. And why little kid?
Don't expect much from him in the form of debate.
-
Little kid, don't call the RE a quack science when it has no HOLES and has an answer for everything. The FE has uncountable HOLES and many unanswerable topics.
Your religious praise of your theory proves nothing. "RE HAS AN ANSWER TO EVERYTHING", "FE SUCKS"... it's not legitimate debate. And why little kid?
Because you are. No one with even Middle school degree would call round earth science a quack science.
You cant talk about legitimate debating.
-
You cant talk about legitimate debating.
False. Anyone can talk about legitimate debating, unless they are a mute.
-
You cant talk about legitimate debating.
False. Anyone can talk about legitimate debating, unless they are a mute.
And then they can just sign about legitimate debating
I wish you kids would stop arguing about stupid things
-
Gayer stop arguing about stopping arguing!!
-
it has no HOLES and has an answer for everything.
I know you didn't just put that...
I did.
Now please graduate high school and then come back.
-
Now please graduate high school and then come back.
Oh, I see we've moved into insults because I'm showcasing your inaccuracy in communication.
And I have already graduated, thanks though.
And to touch on your clearly inaccurate statement from earlier, it doesn't explain everything. There are a number of things in physics that have yet to be answered in relation to science contained in the RE. But of course, you knew that.
-
Damn right Dogman! So can we stop telling people to go back to school now everyone?
-
If I went back to school I'd be arrested.
-
So why dont you say why re science is quack science.
Well little kid :P, it's because I believe RE science was, for the most part, cobbled together by misguided conspiracy dupes and the conspiracy itself. That's why I called it quack science.
-
I call it quack science because of all the ducks that are involved.
-
But since you are trying to be smart I will change my statement.
I'm not trying to be smart, I'm trying to get people to communicate more accurately, and more literal, so they can make more effective points in the debate. If I can easily tear apart someone's argument and make them angry at me, then I've done what I wanted to do. It was evidenced by you taking the time to make a more accurate statement, that I can't break apart without a lot of work. Well done.
-
Damn ducks stealing our water.
-
So why dont you say why re science is quack science.
Well little kid :P, it's because I believe RE science was, for the most part, cobbled together by misguided conspiracy dupes and the conspiracy itself. That's why I called it quack science.
Thats one old ass conspiracy. I didn't know NASA was a couple thousand years old.
In other news usually quack science would mean that the science doesn't work, like quack doctors.
-
Sorry, Divito, but any thread in which you intervene inevitably turns into an insult battle..
-
Sorry, Divito, but any thread in which you intervene inevitably turns into an insult battle..
Like my Myspace states:
"I'm incredibly blunt and rather emotionally detached from most things. This probably causes me to be much more objective and argumentative than most people so I essentially tell it like it is with little regard for people's poor logic, causing most people to become angry under their irrational thought process."
I can't help it. Actually, that's not accurate, I could if I wanted to but I don't.
-
Sorry, Divito, but any thread in which you intervene inevitably turns into an insult battle..
Like my Myspace states:
"I'm incredibly blunt and rather emotionally detached from most things. This probably causes me to be much more objective and argumentative than most people so I essentially tell it like it is with little regard for people's poor logic, causing most people to become angry under their irrational thought process."
I can't help it. Actually, that's not accurate, I could if I wanted to but I don't.
Yeah, but either way it's pretty well-stated.
-
Sorry, Divito, but any thread in which you intervene inevitably turns into an insult battle..
Like my Myspace states:
"I'm incredibly blunt and rather emotionally detached from most things. This probably causes me to be much more objective and argumentative than most people so I essentially tell it like it is with little regard for people's poor logic, causing most people to become angry under their irrational thought process."
I can't help it. Actually, that's not accurate, I could if I wanted to but I don't.
Translation: Psychopath.
I dig it.
-
Translation: Psychopath.
Sounds accurate.
Although through general definitions and criteria, I'm more in sync with a sociopath if you'd want to make the distinction between the two.
-
I didn't no NASA was a couple thousand years old.
There's another reason for that remedial English class.
And yes, please correct your inaccurate statements.
-
I didn't no NASA was a couple thousand years old.
There's another reason for that remedial English class.
And yes, please correct your inaccurate statements.
fixed
None of my statements are inaccurate.
-
This one sure is inaccurate:
Little kid, don't call the RE a quack science when it has no HOLES and has an answer for everything.
-
I did know that and I was going to add that theoretical science doesn't count. But since you are trying to be smart I will change my statement.
There are no holes in the RET that the FET doesn't have and there are holes in the FET that the RET doesn't have. There is also nothing that is explained better in the FET then the RET.
You can almost read. Almost
-
Too bad that's not the same post.
You fail at the interwebs.
-
Many people say money, but how are they getting all this "conspiracy money" anyways?
NASA's budget is $16 700 000 000 this year, so, the government.
Because your a NASA accountant?
-
Thats one old ass conspiracy. I didn't know NASA was a couple thousand years old.
Plato wasn't necessarily in on the conspiracy, he may have just been plain wrong. Much of his other "scientific" work is about as convincing as Dianetics or Timecube. The World of Perfect Forms is a good example - no empirical evidence, no reasoned argument - he literally just made it up.
In other news usually quack science would mean that the science doesn't work, like quack doctors.
And it's reasonable for me to claim that RE science "doesn't work" since I don't agree with its conclusions being correct or factual.
-
Too bad that's not the same post.
You fail at the interwebs.
Its still the same thing. Feel free to name one hole the RE has thats not in a theoretical area.
And it's reasonable for me to claim that RE science "doesn't work" since I don't agree with its conclusions being correct or factual.
Your opinion does not disprove science.
-
RE'ers believe that satellites orbit the Earth, and I agree. If you look at pictures taken from space, they are all above the equator, because thats the height it needs to be to orbit correctly. How does FE explain why the pictures taken are at that angle every time? Just part of the conspiracy or what?
You're actually wrong. According to RE quack science, there are various different possible orbits, not all of which require the satellite to be above the equator.
About the conspiracy, what really is the motive behind it? What do they get out of tricking people into thinking the Earth is a globe? Many people say money, but how are they getting all this "conspiracy money" anyways?
The modern conspiracy earns its money through the space programs of the world, which never actually send anything to space.
Also, why hasn't anyone "spilled the beans" yet.
Stop and think. You're posting on the FLAT EARTH SOCIETY forums. We are the ones spilling the beans.
They'd be killed if they talked, but some people wouldn't care.
Evidently not.
Many people in the past have spoken the truth and be killed. With all the governments in on it, why hasn't someone spilled the beans?
Besides my previous points, there have actually been cases of assassination by the conspiracy, where the stakes were high. Use the search function to dig up some of my writings on the assassinations of Scott of the Antarctic, Charles K Johnson, and various other Flat Earth bean-spillers and would-be bean-spillers.
And, are the conspirators really willing to go to war and kill people to make a convincing conspiracy?
Many wars are fought by nations who don't even have space programs, and are not necessarily in on the conspiracy. The only major exception is the Cold War, in which yes, the conspiracy was willing to go to "war" to make a convincing conspiracy. Notice that not that many people actually died in the Cold War considering how long it went on for.
Who has spilled the beans? I mean from inside the conspiracy, not random people who stood up and said it.
-
Who has spilled the beans? I mean from inside the conspiracy, not random people who stood up and said it.
They have, throughout recent history, eliminated "insiders" who might have talked, as well as people with legitimate evidence for the Conspiracy's existence. Scott of the Antarctic would have talked, as, in my opinion, would JFK, Abe Lincoln and various other people who were, or became aware of, the Conspiracy's existence and had damning evidence or pulling-power on their side.
-
Who has spilled the beans? I mean from inside the conspiracy, not random people who stood up and said it.
They have, throughout recent history, eliminated "insiders" who might have talked, as well as people with legitimate evidence for the Conspiracy's existence. Scott of the Antarctic would have talked, as, in my opinion, would JFK, Abe Lincoln and various other people who were, or became aware of, the Conspiracy's existence and had damning evidence or pulling-power on their side.
Evidence? Wild imagination, perhaps?
-
Evidence? Wild imagination, perhaps?
There's plenty of evidence for Scott of the Antarctic's assassination. I've gone through it quite a lot in previous posts, try the search terms "Scott of the Antarctic", "tent", "assassination", "CLAWING", etc.
-
Evidence? Wild imagination, perhaps?
There's plenty of evidence for Scott of the Antarctic's assassination. I've gone through it quite a lot in previous posts, try the search terms "Scott of the Antarctic", "tent", "assassination", "CLAWING", etc.
What about the others you listed: JFK? Abe Lincoln? and various other people? Oh, and your Scott evidence is nothing but innuendo as far a FE cover-up is concerned.
-
This is better than TV.
-
This one sure is inaccurate:
Little kid, don't call the RE a quack science when it has no HOLES and has an answer for everything.
Engy Baby, we were having a perfectly legitimate debate on the validity of FE, and you come along and start insulting RE'ers because of bad grammer and logical fallacies.
So he made a mistake, so he had a typo or two. You attack him like because of this one mistake his whole arguement from here on out is now invalid.
You lose, please leave this thread.
RE influence modifier -1
-
Engy Baby, we were having a perfectly legitimate debate on the validity of FE, and you come along and start insulting RE'ers because of bad grammer and logical fallacies.
So he made a mistake, so he had a typo or two. You attack him like because of this one mistake his whole arguement from here on out is now invalid.
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
One could argue that his inability to use grammar, and spell properly would greatly diminish the credibility to whatever he is claiming. Surely, a non-ignorant person would know to not judge a person in such a way, but I'd ask to at least have the courtesy to proofread and use the English that most of use were taught in elementary school.
-
Engy Baby, we were having a perfectly legitimate debate on the validity of FE, and you come along and start insulting RE'ers because of bad grammer and logical fallacies.
So he made a mistake, so he had a typo or two. You attack him like because of this one mistake his whole arguement from here on out is now invalid.
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
One could argue that his inability to use grammar, and spell properly would greatly diminish the credibility to whatever he is claiming. Surely, a non-ignorant person would know to not judge a person in such a way, but I'd ask to at least have the courtesy to proofread and use the English that most of use were taught in elementary school.
It was also decently ironic.
-
If not cerebrally catatonic.
-
Who has spilled the beans? I mean from inside the conspiracy, not random people who stood up and said it.
They have, throughout recent history, eliminated "insiders" who might have talked, as well as people with legitimate evidence for the Conspiracy's existence. Scott of the Antarctic would have talked, as, in my opinion, would JFK, Abe Lincoln and various other people who were, or became aware of, the Conspiracy's existence and had damning evidence or pulling-power on their side.
You believe JFK was killed because he was going to tell the truth about a conspiracy of the shape of Earth?
-
Apparently.
-
You believe JFK was killed because he was going to tell the truth about a conspiracy of the shape of Earth?
JFK was a key figure in promoting funding for NASA in the late 50's. Trillions of dollars were poured into what was essentially a fruitless pursuit of space exploration. After numerous early disasters and technological failures NASA's administrators soon realized that space exploration was essentially impossible. With pressure mounting from political, public, and militaristic sides of the spectra it was deemed necessary to abandon serious space research and create an illusion of space travel to justify its spending. NASA was pressured from all corners of the government to succeed.
Winning the space race wasn't just about getting into space, but demonstrating to the world America's technological ability to create nuclear tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles. That was the real purpose of NASA. The idea of Mutual Annihilation was key for American dominance on the global battlefield. Without the ability to send nuclear missiles into space and half way around the earth at any desired moment, America's threats would fall on deaf ears.
The white lie of the Conspiracy grew into a national security issue beyond all others. It was considered acceptable to protect the dark secret of the nation's weakness even if it meant assassinating the president himself.
-
You believe JFK was killed because he was going to tell the truth about a conspiracy of the shape of Earth?
JFK was a key figure in promoting funding for NASA in the late 50's. Trillions of dollars were poured into what was essentially a fruitless pursuit of space exploration. After numerous early disasters and technological failures NASA's administrators soon realized that space exploration was essentially impossible. With pressure mounting from political, public, and militaristic sides of the spectra it was deemed necessary to abandon serious space research and create an illusion of space travel to justify its spending. NASA was pressured from all corners of the government to succeed.
Winning the space race wasn't just about getting into space, but demonstrating to the world America's technological ability to create nuclear tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles. That was the real purpose of NASA. The idea of Mutual Annihilation was key for American dominance on the global battlefield. Without the ability to send nuclear missiles into space and half way around the earth at any desired moment, America's threats would fall on deaf ears.
The white lie of the Conspiracy grew into a national security issue beyond all others. It was considered acceptable to protect the dark secret of the nation's weakness even if it meant assassinating the president himself.
That argument is stupid. The Soviet Union would have found out that it was impossible too. So how is that going to scare them?
The fact is, space fight is possible.
-
JFK was a key figure in promoting funding for NASA in the late 50's. Trillions of dollars were poured into what was essentially a fruitless pursuit of space exploration. After numerous early disasters and technological failures NASA's administrators soon realized that space exploration was essentially impossible. With pressure mounting from political, public, and militaristic sides of the spectra it was deemed necessary to abandon serious space research and create an illusion of space travel to justify its spending. NASA was pressured from all corners of the government to succeed.
Winning the space race wasn't just about getting into space, but demonstrating to the world America's technological ability to create nuclear tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles. That was the real purpose of NASA. The idea of Mutual Annihilation was key for American dominance on the global battlefield. Without the ability to send nuclear missiles into space and half way around the earth at any desired moment, America's threats would fall on deaf ears.
The white lie of the Conspiracy grew into a national security issue beyond all others. It was considered acceptable to protect the dark secret of the nation's weakness even if it meant assassinating the president himself.
This is an interesting but totally evidence-free fiction.
-
I think it's rather stupid to call anything impossible in the first place. The odds are that someday you're going to be proven wrong.
EDIT: Unless it's something that requires disproving something that's already proven.
A flat earth comes to mind...
-
Indeed, just like I was in this thread (http://www.onlinesports.com/images/ssg-uma-16a.jpg).
-
So he made a mistake, so he had a typo or two. You attack him like because of this one mistake his whole arguement from here on out is now invalid.
No, I pointed out that his argument was incorrect. It was not incorrect just due to grammar.
-
JFK was a key figure in promoting funding for NASA in the late 50's. Trillions of dollars were poured into what was essentially a fruitless pursuit of space exploration. After numerous early disasters and technological failures NASA's administrators soon realized that space exploration was essentially impossible. With pressure mounting from political, public, and militaristic sides of the spectra it was deemed necessary to abandon serious space research and create an illusion of space travel to justify its spending. NASA was pressured from all corners of the government to succeed.
Winning the space race wasn't just about getting into space, but demonstrating to the world America's technological ability to create nuclear tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles. That was the real purpose of NASA. The idea of Mutual Annihilation was key for American dominance on the global battlefield. Without the ability to send nuclear missiles into space and half way around the earth at any desired moment, America's threats would fall on deaf ears.
The white lie of the Conspiracy grew into a national security issue beyond all others. It was considered acceptable to protect the dark secret of the nation's weakness even if it meant assassinating the president himself.
You've got it nailed. John F Kennedy was a cornerstone of the modern, Space-related element of the Conspiracy, but he was also a pretty decent guy. I am certain that JFK was about to blow the Conspiracy's cover once and for all.
your Scott evidence is nothing but innuendo as far a FE cover-up is concerned.
If you have a viable explanation for Scott's post-mortem position in relation to Bowers and Wilson's perfectly sensible ones, as well as the mysterious disappearances of Oates and Evans, and the fact that Scott's journal shows all the signs of being a forgery, fire away, I'm all ears.
-
We already had that conversation. It was inconclusive.
-
Well, I guess any really good conspiracy theory should incorporate Kennedy somehow... ::)
-
We already had that conversation. It was inconclusive.
It was only inconclusive because the Round Earth lobby utterly refused to accept a large body of evidence for his assassination and refused to drop their absurd "Bowers and Wilson stayed sane, Scott went crazy and changed his writing style and then decided to deliberately freeze to death, and was so eager to do this that he clawed his way towards the tent flap, and Oates and Evans just decided to ditch the rest of the party and go and die" theory. Seriously, which is more contrived and unlikely?
The argument in that thread was pretty damn conclusive.
-
It was Tom Bishop behind the grassy knoll.
It was only inconclusive because the Round Earth lobby utterly refused to accept a large body of conjecture backed up by very little sourced evidence for his assassination.
Fixed ;D
-
We already had that conversation. It was inconclusive.
It was only inconclusive because the Round Earth lobby utterly refused to accept a large body of evidence for his assassination and refused to drop their absurd "Bowers and Wilson stayed sane, Scott went crazy and changed his writing style and then decided to deliberately freeze to death, and was so eager to do this that he clawed his way towards the tent flap, and Oates and Evans just decided to ditch the rest of the party and go and die" theory. Seriously, which is more contrived and unlikely?
The argument in that thread was pretty damn conclusive.
There's a Round Earth lobby? :o
Who does it consist of, exactly? The entire country?
-
Round Earth Lobby = Everyone else in the world.
-
There's a Round Earth lobby? :o
Who does it consist of, exactly? The entire country?
In context, it consisted of various ear-plugging/la-la-ing Round Earth fundamentalists who utterly refused to acknowledge an otherwise convincing case, based purely on unshakeable faith in Globularism.
-
There's a Round Earth lobby? :o
Who does it consist of, exactly? The entire country?
In context, it consisted of various ear-plugging/la-la-ing Round Earth fundamentalists who utterly refused to acknowledge an otherwise convincing case, based purely on unshakeable faith in Globularism.
Convincing case? Oh, I see... Based on that model where dark matter, is invisible, massless, rigid, moves about, supports planets, comets, stars (which you say are actually just planets), glow-producing, monstrously forceful to accelerate the entire Universe at 1g, monstrously huge to support stars quadrillions of miles away, and never directly detected, you've made a convincing case. Did you forget the 30+ challenges that you fail to answer?
-
Convincing case? Oh, I see... Based on that model where dark matter, is invisible, massless, rigid, moves about, supports planets, comets, stars (which you say are actually just planets), glow-producing, monstrously forceful to accelerate the entire Universe at 1g, monstrously huge to support stars quadrillions of miles away, and never directly detected, you've made a convincing case. Did you forget the 30+ challenges that you fail to answer?
We're talking specifically about Scott of the Antarctic's murder. This babble is exactly my point - so convinced are you of the falseness of FET that you use it as an excuse to completely disregard evidence for something which probably did happen.
Much of your criticism based on my model alone is irrelevant in this context - Scott's assassination points only to a general FE coverup, and is independant of my FE physics model.
-
Scott's murder or not is totally irrelevant seeing as the only links with FET and the expedition are supposition. So what if he was murdered? Unless there is evidence linking the murder to FET it is completely moot.
-
Indeed, maybe he just owed someone a LOT of money.
-
or any other number of reasons people murder each other. Do you have any idea how many people are murdered for less than 'history altering' motives?
-
or any other number of reasons people murder each other. Do you have any idea how many people are murdered for less than 'history altering' motives?
Ok, so present a viable alternative motive for murdering Scott, from someone with the means to do so.
Robert F Scott was pretty well financially endowed at the time of the expedition, making his owing of money very unlikely (what's more, there's no reason Scott's phantom loan shark wouldn't have killed him at home instead of trekking out to the Antarctic, whereas there is a glaringly obvious reason the Conspiracy would have done just that).
-
I don't see how anyone was making anything from the Conspiracy prior to the Space-race
-
Why do we have to present a viable alternative? You're the one saying it was down to the FET.
-
Why do we have to present a viable alternative? You're the one saying it was down to the FET.
Because that's how reason works. You have to back up your claims with something resembling a plausible argument.
-
I asked you first.
-
We're not making any claims. We are simply saying there is no proof he was even murdered (other than the fact he is dead, but murder isn't the only explanation). All the evidence is purely speculation and circumstance. You are asserting that he WAS murdered, and further that this murder was carried out by a giant Flat Earth conspiracy.
-
We're not making any claims. We are simply saying there is no proof he was even murdered (other than the fact he is dead, but murder isn't the only explanation). All the evidence is purely speculation and circumstance. You are asserting that he WAS murdered, and further that this murder was carried out by a giant Flat Earth conspiracy.
I'm asserting that the evidence suggests he was murdered. I'm not stupid enough to claim that I know it for certain, but I've shown a large amount of compelling evidence which has been utterly ignored.
-
Murdered != Conspiracy murdered.
-
Murdered != Conspiracy murdered.
No, but reason (without blind faith in globularism) would suggest that this is the case - he was about to break the news (assuming it exists) of the Ice Wall, and the manner of his death suggests a level of sophistication typical of governments and other large organizations.
-
Reason suggests nothing about motive. For all we know it could have been a fight about who gets the last food and he was killed by one of his comrades before they ultimately froze to death. A rational mind would not conclude that a conspiracy was behind it. The manner of his death suggests a level of sophistication typical of someone who really wanted him dead, government or otherwise.
-
Reason suggests nothing about motive. For all we know it could have been a fight about who gets the last food and he was killed by one of his comrades before they ultimately froze to death. A rational mind would not conclude that a conspiracy was behind it. The manner of his death suggests a level of sophistication typical of someone who really wanted him dead, government or otherwise.
Scenarios such as this aren't feasible because he had no fatal wounds or bruising which would suggest a crude fight to the death or anything similar.
And I agree with your final statement. Conspiracy != government alone.