The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Liquid Snake on August 05, 2008, 12:59:35 PM
-
After reading through the FAQ and many threads, I have what I think to be a valid point. From what I’ve seen the FE’s will probably come up with something to refute it, but please consider with an open mind. I respect you (I respect anyone that stands up for their cause), so please do me the same honor. Here we go:
It is based on motive and intent, these being two basic parts of any case brought forth attempting to indict someone. You are accusing (from what I gather) NASA heads and various others of “avarice”, in other words, going after money. You also say that power or control may play a part. I say these motives are flimsy at best.
First point: government auditing. I have some conception of what it means to be audited working in the back offices of a bank. We have not only internal auditing but government auditing as well. I can only imagine how much the government and its programs (notably NASA) are strictly audited (if you don’t believe that they are audited, Google it: for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_audit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_audit). It is out there and often they even publish auditing reports. It is a fact that every government entity is audited; fraud, waste and abuse included). If money were to mysteriously go missing, someone would notice. Granted, it could happen over short periods of time or in short, irregular intervals. But sustained, consistent embezzling/fraud/secrecy would not hold up for the decades that NASA has existed. It would require the bribing of many hundreds more people, spanning generations of workers. And as more and more people are let into the secret, the more the possibilities increase of some sort of leak. Additionally, the more people added to the bribing payroll, the more suspicious things become as more and more money must be dished out. Not to mention the bribed auditors, investigators, etc. consistently letting NASA “pass with flying colors” would raise great suspicion. What’s more, the top men would be bulging with cash. Given, it is possible they put it in off shore bank accounts and keep it under wraps, but is it plausible that they will not actually spend it? If they are greedy SOB’s as you say, they whole point would be to spend it, right? The Missus isn’t going to wonder how we can afford this brand new ten bedroom house? Little Timmy isn’t going ask old dad why we have a Bentley and two BMW’s in the garage? No one in these guys’ circle of friends and acquaintances is suspicious, not to mention coworkers and politicians? Do you honestly think these handful of top NASA men have complete control of the budget? And if they do, that no one would get suspicious after they suddenly got rich? And over the 50 years NASA has existed, these factors only compound to be more and more dangerous and precarious to carry out!
Motive of avarice: ruled out.
Second point: I will make this short. Power is a weak motive/intent. Who do they have power over? The gullible public? They hold an idea over the publics’ head, but obviously the public is perfectly fine in its ignorant state. This is a bit of science we are talking about. They would go on living the same if the world is flat or round. These men don’t control anybody. If it is simply to say “I control the world’s ideas! Mwhahahah!” or to “stroke their ego,” that is hardly going to satisfy them because they can’t tell anyone. No one will ever know of their “power.” And that is half the fun of having power. It’s called pride. Just like many criminals can’t help but tell someone of their crime, this inner circle of forty could not be sustained on “power” alone; someone would spill the beans. You could still use this motive, but it is extremely weak.
This leaves you with no stable ground to stand on. There is no plausible motive. No motive, no case. Does it make it impossible, no, of course not. Just improvable and highly, highly improbable, near impossible. Find a motive.
Note: All above questions are rhetorical, please do not answer them.
-
SNAAAAAAAAAAAKE!!!!
tl;dr
-
I find it funny how all serious threads that actually have (a) valid point(s) are brought offtopic within one or two posts...
-
SNAAAAAAAAAAAKE!!!!
tl;dr
Keep low-content posts exactly like this out of FED&D and FEQ&C, consider this an official warning. The next low or no-content post you produce in either of these two forums will result in a probationary ban.
Anyway, on topic, the auditing of NASA is actually an interesting point which I've not seen anyone bring up so far, so well done for making an original contribution.
My initial response is this. Here is a breakdown of NASA's annual budgets http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_budget (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_budget). The budget of NASA is always measured in billions of dollars. What percentage of a billion dollars would you reckon to be a sufficient one to convince a few audit staff to turn a blind eye here and there? Bear in mind that much of the NASA structure is rigged to look like it's actually sending things into space already. Auditers wouldn't even need to know why they were being bribed for certain minor points of checking.
-
however you could still find out errors, everything must be accounted for throught the GAO not to mention all of the watchdog organizations that are always looking for a reason to blast the government for one thing or another
Like These Guys
http://www.cagw.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7410 (http://www.cagw.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7410)
-
however you could still find out errors, everything must be accounted for throught the GAO not to mention all of the watchdog organizations that are always looking for a reason to blast the government for one thing or another
Hmm, maybe. I think this aspect of the Conspiracy is definitely going to require further research. Thanks to the OP and to C Barnett for bringing it to light!
-
The point is simple. Would an audit organisation be able to prove that the machines NASA re making are not what they claim to be? This is the core of the theory. Money is not going missing, it is being spent on things that most auditors would not understand. The job of these people is to search for financial irregularities. Money is spent on a rocket. Said rocket is seen to take off. But is any accountant capable of ascertaining the properties of that rocket?
Financial auditors simply check that money is spent where it is supposed to be spent. If it appears said rocket has been built at said cost (and it then appears to go into space), how could they question it?
-
The point is simple. Would an audit organisation be able to prove that the machines NASA re making are not what they claim to be? This is the core of the theory. Money is not going missing, it is being spent on things that most auditors would not understand. The job of these people is to search for financial irregularities. Money is spent on a rocket. Said rocket is seen to take off. But is any accountant capable of ascertaining the properties of that rocket?
Financial auditors simply check that money is spent where it is supposed to be spent. If it appears said rocket has been built at said cost (and it then appears to go into space), how could they question it?
Actually, you're right. Auditors would require an absurdly high level of scientific qualification to even understand half the claims which NASA makes. I think a combination of the inaccessibility of NASA's "science" with a few minor bribes which appear to be for reasons other than the huge cover-up might fairly well explain success in audits.
-
Auditors are going to look at actual money spent. They will not simply take these people's word that they used x amount of money for Project y. When it comes to light that $1 billion was said to be used for a rocket and only $700 million was used, they will investigate it. All money is accounted for.
As for bribing auditors we assume two things: that 1) every person is motivated by avarice and is susceptible to bribery. That paints a very grim picture of the world. I would like to think that truth seeking, honest people still exist in this world, whatever shape it be. 2) Look at my original post. As more and more people are bribed, more and more money is spent and thus there exist more irregularities for future auditors to discover. At this point the bribing would never stop. After 50 years, imagine how many people they would be bribing. I can only guess. And still the question arises: no one would notice that these men have become extremely rich and question how?
-
Another point is that if we are talking about bribes, the conspiracy would only require minor private investment in bribes to produce major returns in profit from government money. The money used to make bribes need not be from the government; the conspiracy invests past profits in bribes for massive gains from the revenue they receive.
Liquid Snake, we are talking about cutting edge science. How is any accountant going to know what kind of research finance is needed to produce a probe destined for planet Mars? You simply cannot audit that process without a full understanding of it.
A bit off-topic, but I have always wondered if there are connections between the major arms manufacturers and NASA. It seems to me, when you look at military aviation over the last 50 years, that NASA has effectively been a free research lab for many military projects.
-
The point is simple. Would an audit organisation be able to prove that the machines NASA re making are not what they claim to be? This is the core of the theory. Money is not going missing, it is being spent on things that most auditors would not understand. The job of these people is to search for financial irregularities. Money is spent on a rocket. Said rocket is seen to take off. But is any accountant capable of ascertaining the properties of that rocket?
Financial auditors simply check that money is spent where it is supposed to be spent. If it appears said rocket has been built at said cost (and it then appears to go into space), how could they question it?
Well sure, but this still does not amount to the motive of making money out of the deal. If the money is being spent on the rockets as said, then there is no money left for the consipiritors to stick in their pockets... The accountant does not care about the fact if the rocket reached space or not, just if it cost X amount of dollars.
The question of motive still remains...
-
SNAAAAAAAAAAAKE!!!!
tl;dr
Keep low-content posts exactly like this out of FED&D and FEQ&C, consider this an official warning. The next low or no-content post you produce in either of these two forums will result in a probationary ban.
Note: All above questions are rhetorical, please do not answer them.
Uh-oh!
This is what happens when a lying, brown-nosing little retard is allowed to become a moderator. Are you going to ban all the other spamming fuck-tard trolls after one warning too? Oh no, silly me, you just have a personal vendeta against Kas because he can see through your patheric facade. Is your middle name "fail"?
-
The point is simple. Would an audit organisation be able to prove that the machines NASA re making are not what they claim to be? This is the core of the theory. Money is not going missing, it is being spent on things that most auditors would not understand. The job of these people is to search for financial irregularities. Money is spent on a rocket. Said rocket is seen to take off. But is any accountant capable of ascertaining the properties of that rocket?
Financial auditors simply check that money is spent where it is supposed to be spent. If it appears said rocket has been built at said cost (and it then appears to go into space), how could they question it?
Well sure, but this still does not amount to the motive of making money out of the deal. If the money is being spent on the rockets as said, then there is no money left for the consipiritors to stick in their pockets... The accountant does not care about the fact if the rocket reached space or not, just if it cost X amount of dollars.
The question of motive still remains...
My point is, how could he know the cost without understanding the science involved?
-
I recognize your point NEEMAN. Accountants will not know anything about the technology behind the money. But nonetheless, money given by the government must all be accounted for. If NASA was using all of the money or at least part and rolled the rest over to the next fiscal year, then it would receive a pass from the auditor. But if this were the case, they head guys wouldn't be able to get any money out of it. So somewhere down the line, these guys will not have any proof of where some amount of money went. They may say "Oh it went to the quantum field nuclear device we built" and the auditor will give a blank stare, but they must produce some sort of evidence of where the money actually went. I am not sure if I make my self clear or not?
On a side note, who will address the moral question I posed earlier: you say: every person is motivated by avarice and is susceptible to bribery. That paints a very grim picture of the world. I would like to think that truth seeking, honest people still exist in this world, whatever shape it be.
-
I understand you, don't worry. I suppose what I'm getting at is that if you create a whole series of research processes, devices and projects, all of which are beyond the grasp of an accountant, and appear to create them, it would be impossbile for an accountant to know if what is in them really is in them. Remember, any single component of any single NASA device is worth serious money. I have no doubt that through the process of researching, building and testing a NASA project, there is plenty room to skim a little (or perhaps a lot) off the top here and there, and disguise it by virtue of it being such a complex field. When you look at the sums spent on individual components (never mind projects) by NASA, you start to see the scope for corruption. The concepts NASA are dealing with are, unlike those of most government organisations, well beyond the grasp of the common man.
As for your side note, all people are ultimately motivated by wishing to give themselves pleasure or prevent displeasure, if you'll pardon me spouting Nietzsche. It simply happens that this often conforms to artificial social constructs such as morality and virtue. But there's a philosophy board for all that. =)
-
It's a good thing I don't concern myself with Nietzshe. :) I personally don't believe you can bribe any human being to do anything you want. But that is another case to study, as you say.
Anyway, I feel like the original post covers for explanations of this sort. It doesn't simply boil down to the auditors not understanding science, although that is a valid point.
-
A bit off-topic, but I have always wondered if there are connections between the major arms manufacturers and NASA. It seems to me, when you look at military aviation over the last 50 years, that NASA has effectively been a free research lab for many military projects.
NEEMAN, I'm currently exploring ideas similar to that, but my research isn't complete. Non-NASA entities (such as the US military's "Masters of Space") as well as private contractors such as Scaled Composites appear to have some rather clandestine connections. The whole aeronautical industry, as far as I can see, seems to be pretty rife with cloak-and-dagger esoterica. I'll obviously post more as I find it out.
Indeed, auditors might not need to have been bribed at all - if the individuals behind these independent entities could be bribed to "sell" their false technologies, everything would look perfectly above board.
Uh-oh!
This is what happens when a lying, brown-nosing little retard is allowed to become a moderator. Are you going to ban all the other spamming fuck-tard trolls after one warning too? Oh no, silly me, you just have a personal vendeta against Kas because he can see through your patheric facade. Is your middle name "fail"?
I've been modding this website since before you joined. I'm afraid I'm going to take the bait and ban you, because you're derailing a pretty interesting discussion with your profane personal attack. I'm giving you 14 days to cool off, but if you trash-talk me in FED&D again when you come back, I'll let you cool off for ever.
-
A bit off-topic, but I have always wondered if there are connections between the major arms manufacturers and NASA. It seems to me, when you look at military aviation over the last 50 years, that NASA has effectively been a free research lab for many military projects.
NEEMAN, I'm currently exploring ideas similar to that, but my research isn't complete. Non-NASA entities (such as the US military's "Masters of Space") as well as private contractors such as Scaled Composites appear to have some rather clandestine connections. The whole aeronautical industry, as far as I can see, seems to be pretty rife with cloak-and-dagger esoterica. I'll obviously post more as I find it out.
Indeed, auditors might not need to have been bribed at all - if the individuals behind these independent entities could be bribed to "sell" their false technologies, everything would look perfectly above board.
Uh-oh!
This is what happens when a lying, brown-nosing little retard is allowed to become a moderator. Are you going to ban all the other spamming fuck-tard trolls after one warning too? Oh no, silly me, you just have a personal vendeta against Kas because he can see through your patheric facade. Is your middle name "fail"?
I've been modding this website since before you joined. I'm afraid I'm going to take the bait and ban you, because you're derailing a pretty interesting discussion with your profane personal attack. I'm giving you 14 days to cool off, but if you trash-talk me in FED&D again when you come back, I'll let you cool off for ever.
You really think I give a shit? Ban me for life if you want, I only come here to spam and wind the likes of you up and you always bite. Hopefully more people will cotton on to your lies.
-
The point is simple. Would an audit organisation be able to prove that the machines NASA re making are not what they claim to be? This is the core of the theory. Money is not going missing, it is being spent on things that most auditors would not understand. The job of these people is to search for financial irregularities. Money is spent on a rocket. Said rocket is seen to take off. But is any accountant capable of ascertaining the properties of that rocket?
Financial auditors simply check that money is spent where it is supposed to be spent. If it appears said rocket has been built at said cost (and it then appears to go into space), how could they question it?
it does not matter if the auditors understand the science they just need to see that x smount of dollars was paid to so and so for these parts and this was the payroll and they spent this muck on fuel ect. from there it is a simple matter to find missing money
-
The point is simple. Would an audit organisation be able to prove that the machines NASA re making are not what they claim to be? This is the core of the theory. Money is not going missing, it is being spent on things that most auditors would not understand. The job of these people is to search for financial irregularities. Money is spent on a rocket. Said rocket is seen to take off. But is any accountant capable of ascertaining the properties of that rocket?
Financial auditors simply check that money is spent where it is supposed to be spent. If it appears said rocket has been built at said cost (and it then appears to go into space), how could they question it?
it does not matter if the auditors understand the science they just need to see that x smount of dollars was paid to so and so for these parts and this was the payroll and they spent this muck on fuel ect. from there it is a simple matter to find missing money
But how they know how much things cost if they do not understand why it costs that? You're talking about fuel and payroll; I'm talking about where the real money is spent- R&D, testing and construction of cutting edge technology. How does an auditor ascertain how much it should cost to build the Hubble Telescope, for example? Can an accountant really ascertain the costs involved in designing and building something of that scale when he/she has no understanding of the concepts involved?
-
The point that we are trying to make is the money must go somewhere and that must be accounted for, whether the auditors understand it or not. They can not understand and still say "OK, show me a receipt for materials, companies billed, bank transactions made. Oh wait, whats this, a personal account! Hmmm." That auditors don't understand is an argument that can be made in many fields that are audited, yet this does not stop auditors from successfully auditing companies. (....too many audit words!.....)
-
The governments of earth have found it quite difficult to track underground crime rings with their money laundering tactics. Why would it be any easier for the governments of earth to try and track the governments of earth when there is no motive to do so?
Heck, the U.S. government can interject $26 Billion in unaccounted for funds, and nobody looks twice. Tell me, where are those monies?
-
Because this "supposed underground crime ring" (aka NASA) is receiving money from "above ground" or uncorrupted sources (tax money, unsuspecting politicians) that require that the money be tracked and accounted for. Money laundering is done with money already underground (i.e. from illegal sources), and these sources don't require accounting.
And what is this $26 billion that you are referring to?
-
Because this "supposed underground crime ring" (aka NASA) is receiving money from "above ground" or uncorrupted sources (tax money, unsuspecting politicians) that require that the money be tracked and accounted for. Money laundering is done with money already underground (i.e. from illegal sources), and these sources don't require accounting.
And what is this $26 billion that you are referring to?
Alot of money went missing but it was found.
-
it does not matter if the auditors understand the science they just need to see that x smount of dollars was paid to so and so for these parts and this was the payroll and they spent this muck on fuel ect. from there it is a simple matter to find missing money
Exactly! So if Scaled Composites, the Masters of Space, and other organizations not subject to the same auditing are listed as having been paid x amount of USD, who is going to care? We've established that a large number of NASA's direct sub-contractors and "unaffiliated" associate groups may have deeper Conspiracy involvement. If NASA is able to list these seemingly legitimate organizations in their breakdown of "expenditures", who's going to care?
You really think I give a shit? Ban me for life if you want, I only come here to spam and wind the likes of you up and you always bite. Hopefully more people will cotton on to your lies.
Sure thing! Will do! Your ban has been upgraded from 14 days to life.
-
But we are citing real, hard facts that take place in auditing across the board, that are verifiable with NASA as an entity, as well as with other major entities and corporations. It is possible for you, or anyone, to come up with any wild theory to refute this. There are limitless conspiracy explanations that we could conjure up. But the fact remains at the end of the day that this is not cold, hard truth that you are giving me and therefore cannot be seriously considered. Your theory makes the whole conspiracy possible, but not probable or proven.
-
Your theory makes the whole conspiracy possible, but not probable or proven, and this seems to be the general problem with FE ideas.
As long as you recognise that the conspiracy is possible, then thats all that matters. Unlikely? Certainly, but not impossible.
-
But we are citing real, hard facts that take place in auditing across the board, that are verifiable with NASA as an entity, as well as with other major entities and corporations. It is possible for you, or anyone, to come up with any wild theory to refute this. There are limitless conspiracy explanations that we could conjure up. But the fact remains at the end of the day that this is not cold, hard truth that you are giving me and therefore cannot be seriously considered. Your theory makes the whole conspiracy possible, but not probable or proven.
If that truly is the case, then we currently end in a stalemate over the shape of the Earth. To be fair, if you're actually able to concede a lack of absolute knowledge either way, you've made it further than most globularists, and on that point I congratulate you to the furthest extent that I can.
I'd like to make it clear that I've made no "wild theory". Almost all of my major claims about the organizations involved in the "Satellite" deception are backed by real and currently verifiable claims. The bodies to whom NASA accredits a great deal of their spending cannot be reliably vouched for in the face of legitimate evidence, and their audits can, on their own, and when one does not consider the legitimacy of the groups whom they have subcontracted or paid-off, appear reasonably fiscally "above-board".
Since I refuse to accept the legitimacy of such groups, I remain firmly of the opinion that agents of NASA have not travelled in space.
-
it does not matter if the auditors understand the science they just need to see that x smount of dollars was paid to so and so for these parts and this was the payroll and they spent this muck on fuel ect. from there it is a simple matter to find missing money
Exactly! So if Scaled Composites, the Masters of Space, and other organizations not subject to the same auditing are listed as having been paid x amount of USD, who is going to care? We've established that a large number of NASA's direct sub-contractors and "unaffiliated" associate groups may have deeper Conspiracy involvement. If NASA is able to list these seemingly legitimate organizations in their breakdown of "expenditures", who's going to care?
I met a NASA contractor. Your statement is WRONG.
-
I met a NASA contractor. Your statement is WRONG.
Get banned.
-
I met a NASA contractor. Your statement is WRONG.
Get banned.
That would be the only possible way for me to stop owning the FET.
I started a thread after I met him. He indeed knew a great deal about physics, being a physicist and all. The company he works for built parts for NASA.
-
Tom I don't understand the logic behind your statement. Why would he need to be banned for that. From what I've seen from a lot of you posts, they seem to be nonsensical lashing outs.
Dogplatter, could you please provide me with some of this information that you have on these groups and NASA. In all seriousness, I would like to read it.
-
The only real reason we would end in a stalemate is that I have realized that you are willing to listen to and create your own conspiracy theories than listen to proven fact. Yes, anything in the world can be argued as possible if we all create conspiracy theories. I could argue that the sky is red or that two plus two doesn't equal four with conspiracies. Everyone has the right to believe or create what they want. I don't think that the problem with FET is the science, but the instability of the whole conspiracy theory deal. I think you need to take a heavy dose of Occam's Razor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_Razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_Razor).
Sorry for the bluntness, but it just seems pointless to continue in the circumstances. No one here has given me solid proof of you current motive of avarice, or put forth another more plausible motive. I welcome it, so please do!
-
Because this "supposed underground crime ring" (aka NASA) is receiving money from "above ground" or uncorrupted sources (tax money, unsuspecting politicians) that require that the money be tracked and accounted for. Money laundering is done with money already underground (i.e. from illegal sources), and these sources don't require accounting.
And what is this $26 billion that you are referring to?
What irony. The point is it is much easier to "launder" money if you are the government. Which is exactly why they can "lose" $26 Billion and you will only ask, "And what is this $26 billion that you are referring to?"
-
Kudos narcberry, you got me there.
-
Just for reference, here's a summary with some links in another thread about the 50th Space Wing: Masters of Space, Scaled Composites, The Star Alliance and other elements of the aerospace wing of the Conspiracy - http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=21870.msg440477#msg440477
Here's a news article dealing with the government finding out that a GlobCon company swindled them out of over 100 million USD - http://www.phillipsandcohen.com/CM/NewsSettlements/Northrop_Jun_9_2003.asp
Northrop Grumman has agreed to pay $111.2 million to the federal government to settle a whistleblower lawsuit alleging that TRW Inc., which it recently acquired, padded bills submitted to the government under space and technology contracts.
Just the tip of the iceberg. If only they knew the true horrors of the Conspiracy, but they don't (N.B - there are obviously plenty of Conspiracy moles in the US government, but the "above board" parts may actually be completely innocent).
-
Just for reference, here's a summary with some links in another thread about the 50th Space Wing: Masters of Space, Scaled Composites, The Star Alliance and other elements of the aerospace wing of the Conspiracy - http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=21870.msg440477#msg440477
Here's a news article dealing with the government finding out that a GlobCon company swindled them out of over 100 million USD - http://www.phillipsandcohen.com/CM/NewsSettlements/Northrop_Jun_9_2003.asp
Northrop Grumman has agreed to pay $111.2 million to the federal government to settle a whistleblower lawsuit alleging that TRW Inc., which it recently acquired, padded bills submitted to the government under space and technology contracts.
Just the tip of the iceberg. If only they knew the true horrors of the Conspiracy, but they don't (N.B - there are obviously plenty of Conspiracy moles in the US government, but the "above board" parts may actually be completely innocent).
lol. So the conspiracy swindled itself out of money? After all, they are all in on it, governmnet and governmnet contractors.
-
Regarding the 50th Space Wing: Again, you are taking fact (that this military (and civilian I might add) unit does exist) and adding your own theory to it. It is mere speculation, nothing more. There is no substantial evidence from what you showed me to assume that there is something amiss.
The whole $111.2 million deal does, of course, work in your favor. Sadly, corruption and abuse of funds occurs in many corporations and government entities. But every case of corruption does not mean that your conspiracy theory works. Jumping to conclusions can lead to a discovery of fact, but is not fact itself. In fact in this case these people were caught, most likely by auditors or someone snooping around. So it is indeed possible to catch these people, even though an auditor might not understand the technology, which is the point I have been trying to make all along.
-
It's fairly easy to move money. My brother-in-law owns a hardware store, and a college friend owns a radio shack franchise. How much do you think I can inflate my prices to my customer by buying products from my friends at huge markup? How much do you think my friends are willing to throw my way in various other deals or under the table for making them money?
NASA works the same way.
-
Thank you, Ski. That is a valid point and most important, it is logical and possible.
Assuming the conspiracy is correct, let's say the situation is this: NASA contracts out Company X to make a rocket part. They convince Company X to charge them an exorbitant price, well over the normal; and then feed them back half of the amount they charged over for the head guys' pocket. This way Company X need not know of the conspiracy, simply that they are part of a fraud scheme. I believe this is the point you wished to make?
The problem with this is much the same: Company X will mysteriously lose a large chunk of money from an already suscipciously high sale (note, the company will understand the technology behind the sale. They know their own technology). These are the things auditors (Company X's auditors) and anti-money laundering investigators look for, especially if it throws up the red flags a fifty year fraud and laundering partnership like this would. When money goes from anywhere inside the company to a personal or unidentified account (unless authorized), it causes people to get suspicious.
-
Thank you, Ski. That is a valid point and most important, it is logical and possible.
Assuming the conspiracy is correct, let's say the situation is this: NASA contracts out Company X to make a rocket part. They convince Company X to charge them an exorbitant price, well over the normal; and then feed them back half of the amount they charged over for the head guys' pocket. This way Company X need not know of the conspiracy, simply that they are part of a fraud scheme. I believe this is the point you wished to make?
The problem with this is much the same: Company X will mysteriously lose a large chunk of money from an already suscipciously high sale (note, the company will understand the technology behind the sale. They know their own technology). These are the things auditors (Company X's auditors) and anti-money laundering investigators look for, especially if it throws up the red flags a fifty year fraud and laundering partnership like this would. When money goes from anywhere inside the company to a personal or unidentified account (unless authorized), it causes people to get suspicious.
That sort of makes sense, but would imply that Company X are actually making technologies capable of travelling in space, which, let's face it, they aren't. For stuff like nuts, bolts, paint and so on, yeah this model would work fine, but I think the really big money is in products which don't even do anything - like satellites.
-
Thank you, Ski. That is a valid point and most important, it is logical and possible.
Assuming the conspiracy is correct, let's say the situation is this: NASA contracts out Company X to make a rocket part. They convince Company X to charge them an exorbitant price, well over the normal; and then feed them back half of the amount they charged over for the head guys' pocket. This way Company X need not know of the conspiracy, simply that they are part of a fraud scheme. I believe this is the point you wished to make?
The problem with this is much the same: Company X will mysteriously lose a large chunk of money from an already suscipciously high sale (note, the company will understand the technology behind the sale. They know their own technology). These are the things auditors (Company X's auditors) and anti-money laundering investigators look for, especially if it throws up the red flags a fifty year fraud and laundering partnership like this would. When money goes from anywhere inside the company to a personal or unidentified account (unless authorized), it causes people to get suspicious.
That sort of makes sense, but would imply that Company X are actually making technologies capable of travelling in space, which, let's face it, they aren't. For stuff like nuts, bolts, paint and so on, yeah this model would work fine, but I think the really big money is in products which don't even do anything - like satellites.
Now I am not trying to derail the topic here but why can these objects not go into space? at what altitude will the UA affect the satellite and keep it up and why would it be impossible for us to get there I mean it must be less that 3000 miles away
-
Now I am not trying to derail the topic here but why can these objects not go into space? at what altitude will the UA affect the satellite and keep it up and why would it be impossible for us to get there I mean it must be less that 3000 miles away
Oh no, you're misunderstanding my conception of the UA. The UA acts as a surface, it's like a cosmic tabletop. It doesn't "affect" anything that's not touching it, just as a tabletop doesn't either. The point is that when an object leaves the atmolayer, it is no longer within the Earth's UA frame of reference, so the Earth would immediately rise to meet it again unless it could maintain an acceleration better than that of the Earth, as well as a speed greater than the hypothetical speed of the Earth (Earth has no discretely measurable speed) - impossible. In practice, this phenomenon would basically act as a ceiling on how high an object can travel - in much the same way that a submarine can't go above sea-level, a craft couldn't go above atmolayer-level.
-
Maybe the people involved in the space program are passionate people sincerely interested in advancing man kind and helping us understand the universe whatever shape it may be. Currently all the evidence they have points to a round earth, they are not trying to deceive us.
I agree with the original poster that there is not sufficient motivation for this conspiracy. I also agree that monetarily the cost would be enormous. Besides, most people are not good at keeping secrets. Also, besides just the government, there are a lot of private companies that run their daily operations off of satellites. Direct TV anyone? The more you think about it, the more massive the conspiracy becomes.
-
Now I am not trying to derail the topic here but why can these objects not go into space? at what altitude will the UA affect the satellite and keep it up and why would it be impossible for us to get there I mean it must be less that 3000 miles away
Oh no, you're misunderstanding my conception of the UA. The UA acts as a surface, it's like a cosmic tabletop. It doesn't "affect" anything that's not touching it, just as a tabletop doesn't either. The point is that when an object leaves the atmolayer, it is no longer within the Earth's UA frame of reference, so the Earth would immediately rise to meet it again unless it could maintain an acceleration better than that of the Earth, as well as a speed greater than the hypothetical speed of the Earth (Earth has no discretely measurable speed) - impossible. In practice, this phenomenon would basically act as a ceiling on how high an object can travel - in much the same way that a submarine can't go above sea-level, a craft couldn't go above atmolayer-level.
started a new topic as to not derail this one
-
I agree with the original poster that there is not sufficient motivation for this conspiracy. I also agree that monetarily the cost would be enormous.
The projected budget of NASA alone for 2009 is 20.2 Billion US dollars. That's right, 20200000000000 dollars. For one year.
Besides, most people are not good at keeping secrets. Also, besides just the government, there are a lot of private companies that run their daily operations off of satellites. Direct TV anyone? The more you think about it, the more massive the conspiracy becomes.
There certainly are private companies involved in the space deception. Not all of the Conspiracy is government, and certainly not all aspects of government are in on the Conspiracy. Not even most.
-
From this thread I have concluded that it is upon this point of motive for a conspiracy that the FET falls apart. I have seen no stable arugements. You reject common sense and probability and in their place put wild assumptions and infinite, fantastical (yet "possible") situations. I repeat, consider applying Occam's Razor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor). Common sense is a gift we all have. Victor Hugo said "Common sense is in spite of, not as the result of education." This is an innate power we all have, no matter our education.
If you do not adhere to the above, there is no real point in discussion. We are at odds, and none will be able to convince the other.
-
From this thread I have concluded that it is upon this point of motive for a conspiracy that the FET falls apart. I have seen no stable arugements. You reject common sense and probability and in their place put wild assumptions and infinite, fantastical (yet "possible") situations. I repeat, consider applying Occam's Razor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor). Common sense is a gift we all have. Victor Hugo said "Common sense is in spite of, not as the result of education." This is an innate power we all have, no matter our education.
If you do not adhere to the above, there is no real point in discussion. We are at odds, and none will be able to convince the other.
Occam's Razor suggests that one should make as few unnecessary assumptions as possible. I don't feel that assuming that there's a Conspiracy because the Earth is flat yet people say it is round is "unnecessary".
How are billions of dollars not a perfectly reasonable motive for anyone to do anything? People rob banks for mere thousands.
-
Furthermore, I think the position of 'auditors' has been presented as something unbeatable. They are accountants, nothing more, and the fact is that all you need to fool an accountant is a better accountant. Couple that with the scope and depth of the technology researched and developed by NASA, and you have something which is beyond the grasp of almost any accountant.
-
The projected budget of NASA alone for 2009 is 20.2 Billion US dollars. That's right, 20200000000000 dollars. For one year.
I couldn't help but point out that you added three extra zeros in that figure. $20,200,000,000,000 is a lot more than the government allocates each year for everything.
How are billions of dollars not a perfectly reasonable motive for anyone to do anything? People rob banks for mere thousands.
To me, at some point, the money would become worthless. That is my view.
-
The projected budget of NASA alone for 2009 is 20.2 Billion US dollars. That's right, 20200000000000 dollars. For one year.
I couldn't help but point out that you added three extra zeros in that figure. $20,200,000,000,000 is a lot more than the government allocates each year for everything.
Check me if I'm wrong, but a British billion is a million million where an American billion is a thousand million.
-
The projected budget of NASA alone for 2009 is 20.2 Billion US dollars. That's right, 20200000000000 dollars. For one year.
I couldn't help but point out that you added three extra zeros in that figure. $20,200,000,000,000 is a lot more than the government allocates each year for everything.
Check me if I'm wrong, but a British billion is a million million where an American billion is a thousand million.
I think you're right. But this is NASA we are talking about...
-
The projected budget of NASA alone for 2009 is 20.2 Billion US dollars. That's right, 20200000000000 dollars. For one year.
I couldn't help but point out that you added three extra zeros in that figure. $20,200,000,000,000 is a lot more than the government allocates each year for everything.
Check me if I'm wrong, but a British billion is a million million where an American billion is a thousand million.
I think you're right. But this is NASA we are talking about...
But Dogplatter is from England and he may have confused US and British numbering systems.
-
I think you're right. But this is NASA we are talking about...
I looked it up, he is. But yeah, you can't use a million million when talking about the Dollar.
This is funny though, dogplatter bases his conspiracy on false information. Although its nice to see him think America is richer than it really is.
-
I don't think it's fair to attack him like that based on a little misunderstanding. What if they did that to you?
-
I don't think it's fair to attack him like that based on a little misunderstanding. What if they did that to you?
Its kind of a big mistake,well, three orders of magnitude.(10^3)
-
I don't think it's fair to attack him like that based on a little misunderstanding. What if they did that to you?
Its kind of a big mistake,well, three orders of magnitude.(10^3)
Bah, what's a few decimal places among friends?
To be fair to Username, his source likely used the word billion rather than typing out all of the zeros.
-
I don't think it's fair to attack him like that based on a little misunderstanding. What if they did that to you?
Its kind of a big mistake,well, three orders of magnitude.(10^3)
Yes, but he did give the correct figure in the same post. He's still talking about the same number, he just represented it incorrectlly in numerals.
-
(gets back on topic) During the cold war, the US spent trillions on missiles and spies. But why would they do this if russia is as friendly as the faq says they are?
-
Why can't any FE'ers get a job in any of these fields, and show us the conspiracy from the inside?
I mean I'm sure if you applied for a job at NASA, and you had only FE knowledge, you'd get laughed out the door, so you'd have to get a degree in astrophysics or whatever, play the game so to speak, but after that you're golden. Then you can get an inside job and blow the whole thing wide open.
So why not? Are they unintelligent? Lack motivation? Don't really believe their own bullshit? Are they all armchair philosophers with some sob story that's keeping them from getting a higher education, and putting it towards their grand cause? Do they feel that they would be corrupted by the big money too?
Bottom line, if there's no one here at TFES with a higher education in physics, astrophysics, and aeronautics, you really have no grounds to promote the wild ass theories proposed. And if you did have these kinds of people, they're wasting their time posting here.
-
Bottom line, if there's no one here at TFES with a higher education in physics, astrophysics, and aeronautics, you really have no grounds to promote the wild ass theories proposed.
So no-one's allowed to post on the internet unless they have a degree or diploma certifying them in the field they wish to post about? That doesn't seem very fair. I would suggest a better system would be for those that get upset by something they are reading on the internet, to simply stop reading it.
-
Bottom line, if there's no one here at TFES with a higher education in physics, astrophysics, and aeronautics, you really have no grounds to promote the wild ass theories proposed.
So no-one's allowed to post on the internet unless they have a degree or diploma certifying them in the field they wish to post about? That doesn't seem very fair. I would suggest a better system would be for those that get upset by something they are reading on the internet, to simply stop reading it.
As you could have, but you chose not only to read it, but to respond to it as well. People with no education in physics, astrophysics, and aeronautics can post their own theories about how they "really" work all they want, but that doesn't mean I have to believe a word of it, or take their opinions as fact when debating them... I feel the need for a burden of proof to be met as much as they do. If their theories do not meet that burden I will disregard them.
-
Yes, I read and responded, but I'm not upset. Whereas you clearly seem to be. So why keep frequenting this forum?
-
Yes, I read and responded, but I'm not upset. Whereas you clearly seem to be. So why keep frequenting this forum?
Because I love a good argument, and I don't let concern trolls like you ruin it for me.
And it sounds to me like you're upset. Don't like me posting in your forum with my pesky questions? It doesn't matter to me anyway, because as far as I know you haven't responded to even one of them, and if you have, it was probably something retarded, and I disregarded it.
-
Bottom line, if there's no one here at TFES with a higher education in physics, astrophysics, and aeronautics, you really have no grounds to promote the wild ass theories proposed.
This is almost sig-worthy it is so hilarious.
-
I really don't think it could top the 2 you already have...
-
I agree, hence the "almost."
-
Are you done laring each other? Can we get back on topic?
I'm sure some of you are qualified astro-physicists and the like. And I can't help noticing you haven't answered the question.
-
During the cold war, the US spent trillions on missiles and spies. But why would they do this if russia is as friendly as the faq says they are?
The FAQ is misleading, so far in as it is not the governments as the whole that are in on the conspiracy and "friendly," but simply the space agencies. The governments could be at war, or on rough terms, and go ahead and spend money on missiles and spies; that says nothing of the space agencies and their efforts.
-
During the cold war, the US spent trillions on missiles and spies. But why would they do this if russia is as friendly as the faq says they are?
Because the facade that the governments don't like each other still has to be maintained.
-
dvito just said the goverment isnt in on this. anyway, if they spent that much they eliminate any profit margins left.
-
Where does the money go? Into certain "in the know" individuals pockets or is it used on things that the government fills it needs to hide?
I find it really hard to believe that the governments of the world would use space travel and a round earth theory to hide money laundering. I mean we used the fact that one poster here could do so with his brother-in-laws business. The government had to resort to outer space?
-
Where does the money go?
NASA makes their request for a budget amount, complete with justifications and such to Congress. Congress looks it over and approves or attempts to amend based on their decisions. The resulting money from the budget is used to fake the subsequent missions and plans they had submitted to Congress, and given that it costs much less to fake it than actually produce the real results, the higher-ups can profit the difference.
-
Where does the money go?
NASA makes their request for a budget amount, complete with justifications and such to Congress. Congress looks it over and approves or attempts to amend based on their decisions. The resulting money from the budget is used to fake the subsequent missions and plans they had submitted to Congress, and given that it costs much less to fake it than actually produce the real results, the higher-ups can profit the difference.
Yes, that's exactly what happens.
-
NASA makes their request for a budget amount, complete with justifications and such to Congress. Congress looks it over and approves or attempts to amend based on their decisions. The resulting money from the budget is used to fake the subsequent missions and plans they had submitted to Congress, and given that it costs much less to fake it than actually produce the real results, the higher-ups can profit the difference.
Who are these "higher ups" who know that the earth is flat? And again, don't you think there would be an easier way to launder the money? And what profit goes to other countries governments that know the earth is flat but keep it secret also? Is some of our money going to other countries as "hush money"?
-
Who are these "higher ups" who know that the earth is flat?
Original members and successors from the creation of NASA.
And again, don't you think there would be an easier way to launder the money?
Perhaps; but taking into account history, I'm guessing it was a conspiracy from impulse.
And what profit goes to other countries governments that know the earth is flat but keep it secret also? Is some of our money going to other countries as "hush money"?
The other space agencies receive their own governmental funding.
-
I repeat: can someone answer my post? It takes more than space agencies to cover things up.
-
What post do you want answered?
It takes more than space agencies to cover things up.
It's more probable that there are other elements, but it's not completely necessary.
-
What post do you want answered?
It takes more than space agencies to cover things up.
It's more probable that there are other elements, but it's not completely necessary.
Anyone who doesn't believe that the earth is flat is in on the conspiracy.
-
And what profit goes to other countries governments that know the earth is flat but keep it secret also? Is some of our money going to other countries as "hush money"?
The other space agencies receive their own governmental funding.
Why would countries with dictatorships need to hide spending?
-
I don't get how people can call it a Governmental Conspiracy, when the Round Earth Theory has existed long before the space race, the Americas or anything of this magnitude could happen.
-
I don't get how people can call it a Governmental Conspiracy, when the Round Earth Theory has existed long before the space race, the Americas or anything of this magnitude could happen.
You don't think it might be a self-fulfilling prophecy for the intellectually challenged then?
-
Why would countries with dictatorships need to hide spending?
Why are they hiding spending?
I don't get how people can call it a Governmental Conspiracy, when the Round Earth Theory has existed long before the space race, the Americas or anything of this magnitude could happen.
The idea of a spherical Earth was based on weak inference. It was "confirmed" thanks to the space race.
-
I don't get how people can call it a Governmental Conspiracy, when the Round Earth Theory has existed long before the space race, the Americas or anything of this magnitude could happen.
Money has existed for a long time as well, noob.
-
Why would countries with dictatorships need to hide spending?
Why are they hiding spending?
::) Well I walked right into that topic switch didn't I? My bad.
Why would a dictatorship need to "pretend" to spend money on a "space program" just to put it back in their own pockets when they could openly do so?
-
I don't get how people can call it a Governmental Conspiracy, when the Round Earth Theory has existed long before the space race, the Americas or anything of this magnitude could happen.
Money has existed for a long time as well, noob.
Then how do you propose that people would earn money by convincing others that Earth is spherical?
-
Why would a dictatorship need to "pretend" to spend money on a "space program" just to put it back in their own pockets when they could openly do so?
They aren't pretending. They are being swindled by the space agencies.
-
I don't get how people can call it a Governmental Conspiracy, when the Round Earth Theory has existed long before the space race, the Americas or anything of this magnitude could happen.
Money has existed for a long time as well, noob.
Then how do you propose that people would earn money by convincing others that Earth is spherical?
Conspiracy noob, see FAQ.
-
Why would a dictatorship need to "pretend" to spend money on a "space program" just to put it back in their own pockets when they could openly do so?
They aren't pretending. They are being swindled by the space agencies.
You believe that in governments that are ruled by the gun, a person would be daring enough to try and fool a government where they could be shot on the spot for such a thing? And do you think these types of governments would allow these space agencies to just run around free doing whatever they wanted, free spirited experimentation-with the occassional check in by the government just to see how they're doing?
That may be the craziest thing I've ever read on this site. ;D
-
That may be the craziest thing I've ever read on this site.
And that's up against some extremely stiff competition!
-
I don't get how people can call it a Governmental Conspiracy, when the Round Earth Theory has existed long before the space race, the Americas or anything of this magnitude could happen.
Money has existed for a long time as well, noob.
Then how do you propose that people would earn money by convincing others that Earth is spherical?
Conspiracy noob, see FAQ.
I did. It tells me nothing, only that the government would "lose" money.
But it doesn't explain how the government would INTRODUCE the concept, and earn money from it.
-
I don't get how people can call it a Governmental Conspiracy, when the Round Earth Theory has existed long before the space race, the Americas or anything of this magnitude could happen.
Money has existed for a long time as well, noob.
Then how do you propose that people would earn money by convincing others that Earth is spherical?
Conspiracy noob, see FAQ.
I did. It tells me nothing, only that the government would "lose" money.
But it doesn't explain how the government would INTRODUCE the concept, and earn money from it.
It's part of the conspiracy to make you think that.
-
You believe that in governments that are ruled by the gun, a person would be daring enough to try and fool a government where they could be shot on the spot for such a thing? And do you think these types of governments would allow these space agencies to just run around free doing whatever they wanted, free spirited experimentation-with the occassional check in by the government just to see how they're doing?
Well, unless dictators (or any other government for that matter) are somehow smarter in relation to space, physics, engineering, etc... than the people in charge of the space agencies of the country, I imagine it's fairly simple to fool them. If they can't discern fact from fiction, how do you propose they'd be shot on the spot?
-
I don't get how people can call it a Governmental Conspiracy, when the Round Earth Theory has existed long before the space race, the Americas or anything of this magnitude could happen.
Money has existed for a long time as well, noob.
Then how do you propose that people would earn money by convincing others that Earth is spherical?
Conspiracy noob, see FAQ.
I did. It tells me nothing, only that the government would "lose" money.
But it doesn't explain how the government would INTRODUCE the concept, and earn money from it.
It's part of the conspiracy to make you think that.
My question remains unanswered.
-
But it doesn't explain how the government would INTRODUCE the concept, and earn money from it.
Well, intially NASA is launched under the assumption of the spherical Earth. After initial funding and missions, experiments etc... they discover it is not spherical. They devise a plan:
NASA makes their request for a budget amount, complete with justifications and such to Congress. Congress looks it over and approves or attempts to amend based on their decisions. The resulting money from the budget is used to fake the subsequent missions and plans they had submitted to Congress, and given that it costs much less to fake it than actually produce the real results, the higher-ups can profit the difference.
-
Well, unless dictators (or any other government for that matter) are somehow smarter in relation to space, physics, engineering, etc... than the people in charge of the space agencies of the country, I imagine it's fairly simple to fool them. If they can't discern fact from fiction, how do you propose they'd be shot on the spot?
In a dictatorship scientist and researchers are not given the freedoms they enjoy in other countries. They work for the government and the government alone. They are not given money to spend, instead ask for what they need and are provided with it. There's no such thing as an audit. You produce results or are replaced. No "smart" individual in that type of enviroment is going to be able to con such a government out of billions(or even millions) of dollars.
-
In a dictatorship scientist and researchers are not given the freedoms they enjoy in other countries. They work for the government and the government alone. They are not given money to spend, instead ask for what they need and are provided with it. There's no such thing as an audit. You produce results or are replaced. No "smart" individual in that type of enviroment is going to be able to con such a government out of billions(or even millions) of dollars.
Ok, how many dictatorships have space agencies in the world?
-
Well, intially NASA is launched under the assumption of the spherical Earth. After initial funding and missions, experiments etc... they discover it is not spherical. They devise a plan:
Quote from: divito the truthist on Today at 12:23:07 PM
NASA makes their request for a budget amount, complete with justifications and such to Congress. Congress looks it over and approves or attempts to amend based on their decisions. The resulting money from the budget is used to fake the subsequent missions and plans they had submitted to Congress, and given that it costs much less to fake it than actually produce the real results, the higher-ups can profit the difference.
So wait...NASA discovers the Earth is not spherical..What about the Russian and Sputnik? (just asking out of interest)
-
Well, intially NASA is launched under the assumption of the spherical Earth. After initial funding and missions, experiments etc... they discover it is not spherical. They devise a plan:
Quote from: divito the truthist on Today at 12:23:07 PM
NASA makes their request for a budget amount, complete with justifications and such to Congress. Congress looks it over and approves or attempts to amend based on their decisions. The resulting money from the budget is used to fake the subsequent missions and plans they had submitted to Congress, and given that it costs much less to fake it than actually produce the real results, the higher-ups can profit the difference.
So wait...NASA discovers the Earth is not spherical..What about the Russian and Sputnik? (just asking out of interest)
Aha, but NASA didn't discover it, columbus did. NASA simply deal with the conspiracy in the current era. The fact that NASA is American and not global is not significant - after all when did annoying things like fact get in the way of FET?
And let's not forget that most Americans believe the world to be 50 states!
-
In a dictatorship scientist and researchers are not given the freedoms they enjoy in other countries. They work for the government and the government alone. They are not given money to spend, instead ask for what they need and are provided with it. There's no such thing as an audit. You produce results or are replaced. No "smart" individual in that type of enviroment is going to be able to con such a government out of billions(or even millions) of dollars.
Ok, how many dictatorships have space agencies in the world?
Sorry. Just got home. Let's just deal with China and Russia for now.
-
In a dictatorship scientist and researchers are not given the freedoms they enjoy in other countries. They work for the government and the government alone. They are not given money to spend, instead ask for what they need and are provided with it. There's no such thing as an audit. You produce results or are replaced. No "smart" individual in that type of enviroment is going to be able to con such a government out of billions(or even millions) of dollars.
Ok, how many dictatorships have space agencies in the world?
Sorry. Just got home. Let's just deal with China and Russia for now.
Don't forget the USA
-
Well, intially NASA is launched under the assumption of the spherical Earth. After initial funding and missions, experiments etc... they discover it is not spherical...
NASA was created after the launch of Sputnik. The fact that any American with a shortwave radio was able to listen to the signal from Sputnik as it passed overhead was evidence that there was really something there. There was also the fact that people could observe the satellite passing overhead.
The chronology of the conspiracy has some problems it appears.
-
Yes, I read and responded, but I'm not upset. Whereas you clearly seem to be. So why keep frequenting this forum?
Because I love a good argument, and I don't let concern trolls like you ruin it for me.
And it sounds to me like you're upset. Don't like me posting in your forum with my pesky questions? It doesn't matter to me anyway, because as far as I know you haven't responded to even one of them, and if you have, it was probably something retarded, and I disregarded it.
Are you getting a good argument here? And I'm certainly not trying to ruin anything for you? My question stems from my past experience that indicates many people seem to come here with a burning desire to prove others wrong. Your assertion that only "qualified" people be allowed to argue the point seemed to back that up. Assuming I probably said "something retarded" is also the words of someone who is not actually looking for a debate, but keen to show how "superior" he is.
What words have I used that would indicate I am upset?
And this isn't my forum. Like most people here I am just a visitor.
For the record my first post in response to one of yours was to congratulate you on the tremendous 3D models you created and ask you what program you use.
-
I'll start again.
A: People keep insisting the goverment isn't in on this, yet they are silencing people. Explain.
B: Far more people would need to know. Ice wall guards (and suppliers, and maintenance, etc) the teams of people required to fake video well, people who secretly install fish-eye lenses, anyone who has been in space, people who made the stratellites (and put them up in the sky, and give them maintenance (by the way: how do the stratellites propel themselves so fast and for so long?), and refuel them (which no one has ever seen) and design cunning ways of fooling lasers, and red shift theorem, long-haul plane navigators, etc etc. How could NASA do that alone, and for just 10 billion pounds? We need ten times more than that just to build a windfarm!
C:Why don't the NASA execututives live in complete luxury? They have an income in the billions (according to you) so why are they not spending it? If its just so no-one suspects them, whats the point doing it in the first place?
I will probably edit this post as I think of more.
-
Where does the money go?
NASA makes their request for a budget amount, complete with justifications and such to Congress. Congress looks it over and approves or attempts to amend based on their decisions. The resulting money from the budget is used to fake the subsequent missions and plans they had submitted to Congress, and given that it costs much less to fake it than actually produce the real results, the higher-ups can profit the difference.
Financial auditors are going to look at invoices, they are not going to take the word of NASA that they spent the money on this and that. For example, rocket fuel costs, power requirements, etc. Auditors will account for everything.
In addition, though several different contractors may make different parts for a rocket, NASA does not construct the rocket, it is designed by a contractor, who subcontracts for additional parts and labor.
I happen to work for a govt. agency, not NASA. I am a network engineer, however I do not make the equipment used to run our network, it is provided by a vendor, who orders parts from other companies for parts such as circuit boards.
The F/22 raptor is made by Lockeed Martin, for example. http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/f22/
Also, to respond to posters saying that financial auditors do not know the technology, thereby they can be fooled, you are correct, but then you also have security auditors, infrastructure auditors, etc. They do look into the technology, and they do know what they are talking about.
If individuals at NASA are pocketing the rest of the money that they do not use, then how have all of them (over 50 years of NASA execs) evaded an IRS audit? Where would they put all those billions of dollars? Not the bank I hope.
-
I'll start again.
A: People keep insisting the goverment isn't in on this, yet they are silencing people. Explain.
People are using Government and NASA interchangeably. This is a mistake. It is NASAs conspiracy.
B: Far more people would need to know. Ice wall guards (and suppliers, and maintenance, etc) the teams of people required to fake video well, people who secretly install fish-eye lenses, anyone who has been in space, people who made the stratellites (and put them up in the sky, and give them maintenance (by the way: how do the stratellites propel themselves so fast and for so long?), and refuel them (which no one has ever seen) and design cunning ways of fooling lasers, and red shift theorem, long-haul plane navigators, etc etc. How could NASA do that alone, and for just 10 billion pounds? We need ten times more than that just to build a windfarm!
C:Why don't the NASA execututives live in complete luxury? They have an income in the billions (according to you) so why are they not spending it? If its just so no-one suspects them, whats the point doing it in the first place?
Obvioulsy NASA execs don't have billions of pounds at their disposal as they are using it to pay the people you listed in point B. Regarding that, I don't believe they would both guarding the Ice Wall. Seems a lot of expense for no real gain. The people required to fake video wouldn't necessarily be told the world was flat. I think "We need to get to the moon before the Russians, and all our rockets are exploding on take off. It'll be easier if we fake this stuff and make the deadline that President Kennedy set for us." would do the job.
-
Financial auditors are going to look at invoices, they are not going to take the word of NASA that they spent the money on this and that. For example, rocket fuel costs, power requirements, etc. Auditors will account for everything.
In addition, though several different contractors may make different parts for a rocket, NASA does not construct the rocket, it is designed by a contractor, who subcontracts for additional parts and labor.
I happen to work for a govt. agency, not NASA. I am a network engineer, however I do not make the equipment used to run our network, it is provided by a vendor, who orders parts from other companies for parts such as circuit boards.
The F/22 raptor is made by Lockeed Martin, for example. http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/f22/
Also, to respond to posters saying that financial auditors do not know the technology, thereby they can be fooled, you are correct, but then you also have security auditors, infrastructure auditors, etc. They do look into the technology, and they do know what they are talking about.
If individuals at NASA are pocketing the rest of the money that they do not use, then how have all of them (over 50 years of NASA execs) evaded an IRS audit? Where would they put all those billions of dollars? Not the bank I hope.
A lot of the organizational aspects of NASA are legitimate, and are paid accordingly. The technical aspects that are faked are run through NASA and government contractors. It is speculated by some people that these contractors are also within the conspiracy on some level; this allows for certain forgery characteristics within the audits. I also wonder how closely they are scrutinized during an audit being so close to the governmental agencies.
-
Can any Flat Earth'ers show any proof of corruption?
I know proof is a dirty word, but still, I just don't see it. If you could show me just one instance I might be more receptive.
-
Financial auditors are going to look at invoices, they are not going to take the word of NASA that they spent the money on this and that. For example, rocket fuel costs, power requirements, etc. Auditors will account for everything.
In addition, though several different contractors may make different parts for a rocket, NASA does not construct the rocket, it is designed by a contractor, who subcontracts for additional parts and labor.
I happen to work for a govt. agency, not NASA. I am a network engineer, however I do not make the equipment used to run our network, it is provided by a vendor, who orders parts from other companies for parts such as circuit boards.
The F/22 raptor is made by Lockeed Martin, for example. http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/f22/
Also, to respond to posters saying that financial auditors do not know the technology, thereby they can be fooled, you are correct, but then you also have security auditors, infrastructure auditors, etc. They do look into the technology, and they do know what they are talking about.
If individuals at NASA are pocketing the rest of the money that they do not use, then how have all of them (over 50 years of NASA execs) evaded an IRS audit? Where would they put all those billions of dollars? Not the bank I hope.
A lot of the organizational aspects of NASA are legitimate, and are paid accordingly. The technical aspects that are faked are run through NASA and government contractors. It is speculated by some people that these contractors are also within the conspiracy on some level; this allows for certain forgery characteristics within the audits. I also wonder how closely they are scrutinized during an audit being so close to the governmental agencies.
There are internal audits, and external audits. External audits would not be affiliated with NASA, and all government agencies are part of them. Of course, it all could be corrupt, I admit that it is absolutely impossible to prove OR disprove a conspiracy. However, it's fun to speculate.
How about my last set of questions? How would these execs hide all this extra money from the IRS, their family, friends, etc. Any comment?
-
Its easy to ascertain such costs. most of Nasa's materials are specially made by other companies. So an auditor could go to a large precision lens manufacturer and ask their price to build something along the lines of what you might find in hubble and do that for all of the most expensive parts ($100,000+) to see the entire materials cost.
-
How would these execs hide all this extra money from the IRS, their family, friends, etc. Any comment?
Can't really speculate on how intertwined they are with their family, but I imagine offshore accounts are a part of the equation.
-
Well, intially NASA is launched under the assumption of the spherical Earth. After initial funding and missions, experiments etc... they discover it is not spherical...
NASA was created after the launch of Sputnik. The fact that any American with a shortwave radio was able to listen to the signal from Sputnik as it passed overhead was evidence that there was really something there. There was also the fact that people could observe the satellite passing overhead.
The chronology of the conspiracy has some problems it appears.
and the problems with your timeline?
-
NASA was created after the launch of Sputnik. The fact that any American with a shortwave radio was able to listen to the signal from Sputnik as it passed overhead was evidence that there was really something there. There was also the fact that people could observe the satellite passing overhead.
Are you kidding? Sputnik was the size of a basket ball. No one could see it even if it really was in orbit.
-
People are using Government and NASA interchangeably. This is a mistake. It is NASAs conspiracy.
I beleive it's stated in the FAQ that it's a government conspiricy along with governments of other countries. NASA alone has not existed long enough to have been manning the ice walls and keeping explorers from discovering that the earth is flat.
quote]
Obvioulsy NASA execs don't have billions of pounds at their disposal as they are using it to pay the people you listed in point B. Regarding that, I don't believe they would both guarding the Ice Wall. Seems a lot of expense for no real gain. The people required to fake video wouldn't necessarily be told the world was flat. I think "We need to get to the moon before the Russians, and all our rockets are exploding on take off. It'll be easier if we fake this stuff and make the deadline that President Kennedy set for us." would do the job.
[/quote]
If NASA is spending all the money they're making off the lie just to support the lie then what is the point? I thought money was the motive. That would be like hiring a gang of thieves for 10,000 dollars and having them pull a heist to steal 10,000 dollars.
What then is NASA's motive for the lie?
-
How would these execs hide all this extra money from the IRS, their family, friends, etc. Any comment?
Can't really speculate on how intertwined they are with their family, but I imagine offshore accounts are a part of the equation.
Off shore accounts can still be traced. If you have ever been audited by the IRS, they will investigate that. Plus, when an individual gets a Top secret security clearance, they audit your whole life.
-
If NASA is spending all the money they're making off the lie just to support the lie then what is the point?
You think putting a satellite in space costs the same as faking it?
Off shore accounts can still be traced.
News to me.
-
You think putting a satellite in space costs the same as faking it?
No, fletch suggested that all the money beng made by faking the things NASA does goes on to pay for the expenses of guards and such aong the ice wall.
I then asked what would the motive be if not money.
-
It is especially true since 9/11. Here's an article about Swiss bank accounts. Read closely the part about Bank Secrecy about a third of the way down:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43349
U.S. Tax law states you must reveal all off shore accounts, unless you want to face tax evasion charges. Most top dogs in the executive branch will have to apply for a Top Secret, or at least a Secret clearance in the US Govt. These require intense investigations by a third party into every aspect of your life. They are not interested in hearing what your friends have to say about you, they are interested in hearing about the people who don't like you. Ex wives, girlfriends, etc. In addition, they also will investigate you finances, and who you owe money too. Im not saying that somebody couldn't keep certain things a secret, but eventually the secret gets out. Somebody always squeals, sometimes it happens sooner than later, and even the top brass of our govt. is not immune: IE: Watergate, Monica Lewinski (sp), Keating 5, area 51, illegal wiretapping, and Isreal's 100 nukes.
I am pretty confident that if the U.S. govt wants to find out about off shore accounts, they can.
-
If NASA is spending all the money they're making off the lie just to support the lie then what is the point? I thought money was the motive. That would be like hiring a gang of thieves for 10,000 dollars and having them pull a heist to steal 10,000 dollars.
What then is NASA's motive for the lie?
To keep themselves gainfully employed. If you are a pharmeceutical company, do you spend research dollars on eradicating a disease, or on treating the symptoms of the disease to ease the suffering of those afflicted with it. The former puts your company out of work, while the later generates income. If you discovered that space flight was impossible and therefore your government department would stop receiving the funds (or the vast majority of them) it would be in your best interest to keep that information to yourself.
-
But how can they be spending so much and still be gainfully employed? 10 billion pounds plus their salery is not enough to make a profit, as has already been discussed.
-
10 billion pounds includes their salary. For doing nothing. I would suggest what ever their salary is it would be all profit.
-
But the point is, they are spending the whole 10 billion maintaining the conspiracy.
-
Are you kidding? Sputnik was the size of a basket ball. No one could see it even if it really was in orbit.
That makes it probably the size of your "energy motes" that are perfectly visible at distances that are significantly greater.
-
But the point is, they are spending the whole 10 billion maintaining the conspiracy.
So?
-
So?
[/quote]
So, if you have to spend 10 Billion dollars in salaries, contracts to other conspirators, false spacecraft, maintenance of secret bases overseas (the shuttle has to go somewhere after all), and all of those other annoying costs associated with the maintenance of the conspiracy, there wouldn't be the money left over to make this profitable.
-
So?
So, if you have to spend 10 Billion dollars in salaries, contracts to other conspirators, false spacecraft, maintenance of secret bases overseas (the shuttle has to go somewhere after all), and all of those other annoying costs associated with the maintenance of the conspiracy, there wouldn't be the money left over to make this profitable.
10 billion pounds includes their salary. For doing nothing. I would suggest what ever their salary is it would be all profit.
-
10 billion pounds includes their salary. For doing nothing. I would suggest what ever their salary is it would be all profit.
So?
-
10 billion pounds includes their salary. For doing nothing. I would suggest what ever their salary is it would be all profit.
So?
Exactly.
-
Just out of curiosity, if the whole point of the conspiracy is money, then why have a public space program at all? Instead of broadcasting launches on live TV, wouldn't it be a whole lot easier and cheaper to do nothing and just say that the launch was from a secret, remote location for safety/security reasons? That's pretty much the way the Russians did it for a bunch of years.
-
The best part is all those kids that grow up wanting to be astronauts that eventually make it up through the ranks only to find out that it's all fake. Then of course they accept that and become part of the conspiricy because, "Hey, it pays a good salary". Never mind our dreams of space that drove us to get here. No way would any of them get angry and let everyone know about the conspiricy. Although I imagine NASA would have them killed if they seemed like they might leak. And fake NASA must be the absolute best place to work in the whole freakin world to not ever had a gisgruntled employee. And I guess they never fired anyone. I'll bet that lady that drove all that way in diapers to kill someone is scared to death to tell anyone about the conspiracy.
-
Just out of curiosity, if the whole point of the conspiracy is money, then why have a public space program at all? Instead of broadcasting launches on live TV, wouldn't it be a whole lot easier and cheaper to do nothing and just say that the launch was from a secret, remote location for safety/security reasons? That's pretty much the way the Russians did it for a bunch of years.
All launches (all) by NASA are televised? All research projects are televised?
-
Just out of curiosity, if the whole point of the conspiracy is money, then why have a public space program at all? Instead of broadcasting launches on live TV, wouldn't it be a whole lot easier and cheaper to do nothing and just say that the launch was from a secret, remote location for safety/security reasons? That's pretty much the way the Russians did it for a bunch of years.
All launches (all) by NASA are televised? All research projects are televised?
All of the manned launches are. I don't get NASA-TV, so I don't know how many unmanned launches are televised. And yes, certain key events from research projects are televised (first pictures from Mars, Titan, etc) from time to time. It just seems a bit strange that a "fake" space program would have such a large PR presence.
-
All of the manned launches are. I don't get NASA-TV, so I don't know how many unmanned launches are televised. And yes, certain key events from research projects are televised (first pictures from Mars, Titan, etc) from time to time. It just seems a bit strange that a "fake" space program would have such a large PR presence.
Well, lack of results and public interest would probably yield less for the annual budget. That's probably one of the few plausible reasons I see for it being public.
-
All of the manned launches are. I don't get NASA-TV, so I don't know how many unmanned launches are televised. And yes, certain key events from research projects are televised (first pictures from Mars, Titan, etc) from time to time. It just seems a bit strange that a "fake" space program would have such a large PR presence.
Well, lack of results and public interest would probably yield less for the annual budget. That's probably one of the few plausible reasons I see for it being public.
That doesn't stop military black budgets from being approved.
-
That doesn't stop military black budgets from being approved.
But those generally benefit the government in some way. In our case, the government is the one being swindled.
-
That doesn't stop military black budgets from being approved.
But those generally benefit the government in some way. In our case, the government is the one being swindled.
And the government wouldn't notice that it's been swindled for the last 50 years or so? Can you say GAO?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Accountability_Office
People in the government may be incredibly stupid, but I really doubt that they are THAT stupid.
-
Over those 50 years, how many times do you think people are replaced? I imagine with their pensions and such, people don't stay very long in government positions. Having a new person every once in awhile makes it slightly easier for them to keep up the cover. But overall, I agree that it's unlikely.
-
Over those 50 years, how many times do you think people are replaced? I imagine with their pensions and such, people don't stay very long in government positions. Having a new person every once in awhile makes it slightly easier for them to keep up the cover. But overall, I agree that it's unlikely.
Have you ever worked for the government? Once you get into a civil service job, unless you do something really bad or really stupid, it's usually pretty hard to get fired (usually you'll get canned because of budget cuts before you get canned for incompetence). Why do you think that people stay in those jobs for 20 - 30 years or more? I wouldn't be surprised if there were more than a few Apollo era workers still at NASA.
-
I know it's this way in Canada, but people in governmental office jobs are retiring before any other sector. I don't see any glaring reasons why American would be at a different level.
-
10 billion pounds includes their salary. For doing nothing. I would suggest what ever their salary is it would be all profit.
So?
so, if they are spending more than 1 0 Bil they effectively have no salary. Making the conspiracy pointless.
-
10 billion pounds includes their salary. For doing nothing. I would suggest what ever their salary is it would be all profit.
So?
so, if they are spending more than 1 0 Bil they effectively have no salary. Making the conspiracy pointless.
You mean if the are spending more than they are given by the government and people aren't being paid? That wouldn't make any sense. Of course they are being paid.
-
You mean if the are spending more than they are given by the government and people aren't being paid? That wouldn't make any sense. Of course they are being paid.
That salary has to be significantly more than they would be receiving to do the same job elsewhere. Otherwise, why maintain the conspiracy?
-
That salary has to be significantly more than they would be receiving to do the same job elsewhere. Otherwise, why maintain the conspiracy?
Not everyone working for NASA needs to know the true shape of the earth, or be "in" on the fact that NASA is a fraudulent organization. The vast majority are just doing their job.
-
Not everyone working for NASA needs to know the true shape of the earth, or be "in" on the fact that NASA is a fraudulent organization. The vast majority are just doing their job.
There would still be a significant number of people within the organization that would need to know about the "true shape" of the Earth...
Support staff for manned missions that have to create the illusion of flight.
Support staff for hundreds of "stratellites."
Support staff for observatories around the world.
Support staff for particle accelerators and other "fake" science facilities.
Administrators of national space programs in foreign countries.
Scientific staff to create enough phony data to keep scientists worldwide busy.
Astronauts.
Movie crews to film the faked scenes and create special effects.
Management that gives direction to the people that create all of the fraudulent information.
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.
-
That salary has to be significantly more than they would be receiving to do the same job elsewhere.
Why?
-
Support staff for manned missions that have to create the illusion of flight.
These people would only need to be given Top Secret security clearance and let in on the fact that the certain NASA project they're working on is a fraud. If they talk then they know that the government will come down on them hard and send them to Guantanamo military prison for undisclosed state crimes.
Support staff for hundreds of "stratellites."
These people can just be led to believe that they're servicing regular military reconnaissance drones.
Support staff for observatories around the world.
Nope.
Support staff for particle accelerators and other "fake" science facilities.
Nope.
Administrators of national space programs in foreign countries.
The USA pretty much puts whoever they want into positions of power in foreign nations anyway.
Scientific staff to create enough phony data to keep scientists worldwide busy.
NASA hired some programmers to create "simulation data generators" for "testing purposes." Then NASA simply uses their tools with a few modifications to feed the data out into the real world as legit.
Astronauts.
All astronauts need to know is that they're doing a service to their country by perpetuating NASA's fraud. And if they talk, they know what can come down on them (in addition to knowing that no one would believe them and any News agency who published something about it would be purged by threatening government lawyers almost immediately).
Movie crews to film the faked scenes and create special effects.
The Movie crews would be given security clearance and led to believe that they're filming simulation data.
NASA already has huge dark movie sets for filming the Moon Mission simulations:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/GPN-2002-000032.jpg
Management that gives direction to the people that create all of the fraudulent information.
The management for most manufacturing divisions within NASA would only need to know that they need to build a certain part with a certain blueprint they were given. They have no knowledge of the full picture.
-
As we can see, almost no one at NASA would need to know that NASA was a hoax. The ones who do need to know it would already know the consequences of spilling the beans. And beyond that, of the people who do know about NASA's fraud, nearly none would need to know the true form of the earth.
-
These people would only need to be given Top Secret security clearance and let in on the fact that the certain NASA project they're working on is a fraud. If they talk then they know that the government will come down on them hard and send them to Guantanamo military prison for undisclosed state crimes.
But there are still hundreds of people that would be required to be given this clearance.
These people can just be led to believe that they're servicing regular military reconnaissance drones.
There is a difference between an unmanned drone which is fairly normal military technology and the stratellites that would be required to maintain the illusion of a worldwide satellite network. There is also the support staff for the commercial satellites that are in existence.
Nope.
So the astronomers that are making observations don't need to be involved? They aren't comparing information and discovering the gears? They aren't bouncing lasers off reflectors on the moon? They aren't making observations of nova, comets and other cosmological phenomenon.
Nope.
But when we were talking about particle accelerators, it has been said...
What about particle colliders? These things are built flat right? With the LHC does that mean we can't see the end because the light has curved up? By end I mean before it curves around. Apparently it is supposed to appear straight
These don't exist. They are part of the conspiracy. Imagine how much money people could make from funding intended to build a particle accelerator!
That would mean that there are a lot of people that would be working at a non-functioning facility that would have to be "in on the secret."
The USA pretty much puts whoever they want into positions of power in foreign nations anyway.
Because the US has so much influence in the internal politics of countries like Iran, China or France?
NASA hired some programmers to create "simulation data generators" for "testing purposes." Then NASA simply uses their tools with a few modifications to feed the data out into the real world as legit.
There still have to be the people that decide what theories that this "simulation" data is going to be feeding the world. It all has to have a consistent internal structure that maintains the illusion that you want to maintain. You have to have programmers that can update the "simulations" to maintain currency of the data, error checkers, people that distribute this information to the scientists, people to repress real world observations that contradict your world view.
Astronauts.
All astronauts need to know is that they're doing a service to their country by perpetuating NASA's fraud. And if they talk, they know what can come down on them (in addition to knowing that no one would believe them and any News agency who published something about it would be purged by threatening government lawyers almost immediately).
The Movie crews would be given security clearance and led to believe that they're filming simulation data.
and not notice when their precise production is shown on TV and then say something? China couldn't even have a little girl lip sync during the opening ceremonies without people noticing and commenting.
The management for most manufacturing divisions within NASA would only need to know that they need to build a certain part with a certain blueprint they were given. They have no knowledge of the full picture.
I am not talking just about manufacturing. There is are the pure sciences divisions, publicity, the fake pictures and movie production divisions, fake archives divisions, real archives division, etc.
-
What about particle colliders? These things are built flat right? With the LHC does that mean we can't see the end because the light has curved up? By end I mean before it curves around. Apparently it is supposed to appear straight
These don't exist. They are part of the conspiracy. Imagine how much money people could make from funding intended to build a particle accelerator!
That would mean that there are a lot of people that would be working at a non-functioning facility that would have to be "in on the secret."
Why? If there's never been a functioning one, how would they know the difference?
-
Why? If there's never been a functioning one, how would they know the difference?
We aren't talking tourists coming to visit a facility. We are talking about the people that designed and run the facility. They are sure to know the signs that it is running, and running correctly.
-
Why? If there's never been a functioning one, how would they know the difference?
We aren't talking tourists coming to visit a facility. We are talking about the people that designed and run the facility. They are sure to know the signs that it is running, and running correctly.
There only needs to be a few designers who actually know what they are looking at.
-
There only needs to be a few designers who actually know what they are looking at.
Except the people that work with that equipment or do the maintenance. As with most of our jobs, you can fool the people that "come to visit" but you can't "pull the wool over the eyes" of someone that is familiar with the operation.
-
Except the people that work with that equipment or do the maintenance. As with most of our jobs, you can fool the people that "come to visit" but you can't "pull the wool over the eyes" of someone that is familiar with the operation.
I don't agree. They can build it realistically enough to fool people, while still profiting from it.
-
I don't agree. They can build it realistically enough to fool people, while still profiting from it.
I don't think so. These are people that have spent their entire careers working with this equipment.
-
I don't think so. These are people that have spent their entire careers working with this equipment.
There are people who spend their lives in churches and monasteries without realising that God doesn't exist.
-
There are people who spend their lives in churches and monasteries without realising that God doesn't exist.
Can you prove that? I doubt it.
But it would also be difficult for you to come in and run a fake monastery that they would find completely believable.
-
Say the conspiracy is correct, and there are a select few at NASA who know the truth of the earth being flat, surely they would be so high up within NASAs ranks that they would already command a substantial salary which would entitle them a powerful, rich and lavish lifestyle.
If they were skimming the money to increase their own personal wealth it would be an exercise in futility, they wouldnt be able to justify spending it on anything without the proper authorities, including auditors, picking up on it.
So to come back to the OP, where is the motive?
-
When it comes to motive, what about crazy diaper lady? She fits the profile of someone with inside information, and nothing to lose.
"Her lawyer stated that she suffered from major depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, Asperger's syndrome, insomnia, and "brief psychotic disorder with marked stressors" at the time of the incident."
She doesn't seem very stable. Why didn't she spill the beans?
-
I don't think so. These are people that have spent their entire careers working with this equipment.
There are people who spend their lives in churches and monasteries without realising that God doesn't exist.
Unreasonable comparison. People who go to church don't go there seeking experimental data. They go and speak to themselves or the pastor/priest whatever.
I work in mining. If someone built a mineral processing plant that looked the goods and had computers telling me it was working, it would be very easy to determine if it was or wasn't and if it was just a prop.
Now I can't do that with a particle collider because I'm not a physicist or an electrical engineer or a software engineer.
The guys working on these particle colliders would know.