The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Trekky0623 on November 10, 2007, 04:25:54 PM

Title: New Revised Flat Earth FAQ!
Post by: Trekky0623 on November 10, 2007, 04:25:54 PM
Introduction:
Hello there!

Due to the increase in people referred to as "noobs" and "trolls", I've decided to create this FAQ so that we can avoid threads that have been posted before, and also to avoid stupid threads, such as "OMG, look @ da horizon!!!"  ::)

NOTE: I am a Round Earther, I'm just trying to inform noobs that this theory is not ridiculous.


FLAT EARTH FAQ

Part I: General

Q: OMG, do you guys actually believe the Earth is flat?

A: Very few do.  Most of us on this site debate.  You may debate if you wish but keep in mind that insults such as "You guys are idiots" are mostly directed at the Round Earthers since they make up the majority of this site.


Q: How did this site get started?

A: A person named Daniel stated this site as a place for serious discussion of the Flat Earth Theory.  However, he hardly ever shows up anymore.


Q: Is there really a Flat Earth Society?

A: Not really.  There used to be, but it fell apart a while ago.


Q: Who is Samuel Rowbotham?

A: Mr. Rowbotham wrote a book Entitled Earth Not A Globe (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/index.htm) and started the Flat Earth Society.  However, in March 2001, the last president of the Society died, and the Society has somewhat fallen apart.


Part II: Geography, Astronomy, and Physics

Q: What does the Flat Earth look like?

A: The Flat Earth is a disk, and looks somewhat like a polarized version of the Round Earth map.  It contains what is known as the "Ice Wall, which keeps the water in.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/79/Flat_earth.jpg)


Q: What are the dimensions of the Flat Earth?

A: The diameter is about 24900 mi (40072.56 km), and the circumference is about 78225 mi (125890.93 km).


Q: With my telescope, I can see that the other planets, sun, and moon are round.  What's up?

A: The other planets and celestial bodes are round, only the Earth is flat.  As for the sun and moon, there is some dispute about there shape, but we do believe that they are both about 32 mi in diameter and that the sun acts like a spotlight, revolving above the Earth and creating day and night.


Q: How far away are the other celestial bodies?

A: The sun and moon are each 3000 mi (4828.03 km) above the Earth, and the stars 3100 mi (4988.97 km) above the Earth.


Q: If the Earth is flat, how come it hasn't collapsed upon itself due to it's own gravity?

A: The Earth does not have a gravitational pull.  Instead, dark energy and dark matter push the Earth upward at an acceleration of 9.8 m/s2, thus simulating the effect of gravity.  This is referred to as the Universal Accelerator, or UA.  The UA also accelerates all other celestial bodies.


Q: Why hasn't the Earth reached the speed of light if it's accelerating?

A: Contrary to popular belief, acceleration is not linear.  In Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, there is an equation for adding vectors in the form of a recursive formula:

         v + w
u =              
    (1 + vw) ÷ c2


In which u is your velocity, v is you rate of acceleration, w is your previous velocity, and c is the speed of light.
And if you were to work it out, you would find that it would take forever to reach the speed of light.


Q: Is sustained space flight possible?

A: Well, though the original FAQ states that it is not possible, some Flat Earthers now believe that it is.  The gravitational pull of the stars and other celestial bodies balances out with the UA and thus allows spacecraft to float freely.

(http://img31.picoodle.com/img/img31/5/11/11/f_tempm_8e84c9b.png)


Q: What is underneath the Earth?

A: Though some may believe that the Earth is supported by four elephants and a tortoise, most Flat Earthers believe the Earth rests upon dark energy or matter.


Q: Why hasn't anyone discovered the ice wall?

A: They have.  It's Antarctica.


Q: Why does gravitational pull decrease as my height increases?

A: Because you are closer to the stars, which do have a gravitational pull.


Part III: Phenomenon

Q: How do tides happen?

A: As stated earlier, the other celestial bodies have a gravitational pull.  They pull on the water, causing it to bulge in some parts.


Q: If the Flat Earth is basically a polarized Round Earth map, wouldn't there be longer distances/distortions in the Southern Hemisphere?

A: Unknown.  There is not enough data to give an accurate answer.


Q: With a little bit of math, I can show that the sun should be at different angles than what is observed.  What's up?

A: The sun's light refracts as it enters the atmosphere and continues downward, thus causing light to be bent.  Also notice that in cold areas this effect will have a greater effect on the sunlight because the cold air is denser.  This also causes light to be bent in the way it is on the Equinoxes and Solstices.

(http://img31.picoodle.com/img/img31/5/11/11/f_tempm_2484cb5.png)


Q: How do sunrises/sunsets occur?

A: The sun gets to far away for the sunlight to reach us, also caused by the refraction as stated above.


Q: How come the sun doesn't get smaller as it moves farther away?

A: Unknown.  Possibly because of refraction and magnification through the atmosphere.


Q: What about the sinking ship effect?  On a Flat Earth, shouldn't they ship stay visible?

A: Unknown.  Possibly the laws of perspective are flawed, mostly the theory of the vanishing point.


Q: What about lunar/solar eclipses/phases?

A1: There is an unknown object known as the "Shadow Object" which passes in front of the moon/sun.
A2: The light from the sun that is reflected onto the moon is disrupted by objects on the surface of the Earth.


Q: How about Great Circle Routes in the Southern Hemisphere?  If the Flat Earth curves in the opposite direction as the Round Earth, they shouldn't work.

A1: Unknown.  Possibly pilots are misleading passengers.
A2: Unknown.  Possibly the planes are using jet streams, causing a shorter flight time.


Q: What about the Coriolis Effect on storms?

A: This is caused by "gears" caused by the heat from the sun, detains unknown.


Q: What about Foucault Pendulums?

A: Unknown.  Possibly caused by human error when starting the pendulum, or it is done on purpose.


Q: How come it's colder in winter than in summer?

A: The Flat Earth sun varies and it's orbit radius increases or decreases throughout the year.  Therefore in summer it is nearer the North Pole and in Winter, it is nearer the South Pole.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v82/digital_nomad/Flat-Earth.png)


Q: What about perpetual day/nights in the North/South Poles?

A: This is caused by the sun's varying orbit radius.  When it is nearer on of the poles, it gets sunlight all the time (NOTE: Perpetual daylight in the South Pole has not yet been explained, possible due to reflection of ice particles.


Part IV: The Conspiracy

Q: Why hasn't anyone discovered that the Earth is flat?

A: The world governments, along with space agencies such as NASA and RKA deliberated cover up the Earth's shape.


Q: Why?

A: Money.  The governments tax people in order to "fund" the space agencies and then use the money for other things.


Q: What about space photos?

A1: This is caused by photographic editing.  I made this in about five minutes with Photoshop.  Now imagine what NASA could do.

(http://img376.imageshack.us/img376/1515/tempwy9.png)

A2: According to Tom Bishop, the Earth would look round from space...




Okay guys, post suggestions.  This is going to be updated.
Title: Re: New Revised Flat Earth FAQ!
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on November 10, 2007, 04:31:52 PM
I don't want people to know that most people here don't believe in a flat earth.  :(

Let them figure that out for themselves if they have the brainpower.
Title: Re: New Revised Flat Earth FAQ!
Post by: Genmotty on November 10, 2007, 04:43:42 PM
Still no note to parallax, anabatic heat, the view of Polaris, low and high pressure systems generating wind, the aurora at the central axis or rim or photon curvature I see. Also how come one mass can have gravity but another not? Or does the Earth have no mass?

Genmotty
Title: Re: New Revised Flat Earth FAQ!
Post by: Mystified on November 10, 2007, 05:09:56 PM
I think the question is more related to basic FAQ information that is commonly repetitive in new posts, rather than adding or debating new information in this thread. I could be mistaken though, just my observation.

I think it's very well done, and even clarified a couple of questions I had about what some FE explanations were. Nice version - clean and clearly written, and not a bunch of bias thrown in. Much appreciated.

Take care,
John


Title: Re: New Revised Flat Earth FAQ!
Post by: Mr. Ireland on November 10, 2007, 08:06:08 PM
Yay!  The conspiracy is at the end!
Title: Re: New Revised Flat Earth FAQ!
Post by: Youreajoke on November 10, 2007, 08:10:05 PM
Quote
Q: What is underneath the Earth?

A: Though some may believe that the Earth is supported by four elephants and a tortoise, most Flat Earthers believe the Earth rests upon dark energy or matter.

I literally laughed out loud the first time I read this.

This site is a disgrace to humanity.
Title: Re: New Revised Flat Earth FAQ!
Post by: Mr. Ireland on November 10, 2007, 08:18:03 PM
Quote
Q: What is underneath the Earth?

A: Though some may believe that the Earth is supported by four elephants and a tortoise, most Flat Earthers believe the Earth rests upon dark energy or matter.

I literally laughed out loud the first time I read this.

This site is a disgrace to humanity.

God /argument
Title: Re: New Revised Flat Earth FAQ!
Post by: Youreajoke on November 10, 2007, 08:20:03 PM
Quote
Q: What is underneath the Earth?

A: Though some may believe that the Earth is supported by four elephants and a tortoise, most Flat Earthers believe the Earth rests upon dark energy or matter.

I literally laughed out loud the first time I read this.

This site is a disgrace to humanity.

God /argument

An utter denial of a proven truth is surely worse.

By the way, I hope you realize what an idiot you are for bringing religion into this discussion.
Title: Re: New Revised Flat Earth FAQ!
Post by: Trekky0623 on November 10, 2007, 08:22:44 PM
/\
|
|
|-
Noob.
Title: Re: New Revised Flat Earth FAQ!
Post by: Trekky0623 on November 10, 2007, 08:24:15 PM
Quote
Q: OMG, do you guys actually believe the Earth is flat?

A: Very few do.  Most of us on this site debate.  You may debate if you wish but keep in mind that insults such as "You guys are idiots" are mostly directed at the Round Earthers since they make up the majority of this site.
Title: Re: New Revised Flat Earth FAQ!
Post by: Youreajoke on November 10, 2007, 08:52:37 PM
/\
|
|
|-
Noob.
I pity you.
Title: Re: New Revised Flat Earth FAQ!
Post by: Trekky0623 on November 10, 2007, 09:59:03 PM
Why is that?
Title: Re: New Revised Flat Earth FAQ!
Post by: Mystified on November 10, 2007, 11:17:40 PM
....

By the way, I hope you realize what an idiot you are for bringing religion into this discussion.

Actually, there are many people that hold religion and FE in concert here. Just search through the forums and read a bit. There are many arguments concerning the issue that the conspiracy is to cover up not just FET but the Bible as well. Some even go so far as to say it is because of a religious relationship that the conspiracy wants to silence FET. More or less.

C-me!
John
Title: Re: New Revised Flat Earth FAQ!
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on November 10, 2007, 11:22:26 PM
....

By the way, I hope you realize what an idiot you are for bringing religion into this discussion.

Actually, there are many people that hold religion and FE in concert here. Just search through the forums and read a bit. There are many arguments concerning the issue that the conspiracy is to cover up not just FET but the Bible as well. Some even go so far as to say it is because of a religious relationship that the conspiracy wants to silence FET. More or less.

C-me!
John


That's my opinion about the conspiracy.  It was Charles K Johnson's, the last president of the official International Flat Earth Society, opinion as well.

There's actually plenty of evidence that Samuel Rowbotham's intentions in writing Earth Not a Globe was really to push a Biblical agenda.  And throughout the Flat Earth Society's existence, from the very beginning, it has been tied to Christian Fundamentalism.

It should be noted, however, that the majority of FEers here are actually atheists.
Title: Re: New Revised Flat Earth FAQ!
Post by: Conspiracy Mastermind on November 11, 2007, 01:50:08 AM
How about a new concise FAQ:

Quote
Q. How do you guys explain all the observable phenomena that show the earth is round?
A. Piss off retard.

Q. What is the nature of the Earth if it is flat?
A. Piss off retard.
Title: Re: New Revised Flat Earth FAQ!
Post by: Trekky0623 on November 11, 2007, 11:12:39 AM
This should be edited by Engy and stickied.
Title: Re: New Revised Flat Earth FAQ!
Post by: Gabe on November 11, 2007, 11:33:50 AM
Quote
A: Mr. Rowbotham wrote a book Entitled Earth Not A Globe and stated the Flat Earth Society.

He stated FES? What?
Title: Re: New Revised Flat Earth FAQ!
Post by: Mystified on November 11, 2007, 03:11:56 PM
Perhaps it might be a good idea to throw something short and sweet in with the stars explanation as to why other star-systems appear to exist? Like they recently found a planet similar to earth orbiting around Gliese 581... the extrasolar planetoids being found, other star systems that have been found in the recent past, etc. However I am assuming this is not actually possible in reference to FE since Gliese 581 cannot possibly be ~20.5 light years away.. right?

Thanks,
John
Title: Re: New Revised Flat Earth FAQ!
Post by: Jack on November 11, 2007, 03:49:26 PM
Q: Is sustained space flight possible?

A: Well, though the original FAQ states that it is not possible, some Flat Earthers now believe that it is.  The gravitational pull of the stars and other celestial bodies balances out with the UA and thus allows spacecraft to float freely.

(http://img31.picoodle.com/img/img31/5/11/11/f_tempm_8e84c9b.png)

That is some crazy gravitational pull right there. Anyway, nice picture.
Title: Re: New Revised Flat Earth FAQ!
Post by: Mr. Ireland on November 11, 2007, 06:48:49 PM
Quote
Q: What is underneath the Earth?

A: Though some may believe that the Earth is supported by four elephants and a tortoise, most Flat Earthers believe the Earth rests upon dark energy or matter.

I literally laughed out loud the first time I read this.

This site is a disgrace to humanity.

God /argument

An utter denial of a proven truth is surely worse.

By the way, I hope you realize what an idiot you are for bringing religion into this discussion.


Four elephants + turtle = belief
You = laugh

God = belief
You = die laughing so go away
Title: Re: New Revised Flat Earth FAQ!
Post by: questions on November 11, 2007, 10:38:06 PM

Part III: Phenomenon

Q: How do tides happen?

A: As stated earlier, the other celestial bodies have a gravitational pull.  They pull on the water, causing it to bulge in some parts.

Actually, the last I read, tides were caused by a gentle "sloshing" motion.  Now I don't know what they believe!   ;) ::)
Title: Re: New Revised Flat Earth FAQ!
Post by: John Davis on November 12, 2007, 01:01:28 PM
Tides are caused by the gravitational pull of the moon and the antimoon, which orbits opposite and underneath the earth.
Title: Re: New Revised Flat Earth FAQ!
Post by: Dioptimus Drime on November 12, 2007, 01:03:08 PM
There are obviously differences in opinion. Commonly, and most likely, would be the Earth gradually tilts very gently, but there are plenty of theories.

~D-Draw
Title: Re: New Revised Flat Earth FAQ!
Post by: questions on November 12, 2007, 04:51:09 PM
Tides are caused by the gravitational pull of the moon and the antimoon, which orbits opposite and underneath the earth.

o.O;;;

Well, I mean, I heard about the "antimoon," but I always assumed that it was a word used to refer to the "Shadow Object" that supposedly causes the moon phases.  I didn't know what it really was...

Is this a commonly held tenant of FET?
Title: Re: New Revised Flat Earth FAQ!
Post by: Loard Z on November 12, 2007, 04:54:37 PM
I think the anti-moon has only just been 'invented' although it's probably existed all along...
Title: Re: New Revised Flat Earth FAQ!
Post by: questions on November 12, 2007, 05:03:36 PM
Sooooo.... Um, what's the purpose of this antimoon?  Does it have something to do with gravitation?  With the tides?  With explaining certain scientific experiments?
Title: Re: New Revised Flat Earth FAQ!
Post by: Loard Z on November 12, 2007, 05:06:56 PM
Apparently, the antimoon orbits the Earth in a simliar fashion to the moon, but underneath (conveniently making it forever unprovable), and explains the the tides and the Focault pendulum.
Title: Re: New Revised Flat Earth FAQ!
Post by: questions on November 12, 2007, 05:11:21 PM
Ahhhhh, thank you!   :D
Title: Re: New Revised Flat Earth FAQ!
Post by: Mystified on November 12, 2007, 10:31:54 PM
Apparently, the antimoon orbits the Earth in a simliar fashion to the moon, but underneath (conveniently making it forever unprovable), and explains the the tides and the Focault pendulum.

But don't you see? It's not that the antimoon explains those things... it's that those things explain the antimoon!!! :)

This stuff is just amazingly interesting.
Title: Re: New Revised Flat Earth FAQ!
Post by: Jack on November 12, 2007, 10:37:39 PM
Yes, it is these "make-up" ideas that keeps me attracted to this site. Damn interesting. I even made my own Ice Wall theory of the flat Earth.
Title: Re: New Revised Flat Earth FAQ!
Post by: Trekky0623 on November 18, 2007, 11:42:23 AM
bump
Title: Re: New Revised Flat Earth FAQ!
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on November 20, 2007, 08:12:24 AM
bump for awesomeness.
Title: Re: New Revised Flat Earth FAQ!
Post by: Loard Z on November 22, 2007, 08:26:37 PM
I have a new theory I wish to add to this thread.

Hypothesis: The Shadow Object is massless and exists in 2d space, perpendicular to the Earth.
Proof: Shadow Object cannot be observed passing in front of stars, but is observed passing in front of sun and moon. Shadow object cannot be measured for gravitation=> massless.
Title: Re: New Revised Flat Earth FAQ!
Post by: eric bloedow on December 14, 2007, 08:11:29 AM
nope, doesn't work: if it was flat and perpendicular, it would not block the sun's light at all; it would, at most, make a thin line across it!

it certainly follows FE patterns for being poorly thought out!
Title: Re: New Revised Flat Earth FAQ!
Post by: John Davis on December 14, 2007, 08:57:07 AM
You are thinking 1 dimensional eric.  A line is 1 dimensional.
Title: Re: New Revised Flat Earth FAQ!
Post by: Tristan Lachman on December 14, 2007, 09:07:11 AM
nope, doesn't work: if it was flat and perpendicular, it would not block the sun's light at all; it would, at most, make a thin line across it!

Only if it was perpendicular to the sun. Very poorly thought out, Eric.
Title: Re: New Revised Flat Earth FAQ!
Post by: Trekky0623 on December 15, 2007, 02:46:05 PM
Quote
Hypothesis: The Shadow Object is massless and exists in 2d space, perpendicular to the Earth.

Eric didn't think out anything poorly.  A 2-D object perpendicular to you would at the most make a line.
Title: Re: New Revised Flat Earth FAQ!
Post by: John Davis on December 15, 2007, 03:47:51 PM
You are right, sorry Eric.
Title: Re: New Revised Flat Earth FAQ!
Post by: zeroply on December 27, 2007, 01:03:43 PM
In Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, there is an equation for adding vectors in the form of a recursive formula:

         v + w
u =              
    (1 + vw) c2


In which u is your velocity, v is you rate of acceleration, w is your previous velocity, and c is the speed of light.

Okay guys, post suggestions.  This is going to be updated.

Quick nitpick...

This is actually from Special Relativity, not General. Also, it's not a recursive formula since u doesn't appear on the right hand side.
Title: Re: New Revised Flat Earth FAQ!
Post by: Logic hopeful on December 27, 2007, 03:45:55 PM
I just want to say, from a newbie to these forums, thanks for this summary.
Title: Re: New Revised Flat Earth FAQ!
Post by: skeptical scientist on December 30, 2007, 12:53:40 PM
I just noticed this. It's pretty good, but you have a few errors:

Q: Why hasn't the Earth reached the speed of light if it's accelerating?

A: Contrary to popular belief, acceleration is not linear.  In Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, there is an equation for adding vectors in the form of a recursive formula:

         v + w
u =              
    (1 + vw) ÷ c2


In which u is your velocity, v is you rate of acceleration, w is your previous velocity, and c is the speed of light.
And if you were to work it out, you would find that it would take forever to reach the speed of light.
This isn't right. First of all, it's the wrong formula. This should be obvious since the units are wrong: you are adding a dimensionless number (1) to a number with dimensions of speed2 (vw). The correct equation is:

         v + w
u =              
    1 + (vw/c2)


Secondly, if you add a velocity and an acceleration, you get a meaningless physical quantity. That equation only makes sense when v and w are both velocities. Really what it says is that if two objects are moving directly away from each other at speeds of v and w in the reference frame of some fixed observer, then the speed of one object relative to the other object is given by u in the formula.

To adapt it to accelerations, you have to do a little work. If we started with a speed of v and increase the speed by at, say by accelerating at a rate of a for a duration t, then we would get a new speed:

         v + at
u =              
    1 + (vat/c2)


This is actually inaccurate for large t, since it assumes the acceleration is constant in the inertial reference frame in which the Earth is instantaneously fixed, but is correct in the limit as t approaches 0. We can therefore compute the rate of change of u when t=0 by the quotient rule:
u' = a(1-v2/c2)

This tells us that if the acceleration of the Earth is given by a in a reference frame where the Earth is instantaneously stationary (so a is the strength of the acceleration felt by inhabitants of the earth, the acceleration is given by a(1-v2/c2) in a reference frame in which the Earth is already moving at speed v.

To find speed in one fixed reference frame, starting out with u=0 at t=0, we have to solve the differential equation:

u' = a(1-u2/c2)

Some simple analysis shows that as u approaches c, u' approaches 0, and therefore at a constant acceleration from the point of view of the Earth, the Earth will approach but never reach light speed as we expected.

So your answer had some of the correct features, but made some incorrect claims and should probably be corrected.

Quote
Q: With a little bit of math, I can show that the sun should be at different angles than what is observed.  What's up?

A: The sun's light refracts as it enters the atmosphere and continues downward, thus causing light to be bent.  Also notice that in cold areas this effect will have a greater effect on the sunlight because the cold air is denser.  This also causes light to be bent in the way it is on the Equinoxes and Solstices.

(http://img31.picoodle.com/img/img31/5/11/11/f_tempm_2484cb5.png)


Q: How do sunrises/sunsets occur?

A: The sun gets to far away for the sunlight to reach us, also caused by the refraction as stated above.

If your diagram shows the correct refraction due to sunlight, it's in the wrong direction. According to your diagram, the sun appears higher than it really is, but in actuality the sun appears lower in the sky than the FE model says it is (and rises and sets in the wrong places - a good deal further South than it should under the FE model, but that's another issue entirely). So if your diagram is right, it doesn't fix the problem, and in fact makes it work.

If the refraction instead went the opposite direction, that could be a solution to the problem. Unfortunately if this is true, then sunlight behaves the opposite of the way we expect it too when going from less dense into denser atmosphere, or else the atmosphere is actually denser higher up than it is lower down (which is contrary to what we observe when we go to a high elevation, and what we would predict.)
Title: Re: New Revised Flat Earth FAQ!
Post by: silverhammermba on January 01, 2008, 11:28:12 PM
Wow, I'm surprised I learned a bit from the new f.a.q.

What the hell is this antimoon? I've never heard it mentioned and it frankly sounds like more backwards logic.

Do most FEers now believe that spaceflight is possible? This is completely new to me. Has there been any debate about why the stars exhibit gravitational pull but not anything else? (I suppose FEers say they're made out of a special kind of matter or something?)

Thank you so much for saying that the cause of sinking ships is unknown. Though I would phrase it differently as "the theory of the vanishing point" is a bit vague and misleading. Perhaps simply:
Unknown.  It is speculated that the laws of perspective operate differently.
Since the only attempted explanation I've heard is from Tom Bishop or Rowbotham, neither of which are very credible.

Also for the motives of the conspiracy, I don't think that they are entirely decided. Your answer seems very definite, but I've never seen this topic sufficiently discussed to call it a solid explanation. The most apparent problem I can think of is that most countries do not have a space program as robust or as well-funded us NASA thus removing the incentive for much of the world. Also, a global conspiracy seems like way too much effort to go through when its simply an excuse for a tax hike.
Title: Re: New Revised Flat Earth FAQ!
Post by: Loard Z on January 03, 2008, 08:22:40 AM
th antimoon orbits th arth on th undrsid of th plant.
Title: Re: New Revised Flat Earth FAQ!
Post by: divito the truthist on January 03, 2008, 11:36:53 AM
What the hell is this antimoon? I've never heard it mentioned and it frankly sounds like more backwards logic.

A moon on the other side of the Earth.

Do most FEers now believe that spaceflight is possible?

Traditional and sustained spaceflight is not possible.

Thank you so much for saying that the cause of sinking ships is unknown.

Check out my thread: Sinking Ship Effect

Also for the motives of the conspiracy, I don't think that they are entirely decided. Your answer seems very definite, but I've never seen this topic sufficiently discussed to call it a solid explanation. The most apparent problem I can think of is that most countries do not have a space program as robust or as well-funded us NASA thus removing the incentive for much of the world. Also, a global conspiracy seems like way too much effort to go through when its simply an excuse for a tax hike.

Only the space agencies need be involved in the conspiracy. Global and government aspects are just silly.