The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: Tivo on April 25, 2008, 12:11:03 PM
-
Every sailor, every pilot, EVERYBODY in NASA... anybody else? or can they get away with not telling some of them. (OH! also the people who have to guard the ice wall)
-
And me.
Oh, and your mom too.
-
Every sailor, every pilot, EVERYBODY in NASA... anybody else? or can they get away with not telling some of them. (OH! also the people who have to guard the ice wall)
Absolutely not. The senior bosses of NASA, yes, but very few other people. Possibly a rogue military or government official could be involved to help with guarding the Ice Wall, but that wouldn't be too hard either. We don't know a lot about it, but the guards would probably have a lot more resources than just popping men on the wall.
Sailors and pilots are easily fooled, just like the rest of us. At no time has any serious debater ever advocated that they are all in on it.
-
Exactly.
"Hey, go guard this patch of ice near Antarctica"
Soldier: "ok"
It's not like they are actively involved.
(http://www.worldproutassembly.org/images/frigate.jpg)
And the Bavarian Globe Makers Guild or NASA just sends in plants with every scientific team exploring the interior of the "continent." When someone finds out something they aren't supposed to know they get bought off or bumped off. Just like what happened to Rodney Marks the astrophysicist in Antarctica.
-
It doesn't matter how many people are supposedly part of the conspiracy. Whether it's eight or eight million, it remains unable to be disproved by its very nature, and will always be the prime FE debate fallback.
-
It doesn't matter how many people are supposedly part of the conspiracy. Whether it's eight or eight million, it remains unable to be disproved by its very nature, and will always be the prime FE debate fallback.
preach it brotha
-
That's sounds suspiciously like something THEY would say.... hmmm...
-
USE THE SEARCH FEATURE FOR GREAT VICTORY. >:(
-
Astronauts would have to be in it, right? Also the people the astronauts communicte with while in space. So therefore either everyone in NASA (aside from maitinence people and such) or noone in NASA is part of the conspiracy.
-
How do the people in the NASA control room know that the astronauts they're talking to are in orbit around the earth?
-
How do the people in the NASA control room know that the astronauts they're talking to are in orbit around the earth?
Telemetry? Tracking stations? Live video feeds?
-
Of the guys you just mentioned, only the astronauts really have to be in on it. There MIGHT be one or two guys in each of those departments that would know about it. They're just doing their jobs. Looking at the data on the screen. They don't really know where the data comes from.
-
I'll give you that one.
-
It's been postulated that even the astronauts are unaware that they are not actually going into space.
That's not my opinion though. I just think they're all dirty liars.
-
I agree. Stupid astronauts.
-
Every sailor, every pilot, EVERYBODY in NASA... anybody else? or can they get away with not telling some of them. (OH! also the people who have to guard the ice wall)
Absolutely not. The senior bosses of NASA, yes, but very few other people. Possibly a rogue military or government official could be involved to help with guarding the Ice Wall, but that wouldn't be too hard either. We don't know a lot about it, but the guards would probably have a lot more resources than just popping men on the wall.
Sailors and pilots are easily fooled, just like the rest of us. At no time has any serious debater ever advocated that they are all in on it.
I know at this point every time I post people probably just get a headache because they know I'm going to mention ocean gyres, but...
Pretty much every drop of water in the ocean is influenced in one way or another simply because of the fact that the earth is round and spins on its axis. Sailors have observed these ocean currents for ages. Unless there is a plausible explanation for these currents, they must be in on it.
The Coriolis effect (which is responsible for ocean gyres) has not as of yet been explained in a way that agrees with the evidence, and I'm not expecting anyone to think of an explanation anytime soon. Even if someone comes up with an explanation, like every other FE explanation it would likely invoke multiple super hypothetical phenomena with absolutely no evidence.
-
Even if someone comes up with an explanation, like every other FE explanation it would likely invoke multiple super hypothetical phenomena with absolutely no evidence.
What evidence is there showing that the Coriolis Effect is caused by the spinning of the earth rather than any other phenomena in the universe?
-
Even if someone comes up with an explanation, like every other FE explanation it would likely invoke multiple super hypothetical phenomena with absolutely no evidence.
What evidence is there showing that the Coriolis Effect is caused by the spinning of the earth rather than any other phenomena in the universe?
What evidence is there showing that the Coriolis Effect is caused by any other phenomena in the universe rather than the spinning of the earth ?
-
Even if someone comes up with an explanation, like every other FE explanation it would likely invoke multiple super hypothetical phenomena with absolutely no evidence.
What evidence is there showing that the Coriolis Effect is caused by the spinning of the earth rather than any other phenomena in the universe?
My god. What a naive question.
First, you can insert absolutely any natural phenomena in place of "the Coriolis Effect" in your question and still be able to argue for it so long as you throw common sense out the door.
What evidence is there showing that Stalactite formation is caused by mineral deposition rather than any other phenomena in the universe, like say, invisible gnomes that build stalactite/stalagmite formations in such a way as to fool humans into fallaciously believing they are formed by mineral deposition. Of course, this is all hypothetical, and I don't actually have evidence for any of this.
To answer you question, the evidence showing that the Coriolis effect is caused by the spinning earth is that there are no other explanations that fit the data. But you're not going to provide any explanations, much less explanations supported by evidence. Instead, you will just ask:
"What evidence is there that I can't conjure some hypothetical entity responsible for the Coriolis effect?"
Well none.
But don't think for a second that the round earth theory is riding on the Coriolis effect. It seems to me you think that your theories and models you post up on this site are adequately validated and I just have to laugh. Real scientific theories take mountains of peer reviewed research and studies to validate them in such a way that we have a reasonable confidence in them. I have seen no such efforts on the FET.
As I have said before, researchers are constantly coming up with data that corroborates a round earth and all you can do is try to construct a hypothetical scaffolding around the facts, and quite often you are not able to do so in a manner that is consistent with the facts.
For instance, you believe the stars revolve around us, correct? Do you realized how many researchers are tracking the stars in the sky? Do you realize that a system of stars that revolves around us will behave much differently than an earth that is moving around the sun? How do you explain the parallax that happens with celestial bodies? Parallax not only happens specifically because of the way the earth moves around the sun, but allows us to determine distances to the stars that would never match up with FET.
Your ignorance is just marvelous.
-
But don't think for a second that the round earth theory is riding on the Coriolis effect. It seems to me you think that your theories and models you post up on this site are adequately validated and I just have to laugh. Real scientific theories take mountains of peer reviewed research and studies to validate them in such a way that we have a reasonable confidence in them. I have seen no such efforts on the FET.
The beauty of zeteticism is that peer reviewed research as you seem to define it is unnecessary (and incidentally, most FE evidence has been peer reviewed by others in the zetetic community). Zeteticism is based on seeing the evidence for yourself and drawing the logical conclusion.
-
Real scientific theories take mountains of peer reviewed research and studies to validate them in such a way that we have a reasonable confidence in them.
Oh, oh. Now you've gone and done it. Next thing you know, Tom will be asking you to provide him with some of this "mountains of peer reviewed research and studies".
-
What evidence is there showing that Stalactite formation is caused by mineral deposition rather than any other phenomena in the universe, like say, invisible gnomes that build stalactite/stalagmite formations in such a way as to fool humans into fallaciously believing they are formed by mineral deposition. Of course, this is all hypothetical, and I don't actually have evidence for any of this.
We could ask fredo, since he is a gnome he will probably know.
-
--SIGH---
You just don't get it, do you?
NASA spends Billions on all this technology to make it LOOK like the earth is round, so they can make money.
DUH!
NASA's game plan:
1. Spend Billions on covering up the flat earth
2. ???
3. profit!
-
NASA's game plan:
1. Get trillions in funding from the government
2. Spend maybe a couple billion faking a space program
3. profit!
Fixed. See how logical it is?
-
Certainly logical, except for the fact that it is entirely unproveable and impossible to achieve.
-
Certainly logical, except for the fact that it is entirely unproveable and impossible to achieve.
Unprovable, sure, unless you know the shape of the earth, but certainly not impossible to achieve.
-
Totally impossible to achieve.
People are smarter than you give them credit for. How come nobody who has ever worked for NASA woke up one day and said "I wonder why *insert FE propoganda*". Your entire argument centers on the hope that somebody won't ever be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Do you honestly believe that such a large group of some of the brightest minds on this planet wouldn't figure this out?
-
Totally impossible to achieve.
People are smarter than you give them credit for. How come nobody who has ever worked for NASA woke up one day and said "I wonder why *insert FE propoganda*". Your entire argument centers on the hope that somebody won't ever be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Do you honestly believe that such a large group of some of the brightest minds on this planet wouldn't figure this out?
You give a decent argument for it being unlikely, but I thought you were going to demonstrate that it's impossible.
-
Unlikely is an understatement. Even without going into the law of parsimony, it is quite obvious that even if a few like minded people could be found to keep this secret, they could not keep it for long. Bounded Chaos Theory would reign surpreme, there simply is no way to resolve that.
(Sorry, I would post more in depth but I'm at work and just had a server go down. It's screwing up my 99.8% uptime average!!)
-
Unlikely is an understatement. Even without going into the law of parsimony, it is quite obvious that even if a few like minded people could be found to keep this secret, they could not keep it for long. Bounded Chaos Theory would reign surpreme, there simply is no way to resolve that.
Law of parsimony. LOL.
I'd love to see you prove that statement you made above. So far it's really just empty arguing (you saying "This is the way it is because this is the only way it can be!").
Brilliant debating skills. ::)
-
That's the problem though, it IS the only way it can be.
Let me break it down simply for you...
Take the amount of people who work either for NASA or some other space, or geological, or atmosphearic industries (oh, and throw in electrical enginers and GPS companies just for fun). Now, subtract the amount of people just in those areas that are involved in the conspiracy.
I don't know how many people work in those combined areas but I'm going to guess the number is pretty high. Significactly high in fact, even after removing the people who are keeping FE a secret. Just that fact alone makes it a mathmatic improbability, combined with chaos theory it becomes impossible.
I'll break it down into small scale now:
3 people cannot keep a large secret from each other - i.e. married man has an affair, wife WILL (for the most part) find out (it's only a matter of time), usually due to a silly mistake from the husband.
That's 2 people trying to keep one secret from one person, very difficult to do.
Try this, one person cannot keep a secret from many people. I'll explain:
Murder. Do I need to spell this out? Two people know something, one is killed by the other, people investigate, eventually the murderer gets caught. He can't hide all of the evidence of the crime all of the time from all of the experts.
Take those examples and expand them to include the industries I described before, now apply the same rules but make all of the people smarter and harder working. Their job usually consists of defining, refining, explaining, discovering and other '-ings' that scientists and enginers do. They are TRYING to find out secrets.
Even a few people cannot hide a secret this large from many people who are trained to think outside of the box.
-
Apparently, I am part of the conspiracy as well.
After backing an FEer into the corner on a debate, he threw this at me:
You're clearly a plant from the Bavarian Globe Makers Guild spreading propoganda to further delude the masses.
I'm dead serious. Read the thread about the space race in D&D.
-
Apparently, I am part of the conspiracy as well.
After backing an FEer into the corner on a debate, he threw this at me:
You're clearly a plant from the Bavarian Globe Makers Guild spreading propoganda to further delude the masses.
I'm dead serious. Read the thread about the space race in D&D.
Either a plant or extremely obtuse. I gave you the benefit of the doubt...
-
Apparently, I am part of the conspiracy as well.
After backing an FEer into the corner on a debate, he threw this at me:
You're clearly a plant from the Bavarian Globe Makers Guild spreading propoganda to further delude the masses.
I'm dead serious. Read the thread about the space race in D&D.
Either a plant or extremely obtuse. I gave you the benefit of the doubt...
Every single point you made was completely demolished. You have no valid counter argument to my rebuttal's. Instead of concerning yourself with things like LOGIC and EVIDENCE, you would rather just throw an insult at me and call me obtuse.
-
Instead of concerning yourself with things like LOGIC and EVIDENCE, you would rather just throw an insult at me and call me obtuse.
Well, you did take him seriously. Yeah, that's pretty obtuse.
-
That's the problem though, it IS the only way it can be.
*more hypothetical crap that I think somehow proves my point*
You're still doing it.
-
Hijack threads much, twopointseventwo? Just kidding. ;)
Roundy, you seem to be missing the point. Granted, I'm arguing against something that is the cornerstone of FE belief so I really don't expect to get anywhere. I'm just trying to figure out how to rationalize a conspiracy of this magnitude?
-
I know. It's mind blowing they've gotten away with it this long.
-
Well, until you can come up with some type of identifiable proof, my argument stands. Occam's Razor, baby.
-
Occam's Razor, baby.
But Occam's Razor works in favor of a Conspiracy. ???
What's the simplest explanation; that man has successfully designed and built multi-trillion dollar rocket technologies from scratch to send massive spaceships into the cosmos, and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis, win the Space Race, and constantly wow the nation by landing a man on the moon and sending robotic rovers to mars; or that they really can't pull off all of those technological marvels and it's all just a lie?
-
Actually, Occam's Razor doesn't favor FE at all. Currently, the widespread belief is the the world is round. Therefore, the least comlicated answer is the earth is round. Occam's Razor proves RE theory.
-
Actually, Occam's Razor doesn't favor FE at all. Currently, the widespread belief is the the world is round. Therefore, the least comlicated answer is the earth is round. Occam's Razor proves RE theory.
First off, Occam's Razor never "proves" anything. Secondly, you can say that despite all direct observation of a flat earth (go outside), it IS possible there is a round earth that just isn't perceptible, but which is more likely?
-
Occam's Razor, baby.
But Occam's Razor works in favor of a Conspiracy. ???
Except it doesn't. Occam's Razor selects the better theory based on how many hypothetical entities are present in each respective theory.
FET is chocked full of hypothetical entities; dark shadow objects, a dark energy source beneath the earth; a huge conspiracy; all things with 0 evidence.
What's the simplest explanation; that man has successfully designed and built multi-trillion dollar rocket technologies from scratch to send massive spacecraft into space, and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis, win the Space Race, and constantly wow the nation by landing a man on the moon and sending robotic rovers to mars; or that they really can't do all of that stuff and it's all just a lie?
You've never ever been able to prove space travel is impossible. RE theory is the simplest explanation because it accounts for all the data we have without invoking super - hypothetical entities. Actually, it is the only explanation because FET cannot even account for all the data we have.
-
Actually, Occam's Razor doesn't favor FE at all. Currently, the widespread belief is the the world is round. Therefore, the least comlicated answer is the earth is round. Occam's Razor proves RE theory.
Five hundred years ago the widespread belief was that witches were the cause for crop failures and bad luck.
Did witches exist five hundred years ago? ???
-
That's not the point. You can try to use an anti-razor argument and say that "if 3 explinations cannot provide proof, a 4th must be added" but that's not what we're talking about. Without a conspiracy, FE has no proof, and nothing to go off of. If there is no conspiracy, the moon landing, mars rover, satellights, spaceflight and the Hubble are all real.
Occam's razor is against this theory, which is also mathmatically and sociologically improbably. Take into count chaos theory, and the conspiracy is impossible.
The conspiracy doesn't exist. FE is a lie.
-
Occam's Razor cannot be used to prove anything. It is a philosophical concept, not a scientific law.
-
Actually, Occam's Razor doesn't favor FE at all. Currently, the widespread belief is the the world is round. Therefore, the least comlicated answer is the earth is round. Occam's Razor proves RE theory.
Five hundred years ago the widespread belief was that witches were the cause for crop failures and bad luck.
Did witches exist five hundred years ago? ???
They did, they still do. They just don't cause crop failures.
-
Did witches exist five hundred years ago? ???
I have no doubt about it considering I spent a good portion of my life as a Wiccan.
Double fail.
-
Occam's razor (sometimes spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony" or "law of succinctness"): "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem", or "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity".
This is often paraphrased as "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.
Originally a tenet of the reductionist philosophy of nominalism, it is more often taken today as a heuristic maxim (rule of thumb) that advises economy, parsimony, or simplicity, often or especially in scientific theories.
-
Did witches exist five hundred years ago? ???
I have no doubt about it considering I spent a good portion of my life as a Wiccan.
Double fail.
LOL. Wicca is a fake religion that originated in the early 20th century.
-
Occam's razor (sometimes spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony" or "law of succinctness"): "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem", or "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity".
This is often paraphrased as "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.
Originally a tenet of the reductionist philosophy of nominalism, it is more often taken today as a heuristic maxim (rule of thumb) that advises economy, parsimony, or simplicity, often or especially in scientific theories.
Note how this proves my point.
-
Actually, you're right about the modern definition of Wicca, however it finds it roots in pagan religions from thousands of years ago. Thanks.
Also, I fail to see how your point was proved. Occam's Razor is used as a rule of thumb to guide scientific theory.
-
Actually, you're right about the modern definition of Wicca, however it finds it roots in pagan religions from thousands of years ago. Thanks.
Also, I fail to see how your point was proved. Occam's Razor is used as a rule of thumb to guide scientific theory.
Where did it say in your quote that it can be used to prove anything? ???
-
Occam's razor (sometimes spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony" or "law of succinctness"): "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem", or "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity".
This is often paraphrased as "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.
Originally a tenet of the reductionist philosophy of nominalism, it is more often taken today as a heuristic maxim (rule of thumb) that advises economy, parsimony, or simplicity, often or especially in scientific theories.
It's also important to point out that FET is not an equivalent to RET when it comes to explaining the data, so Occam's Razor need not even apply.
-
Occam's razor (sometimes spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony" or "law of succinctness"): "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem", or "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity".
This is often paraphrased as "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.
Originally a tenet of the reductionist philosophy of nominalism, it is more often taken today as a heuristic maxim (rule of thumb) that advises economy, parsimony, or simplicity, often or especially in scientific theories.
It's also important to point out that FET is not an equivalent to RET when it comes to explaining the data, so Occam's Razor need not even apply.
Good going. Just ignore my point altogether. ::)
-
Good going. Just ignore my point altogether. ::)
The irony between the accusations he's made and the way he picks and chooses his data and observations is stunning, no?
-
Occam's razor (sometimes spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony" or "law of succinctness"): "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem", or "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity".
This is often paraphrased as "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.
Originally a tenet of the reductionist philosophy of nominalism, it is more often taken today as a heuristic maxim (rule of thumb) that advises economy, parsimony, or simplicity, often or especially in scientific theories.
It's also important to point out that FET is not an equivalent to RET when it comes to explaining the data, so Occam's Razor need not even apply.
Good going. Just ignore my point altogether. ::)
I'm sorry, did you have a point?
Please explain what you mean by proving a theory. This is not possible. Proof only happens in mathematics. In science, we are able to VALIDATE hypothesis with EVIDENCE-- of course, this is something that FEers have never been successful at.
-
Good going. Just ignore my point altogether. ::)
The irony between the accusations he's made and the way he picks and chooses his data and observations is stunning, no?
Please share, Ski.
What data am I ignoring?
-
Please explain what you mean by proving a theory. This is not possible. Proof only happens in mathematics. In science, we are able to VALIDATE hypothesis with EVIDENCE-- of course, this is something that FEers have never been successful at.
This is exactly what I mean. Occam's Razor does not qualify as EVIDENCE, therefore it cannot be used to VALIDATE anything.
-
Getting back on topic, see this thread (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=6308.msg71968#msg71968) for a reasoned analysis of how many people really need to be in on the conspiracy.
-
Please explain what you mean by proving a theory. This is not possible. Proof only happens in mathematics. In science, we are able to VALIDATE hypothesis with EVIDENCE-- of course, this is something that FEers have never been successful at.
This is exactly what I mean. Occam's Razor does not qualify as EVIDENCE, therefore it cannot be used to VALIDATE anything.
Occam's Razor is used if you have two theories with equal consistency and predicative power and need to select between the two. Introducing a hypothetical entity into a theory (that is, something with no evidence, such as the dark shadow object, the conspiracy, or dark energy under the earth) introduces a high probability that the theory will be incorrect. Hypothetical explanations, by there very nature, have a higher probability of being incorrect. It's very simple.
Of course, this isn't an empirical observation used to validate a hypothesis (I never claimed it to be either), but rather a method of choosing between two theories and selecting the one with the greatest probability of being correct.
But like I was saying, RET and FET are not equally consistent so Occam's Razor need not even apply. Perhaps you are ignoring my point?
Getting back on topic, see this thread (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=6308.msg71968#msg71968) for a reasoned analysis of how many people really need to be in on the conspiracy.
This is absolutely ridiculous. I have broken this down so many times talking about what a conspiracy like this would actually have to involve... nobody seems to be listening.
-
But like I was saying, RET and FET are not equally consistent so Occam's Razor need not even apply. Perhaps you are ignoring my point?
Backtracking on the Occam's Razor point because you realized you were wrong.
-
But like I was saying, RET and FET are not equally consistent so Occam's Razor need not even apply. Perhaps you are ignoring my point?
Backtracking on the Occam's Razor point because you realized you were wrong.
???
Please explain what you are talking about.
-
This is absolutely ridiculous. I have broken this down so many times talking about what a conspiracy like this would actually have to involve... nobody seems to be listening.
The point is that you're wrong. Only the leaders of the world's space agencies and possibly the astronauts need be in on the conspiracy. If the ice wall is guarded (and I see no reason why it would be), perhaps them too. Who else do you feel needs to be?
-
But like I was saying, RET and FET are not equally consistent so Occam's Razor need not even apply. Perhaps you are ignoring my point?
Backtracking on the Occam's Razor point because you realized you were wrong.
???
Please explain what you are talking about.
You brought up Occam's Razor. Then when you realized that you were wrong about Occam's Razor applying here, you backtracked to point out that RET and FET are not equally consistent, so it doesn't apply anyway!
It was rationalization on your part to try to get out of the fact that you were wrong.
-
This is absolutely ridiculous. I have broken this down so many times talking about what a conspiracy like this would actually have to involve... nobody seems to be listening.
The point is that you're wrong. Only the leaders of the world's space agencies and possibly the astronauts need be in on the conspiracy. If the ice wall is guarded (and I see no reason why it would be), perhaps them too. Who else do you feel needs to be?
Well first of all, what I feel has little to do with it. I make decisions based on facts and evidence, not feelings.
The only possible way NASA could convince the world of RE would be to tamper with millions of researchers evidence that corroborates a round earth. Do you have any idea how much this would cost?
-
This is absolutely ridiculous. I have broken this down so many times talking about what a conspiracy like this would actually have to involve... nobody seems to be listening.
The point is that you're wrong. Only the leaders of the world's space agencies and possibly the astronauts need be in on the conspiracy. If the ice wall is guarded (and I see no reason why it would be), perhaps them too. Who else do you feel needs to be?
Well first of all, what I feel has little to do with it. I make decisions based on facts and evidence, not feelings.
And yet you seem content to make assumptions about all the people who would have to be in on the conspiracy. What facts and evidence back up your points? ???
The only possible way NASA could convince the world of RE would be to tamper with millions of researchers evidence that corroborates a round earth. Do you have any idea how much this would cost?
The alternative explanation, of course, is that all that research (which incidentally was conducted and interpreted from a RE point of view) really doesn't prove anything about the shape of the earth.
-
But like I was saying, RET and FET are not equally consistent so Occam's Razor need not even apply. Perhaps you are ignoring my point?
Backtracking on the Occam's Razor point because you realized you were wrong.
???
Please explain what you are talking about.
You brought up Occam's Razor. Then when you realized that you were wrong about Occam's Razor applying here, you backtracked to point out that RET and FET are not equally consistent, so it doesn't apply anyway!
It was rationalization on your part to try to get out of the fact that you were wrong.
Fail.
You could very well apply Occam's Razor to both theories, but it is certainly not nessicary. You'll notice I said it 'need not apply', not that it wasn't possible to apply Occam's razor to our predicament, just that it isn't necessary since you can just look at FET and see how much of a mess it is.
Please try and read a little closer.
-
But like I was saying, RET and FET are not equally consistent so Occam's Razor need not even apply. Perhaps you are ignoring my point?
Backtracking on the Occam's Razor point because you realized you were wrong.
???
Please explain what you are talking about.
You brought up Occam's Razor. Then when you realized that you were wrong about Occam's Razor applying here, you backtracked to point out that RET and FET are not equally consistent, so it doesn't apply anyway!
It was rationalization on your part to try to get out of the fact that you were wrong.
Fail.
You could very well apply Occam's Razor to both theories, but it is certainly not nessicary. You'll notice I said it 'need not apply', not that it wasn't possible to apply Occam's razor to our predicament, just that it isn't necessary since you can just look at FET and see how much of a mess it is.
Please try and read a little closer.
You are a very accomplished backtracker. I've never seen it done twice so close to each other on these forums before now.
-
This is absolutely ridiculous. I have broken this down so many times talking about what a conspiracy like this would actually have to involve... nobody seems to be listening.
The point is that you're wrong. Only the leaders of the world's space agencies and possibly the astronauts need be in on the conspiracy. If the ice wall is guarded (and I see no reason why it would be), perhaps them too. Who else do you feel needs to be?
Well first of all, what I feel has little to do with it. I make decisions based on facts and evidence, not feelings.
And yet you seem content to make assumptions about all the people who would have to be in on the conspiracy. What facts and evidence back up your points? ???
My god, open up a geology book... an oceanography book... an astronomy book...
It's chocked full of observations that cannot be explained by FE!
Millions of researchers have verified these same observations, they can't all be in on it!
The only possible way NASA could convince the world of RE would be to tamper with millions of researchers evidence that corroborates a round earth. Do you have any idea how much this would cost?
The alternative explanation, of course, is that all that research (which incidentally was conducted and interpreted from a RE point of view) really doesn't prove anything about the shape of the earth.
I gotta give you another one of these for this ridiculous comment:
Fail.
The RE model is the only possible way to interpret the data that makes any sense or has any consistency. I fail to see why you think scientific data would turn out to be different solely because an REer measured it? Again, they couldn't all be just making this stuff up to support a conspiracy.
-
You are a very accomplished backtracker. I've never seen it done twice so close to each other on these forums before now.
Do you think you could support your accusations instead of just flinging them around? Thanks.
-
The RE model is the only possible way to interpret the data that makes any sense or has any consistency. I fail to see why you think scientific data would turn out to be different solely because an REer measured it? Again, they couldn't all be just making this stuff up to support a conspiracy.
This is exactly the kind of bias the round earth conspiracy fosters.
No, they're not making it all up. It is all explainable by natural phenomena on a flat earth.
Please, if you're going to try to make this point, at least give Earth Not a Globe a read to see how some such observations are explained.
Otherwise you're just arguing out of your ass. How can you pass judgment on our theories if you don't even know what they are?
-
The RE model is the only possible way to interpret the data that makes any sense or has any consistency. I fail to see why you think scientific data would turn out to be different solely because an REer measured it? Again, they couldn't all be just making this stuff up to support a conspiracy.
This is exactly the kind of bias the round earth conspiracy fosters.
No, they're not making it all up. It is all explainable by natural phenomena on a flat earth.
Then please, enlighten me! I have a thread on ocean gyres that has not been explained by anybody, why don't you start there?
Please, if you're going to try to make this point, at least give Earth Not a Globe a read to see how some such observations are explained.
Otherwise you're just arguing out of your ass. How can you pass judgment on our theories if you don't even know what they are?
Because, your theories have been presented on this forum multiple times, and every time they are they are completely inconsistent, as I have pointed out. How can you claim I wouldn't know what your theories are when I have posted rebuttals against them?
-
Fail.
I see noobs ranting at each other meaninglessly.
So continue your ranting, noob. I'm enjoying every minute of this.
-
Glad to be of service.
-
Glad to be of service.
you've taken the role of "devil's advocate" a bit too far, like the girl who played Lady Macduff in my high school's production of Macbeth. i suppose the same could be said about most of you FEers... except Tom. he's a douchenozzle.
sorry bout that, it had to be said.
-
Well it's hard to take some people as seriously as they take themselves...
Whither should I fly?
I have done no harm. But I remember now
I am in this earthly world; where to do harm
Is often laudable, to do good sometime
Accounted dangerous folly
-
Well it's hard to take some people as seriously as they take themselves...
fine. i should probably start doing the same thing you're doing then!
i think its time for the conversion of pancakes into an FEer.
-
i think its time for the conversion of pancakes into an FEer.
Another fine victory for FE!!
Till that Bellona's bridegroom, lapp'd in proof,
Confronted Pancakes with self-comparisons,
Point against point rebellious, arm 'gainst arm.
Curbing his lavish spirit: and, to conclude,
The victory fell on us.
Great happiness!
-
Well it's hard to take some people as seriously as they take themselves...
fine. i should probably start doing the same thing you're doing then!
i think its time for the conversion of pancakes into an FEer.
Knew it wouldn't take long
-
you forgot several things:
anyone who goes south of the equator would notice the discrepancies, therefore, the navigator of EVERY ship that has EVER gone south of the equator would have to be part of the conspiracy!
-
Eric?!!
-
What about the Soviets. Everyone forgets the Soviets.
Because I'm sure they'd be happy to assist NASA in their diabolical moneymaking scheme.
Or was the entire Cold War just a massive hoax as well?
-
What about the Soviets. Everyone forgets the Soviets.
Because I'm sure they'd be happy to assist NASA in their diabolical moneymaking scheme.
Or was the entire Cold War just a massive hoax as well?
You don't think the Soviet Space Program had opportunists working there too? Just because they were communists they were immune to greed and graft, right?
-
So the Soviets were involved? See, because the Soviet Space Agency was effectively an extension of the central government, the idea of massive cohesion with NASA in upholding a turgid hoax doesn't really hold water does it?
I'm sure Sergei Korolev et al. would have managed to pull off secretly researching computer generated imagery without the likes of the NKVD stumbling in on the whole scheme. Don't tell me, the USSR was secretly an arm of the USA and the Cold War was all a massive excercise in public deception in order to preserve this moneylaundering scheme.
Oh wait that makes no sense at all.
-
I'm sure Sergei Korolev et al. would have managed to pull off secretly researching computer generated imagery without the likes of the NKVD stumbling in on the whole scheme.
Can you prove that they wouldn't have been able to pull this off?
My opinion is that the space race was real; it was just the actual getting into space that was fake.
-
Ok, I'm the Premier. The US has just said they're going to start sending men to the moon. I tell the head of the space program, "hey -- we can't let those nekulturny bastards beat us to space! Get to work." I don't know how space travel works (or doesn't work as it were). The head of the space program, being very cunning says, "Well, sure, but it's going to cost a lot of rubles." So we give it to them and they use some of it and graft from the balance. Then they say, "We've had some technical problems. If we're going to beat the US we're going to need even more rubles. We don't want them to beat us do we?" And I say, " Hooy na ny! Ty chyo, blya? Here's some more scratch -- I want results!" Incidentally, when the Soviets "delayed" too long and NASA beat them to the moon, the Premier pulled the plug financially. So they came up with new goals. Like SpaceLab/Mir, etc. And the game continues as they fake progress and keep the balance... Now they're all working together on the ISS -- how convenient!
-
See how plausible it all is, Poo?
-
Ok, I'm the Premier. The US has just said they're going to start sending men to the moon. I tell the head of the space program, "hey -- we can't let those nekulturny bastards beat us to space! Get to work." I don't know how space travel works (or doesn't work as it were).
Yeah, I'm the Premier and my son worked on the space program and later became involved in aeronautics, and I was trained as an engineer, but I never really bothered to find out about the itty bitty details because I'm just a massive stoopidhed.
-
I have the strangest feeling that naming myself after a massive fictional poo, whose hobbies include pelting squirrels with his faeces, was an enormous mistake.
-
So, let me get this right, because your theory is intriguing -- What you're saying is the Premier was financing his son's project. The Premier was in on the conspiracy and had personal/familial gain? Wow... I'm not sure I buy your version, but it's pretty plausible as conspiracy theories go. Kudos!
Incidentally, being an engineer/director at a textile plant doesn't exactly give Alexey the inside scoop on the space race...
-
I was talking about Krushchev, but hey, it's all good.
If there are any mistakes in this fantastic conspiracy theory we can just invent a massive, magical octopus to come and iron out everything.
-
Well, now you're just being silly, govniuk...
-
here's a video for you:
of course, FErs would say "it must be fake because it must be fake" ad infinitum, because they are too stupid to see the truth.
off the top of my head, here's a partial list of people FErs have accused of being in "the conspiracy":
-all astronauts and anyone associated with any space program
-all fighter pilots, and commercial jet pilots
-any pilot or ship navigator who has ever gone south of the equator (because the maps are so different)
-anyone who has ever been to antarctica
-every astronomer
-every schoolteacher
-every member of every goverment
and that's just for starters!
-
you'd think being the skinny, four-eyed kid that you would've been one of the smart ones...
Clearly, this is not the case. Your list is in error.
Also I just watched your video, and it seems to cut out right before they show the earth's "round" shape. Why is that?
-
here's a video for you:
of course, FErs would say "it must be fake because it must be fake" ad infinitum, because they are too stupid to see the truth.
off the top of my head, here's a partial list of people FErs have accused of being in "the conspiracy":
-all astronauts and anyone associated with any space program
-all fighter pilots, and commercial jet pilots
-any pilot or ship navigator who has ever gone south of the equator (because the maps are so different)
-anyone who has ever been to antarctica
-every astronomer
-every schoolteacher
-every member of every goverment
and that's just for starters!
Once again, please quote where FEers have claimed that pilots, navigators, astronomers, schoolteachers, or every member of every government are in on the conspiracy, you bullshitting nimrod. ::)
-
FE is a pile of wank. :)
-
do a few searches on this site, you lazy bum, and you will find them.i distictly recall several threads about mapmaking and navigation where they made this claim!
oh, i forgot one: the people who study earthquakes and volcanoes ALL say the earth is round, so FErs say THEY are all in the conspiracy!
-
They only say the earth is round because thats what they've been falsely taught. Volcanoes and earthquakes still work on an FE model. Please stop being a stupid jackass.
-
thank you for agreeing with my point that FErs accuse all schoolteachers of being in on the conspiracy!
and earthquake scientist measure how the earthquake vibrations bounce off the ROUND CORE of the earth...that's been discussed before, and as usual, degenerated into namecalling...
-
You remind me of this little kid we used to pick on in Cleveland. He had a big mouth and beady eyes that he hid behind glasses. We teased him relentlessly. I wonder what happened to that guy. I hope you grew up well adjusted, but he probably ended up a Tro-ol...
-
do a few searches on this site, you lazy bum, and you will find them.i distictly recall several threads about mapmaking and navigation where they made this claim!
No there aren't. If there are you could find them. You're just lying again, you douchebag.
-
thank you for agreeing with my point that FErs accuse all schoolteachers of being in on the conspiracy!
and earthquake scientist measure how the earthquake vibrations bounce off the ROUND CORE of the earth...that's been discussed before, and as usual, degenerated into namecalling...
No. School teachers also only teach what they were told to teach. The people that come up with that stuff get it from what they learned, etc. It all goes back to NASA. Stop being and idiot.
-
oh, yes the teachers teach what they were told to teach BY THE CONSPIRACY-or so FErs claim, assuming all teachers are blindly obedient morons-just like you!
so who "taught" YOU the earth is flat, and why are you too stupid to see the truth?
-
Every one in recent history has grown up being taught that round earth theory is true. The teachers are simply parroting what they've been told. They aren't told by a conspirator "Go teach round earth lies". Your argument is a great example of strawman.
-
It seems that the "FE'ers" seem to think that the proper way to argue is to attack the person and not the argument, and if one spelling mistake is made, the entire argument is invalid.
The whole flat earth theory is resting on the basis that a complex series of incredibly unlikely events have to occur, and that everything that refutes their arguments (which totals to about EVERYTHING) is created by an American government corporation.
Can anyone explain how the ancient Greeks and Mayans practiced astrology if the earth was flat, and what stopped pre-1950s mariners from getting to these infamous ice walls?
-
oh, yes the teachers teach what they were told to teach BY THE CONSPIRACY-or so FErs claim, assuming all teachers are blindly obedient morons-just like you!
No, not morons, just unwilling to except something that goes against all they've learned since they were small children. What do you think it would be like if some single religion had undisputable proof that they were correct? People wouldn't know how to react, they wouldn't want to believe it. Pretty much the same concept.
-
You remind me of this little kid we used to pick on in Cleveland. He had a big mouth and beady eyes that he hid behind glasses. We teased him relentlessly. I wonder what happened to that guy. I hope you grew up well adjusted, but he probably ended up a Tro-ol...
;D
-
oh, i've read lots of stories where someone rejected what they were taught: sometimes because they were SHOWN something that they had been taught was impossible or did not exist, sometimes because what they had been taught was full of contradictions and inconsistencies to begin with-like, say, FE theory?
for example, did you know that commoners in Russia are taught that all americans are liars, cheats and thieves?
-
for example, did you know that commoners in Russia are taught that all americans are liars, cheats and thieves?
You mean thats not true? ???
And don't you mean 'were' not 'are'?
-
I'm in the Marines, am I in on it? hmmm.. maybe I has a split personality *pokes around brain* nope, nobody there but me! hmmm...
-
I'm in the Marines, am I in on it? hmmm.. maybe I has a split personality *pokes around brain* nope, nobody there but me! hmmm...
I guess that depends. What shape do you say that the earth is?
-
I'm in the Marines, am I in on it? hmmm.. maybe I has a split personality *pokes around brain* nope, nobody there but me! hmmm...
I don't know. Did they ever tell you the world was really flat and to keep it a secret?
If no, then probably not.
-
I think it's shaped like a pistachio
-
I think it's shaped like a pistachio
Then you're fine. Welcome to the FES. :)
-
for example, did you know that commoners in Russia are taught that all americans are liars, cheats and thieves?
You mean that's not true?
LOLWHUT?