The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Ibelieveinaroundearth on October 19, 2008, 10:04:28 PM

Title: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Ibelieveinaroundearth on October 19, 2008, 10:04:28 PM
Ever since the creation of the Flat Earth Society, the burden of proof has been laid on the shoulders of all the Round-Earth believers.

This topic's purpose is to reverse that.
It is time that the Flat Earth believers show their own proof of conspiracy, or proof of some other concept that proves the earth to be flat.

(No RE-ers respond to this thread until some legitimate form of proof is shown... then feel free to shoot it down.)
(and one more thing, if you don't have something constructive to say. DONT SAY IT.)
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on October 19, 2008, 10:06:09 PM
No, go form your own board and then people that come there will have to prove their outlandish theories.

As you have to here.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Ibelieveinaroundearth on October 19, 2008, 10:15:29 PM
Thank you for the wonderful example of what an inconstructive comment would be.
Let me re-iterate, If you do not have anything constructive to say, DONT SAY ANTHING.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 19, 2008, 10:19:21 PM
The burden of proof is on the RE'ers because they're the ones making the claim that NASA can land men on the moon, send robots to mars, and send probes to explore the solar system. We've never claimed any of that stuff. They made the claim, so the burden is on them to prove it.

Its the REer's responsibility to prove their outlandish sci-fi claims.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Ibelieveinaroundearth on October 19, 2008, 10:21:46 PM
And the RE believers have shown evidence, and while it is not credible to some people,
it is alot more than I have seen from any FE'er
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 19, 2008, 10:31:57 PM
And the RE believers have shown evidence, and while it is not credible to some people,
it is alot more than I have seen from any FE'er

Really? Where's your evidence that NASA has invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter straight up at 7 miles per second, and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis, explore the cosmos, and constantly wow the nation by landing a man on the moon and sending robots to mars?

You're the one making all of these claims. You're the one claiming that government contractors can send 100 tons of matter straight upwards at 7 miles a second (third stage of the Saturn V), and that NASA can do all of these amazing never before done things.

The burden of you is to prove these things to us. You're the one making the claim. The simplest explanation is that NASA really can't do all of that stuff.

If two people are having a debate, should the burden of proof rest on the shoulders of the person who make the most complicated claim, or should the burden of proof rest on the shoulders of the person who makes the simplest and easily observable claim?

In a discussion on the existence of ghosts should the burden of proof be on the group mumbling "just because you can't see something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist," or should the burden of proof be on everyone else to prove that ghosts *don't* exist?

A company called Mollar International claims to have invented a flying car with safety comparable to a land vehicle, an outstanding performance of a 400 mile range, and sophisticated never before seen computer control. They claim that the Sky Car is ready to be mass produced if only they got a few more big investments. They've released a few videos of it hovering a short distance off the ground in test flights. Should the burden of proof be on the Moller proponents who are absolutely certain that all of Moller's claims are true, or should the burden of proof be on everyone else to prove that Moller's claims are *not* true?
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: MessiahOfFire on October 19, 2008, 10:34:45 PM
Ever since the creation of the Flat Earth Society, the burden of proof has been laid on the shoulders of all the Round-Earth believers.

This topic's purpose is to reverse that.
It is time that the Flat Earth believers show their own proof of conspiracy, or proof of some other concept that proves the earth to be flat.

(No RE-ers respond to this thread until some legitimate form of proof is shown... then feel free to shoot it down.)
(and one more thing, if you don't have something constructive to say. DONT SAY IT.)

And I thought all my posts where on the top list of fail.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: akeim on October 19, 2008, 10:47:24 PM
wouldn't the RE'ers proof be the pictures ect. taken on set missions? and if you think they are not true is it not you that have to prove that these pictures are fake? so far RE'ers (to my knowlage) are the only ones with even a shred of evidence to show for our theory....
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 19, 2008, 10:48:20 PM
Quote
so far RE'ers (to my knowlage) are the only ones with even a shred of evidence to show for our theory....

I agree. RE'ers have yet to produce a shred of evidence demonstrating that NASA can do the things RE'ers claim they can do.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: akeim on October 19, 2008, 10:51:36 PM
like i said the proof are the pictures  ::)
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: lifespan59 on October 19, 2008, 10:52:18 PM
Thank you for that Tom....I am fairly new to this forum & have only posted a few times, but I am also convinced the burden of proof lies squarely on anyone who believes that man has somehow entered "space" and photographed the earth from afar....

Do they not know?  Are most people not aware that the earliest attempts at "rockets" resulted in utter failure?  They launched them alright.  The "rockets" went up alright.  But they exploded mysteriously high up in "space"....Please.  Anyone worth their weight in gold would know that we can only go so high up.  And believe you me NASA knows this.  They know this all too well brothers & sisters.  Which is why they fly their "space ships" up high, high in the upper "atmosphere", but not too high, & take their precious photos of the great continents & oceans down here.  But do not be mislead, these "space ships" do not leave earth.  They cannot leave earth.  And they never will leave earth.  

Thank you Tom.  It is NASA who is pushing this science fiction.  But theirs is not even really that impressive.  For my money it is James Cameron.....

And please bring on the "pictures"....Because they can & will be dissected & broken down all night long like Lionel Ritchie....
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 19, 2008, 11:47:48 PM
like i said the proof are the pictures  ::)

What pictures prove that NASA really went into space?  ???
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: MessiahOfFire on October 20, 2008, 12:00:24 AM
like i said the proof are the pictures  ::)

What pictures prove that NASA really went into space?  ???

Until you describe and prove why the photos taken by NASA are fake, you can't use that argument. And just because a few photos have been edited to get a colour out of them by NASA workers doesn't mean that they made the pictures up from scrap/nothing. They actually went up there and saw what the earth looked like from the Moon.

Thanks though, babe!
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: lifespan59 on October 20, 2008, 12:16:55 AM
"Until you describe and prove why the photos taken by NASA are fake, you can't use that argument. And just because a few photos have been edited to get a colour out of them by NASA workers doesn't mean that they made the pictures up from scrap/nothing. They actually went up there and saw what the earth looked like from the Moon.

Thanks though, babe!"

---Messiah of Fire

Describe & prove?  Well, that is a tall order isn't it.  Not really though.....Color, black & white.  Silent or talkies.  It doesn't matter.  A lie is a lie is a lie is a lie.  Where do we start?...Bring them on---these "pictures"....But try to find a good one will 'ya.  Because time is money and the way things are going these days, I guess there's not much of either....

Show me what your NASA God has to offer up :)

 
 
 
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: MessiahOfFire on October 20, 2008, 12:29:17 AM
"Until you describe and prove why the photos taken by NASA are fake, you can't use that argument. And just because a few photos have been edited to get a colour out of them by NASA workers doesn't mean that they made the pictures up from scrap/nothing. They actually went up there and saw what the earth looked like from the Moon.

Thanks though, babe!"

---Messiah of Fire

Describe & prove?  Well, that is a tall order isn't it.  Not really though.....Color, black & white.  Silent or talkies.  It doesn't matter.  A lie is a lie is a lie is a lie.  Where do we start?...Bring them on---these "pictures"....But try to find a good one will 'ya.  Because time is money and the way things are going these days, I guess there's not much of either....

Show me what your NASA God has to offer up :)

 
 
 


How much of your life have you wasted, to not know the source of the photos? Search your self.

Example: Into google; 'earth from moon'.

A lie? Don't bring this around like a snake, I dont like going in circles. Its not a lie, and if these photos are lies, then prove it.

Thanks babylicious!
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on October 20, 2008, 12:34:42 AM
Like this one??  It must be true.  Its a photo!!!11!


(http://www.arcadiastreet.com/cgvistas/images/moon_and_earth.jpg)
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: lifespan59 on October 20, 2008, 12:45:08 AM
"How much of your life have you wasted, to not know the source of the photos? Search your self.

Example: Into google; 'earth from moon'.

A lie? Don't bring this around like a snake, I dont like going in circles. Its not a lie, and if these photos are lies, then prove it.

Thanks babylicious!"

---Messiah of Fire

To the first question, I have wasted way too much of my life.  Too much to count....But I have not yet wasted one single second on the truth.  But lies, well yes, they have consumed my time.  And I suspect they are consuming yours as well.  But you will get past them & see things for what they are very soon I suspect :)....

And the snake you are referring to, he has a name & it is Lucifer. 
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: MessiahOfFire on October 20, 2008, 12:49:42 AM
Like this one??  It must be true.  Its a photo!!!11!


(http://www.arcadiastreet.com/cgvistas/images/moon_and_earth.jpg)

LOLZ!

From that site it is just a 'compare' picture that compares the size of the earth to the moon. Geeze, that was the 5th picture on Google images; 'earth from moon'.

Did you look at the others, or do I need to send the links here?

Well, ok, I'll send em over here:

http://www.geography4kids.com/extras/dtop_space/moonearth_580.jpg
http://www.geography4kids.com/extras/dtop_space/moonearth_1024x768.jpg
http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=65046&rendTypeId=4
http://epod.usra.edu/archive/images/earthrise.jpg

Just a few, need more?

And going by what has been so far, shining a torch at a round, yet flat table will not produce sphere looking results.
But what will, you ask? Shining that same torch at a soccer ball or round object.

Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: MessiahOfFire on October 20, 2008, 12:51:00 AM
"How much of your life have you wasted, to not know the source of the photos? Search your self.

Example: Into google; 'earth from moon'.

A lie? Don't bring this around like a snake, I dont like going in circles. Its not a lie, and if these photos are lies, then prove it.

Thanks babylicious!"

---Messiah of Fire

To the first question, I have wasted way too much of my life.  Too much to count....But I have not yet wasted one single second on the truth.  But lies, well yes, they have consumed my time.  And I suspect they are consuming yours as well.  But you will get past them & see things for what they are very soon I suspect :)....

And the snake you are referring to, he has a name & it is Lucifer. 


Going the way you are, your lifespan isn't going to span too long
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: lifespan59 on October 20, 2008, 01:06:36 AM
I know you did-not-just show me 4 consecutive photos of the suppos-ed "earth rise"?  Please, I know there must be more advanced weaponry in your arsenal than these hokey photos from 1969?....Come on now!  You can't bring a knife to a gunfight....Because even NASA and their 3rd grade education has improved since 1969.  But if this is all you have, then we will have to deal w/ it....

For starters, we will touch on the foreground.  The "moon".  The "moon", what a beautiful sight.  One small f*** up for man, one giant---that is a little bit much, I am sorry....Anyways, we will begin w/ the "moon".  Okay so why is it not bright & shiny like it is when I look at it from my front porch swing, 'Messiah on Fiah'?  What.  Does it become less bright the closer one gets to it?  Answer that one baby!!!

Also, what is the deal w/ the shadow on earth?  It doesn't correspond w/ the "moon" in the "photo".  It doesn't even match up in the least!  What the he** is causing the shadow to show like that?

Talk to me baby-licious!!!
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Peleus on October 20, 2008, 01:48:17 AM
You're the one claiming the earth is flat - prove it.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: MessiahOfFire on October 20, 2008, 01:55:10 AM
Talk to me baby-licious!!!

Perhaps if you did not drink before posting, I may have had something to respond too.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: lifespan59 on October 20, 2008, 02:01:17 AM
O-kay!  That is fine....Obviously we will leave this on the table since no counter-offers are available.  Maybe one day you will give me something 'good' from your NASA god....Until then we will raincheck it!!!
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: lifespan59 on October 20, 2008, 02:04:35 AM
You're the one claiming the earth is flat - prove it.

Is that what I'm doing?  Thank you, Peleus, for stating my declaration of purpose on this forum!  I'm so glad you're here to keep things coherent.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: MessiahOfFire on October 20, 2008, 02:15:07 AM
You're the one claiming the earth is flat - prove it.

Is that what I'm doing?  Thank you, Peleus, for stating my declaration of purpose on this forum!  I'm so glad you're here to keep things coherent.

Stop spanning your life, you'll never reach 59 without been known as a complete incoherent and drunk dumb ass.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: lifespan59 on October 20, 2008, 02:21:29 AM
You should let Peleus defend his/her self.  He/she has all the questions---I mean answers....

Anyways.  If I am inebriated as you claim, you should be able to show me up w/ your fancy "photos".  Otherwise, don't bother because I suppose there are people on here who will at least 'try' to defend their stance on the suppos-ed spherical earth!....There has to be someone on here who can show we live on a "planet" in a "solar system"....

Come on....Step right up :)
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Peleus on October 20, 2008, 02:41:16 AM
Its funny how many holes are in the FE theory, I mean you can't even post an accurate map.

Even if I can't prove the earth is round within the specifications you require, I can still show the hundreds of holes in the FE theory
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: lifespan59 on October 20, 2008, 02:49:03 AM
It's hilarious, I know.  In fact, I'm laughing right now.....I could argue w/ you, Peleus.  In fact, I'm sure we would have a good time, back & forth, but the better part of valor is for me to only point you toward the truth. 

Take a look at the following photo, please:
(http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm15/lifespan59/180px-Helms_window.jpg)

And tell me if it is not possible that these photos are taken from a very high altitude through a circular window in the "spacecraft" and end up looking like this:
(http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm15/lifespan59/earth.gif)

Just coincidence???  I think not!!!
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Ibelieveinaroundearth on October 20, 2008, 08:05:14 AM
wow. Alot happened since i went to the moon...  ;)

Anyways, to get back to the original point of this thread,
Does any FE believer have any scrap of evidence that shows, in any possible sense,
that the earth is flat.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Johannes on October 20, 2008, 08:09:49 AM
"4. There are rivers that flow for hundreds of miles towards the level of the sea without falling more than a few feet - notably, the Nile, which, in a thousand miles, falls but a foot. A level expanse of this extent is quite incompatible with the idea of the Earth's "convexity." It is, therefore, a reasonable proof that Earth is not a globe."

- The great scientist William Carpenter

Maybe if you took the time to read the literature you wouldn't need to make silly posts asking for proof.


Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Ibelieveinaroundearth on October 20, 2008, 08:22:39 AM
Firstly, do not try to insult me. I have read the 100 proofs that the earth is not a globe.
Thank you Tom Bishop for the wonderful link.

William Carpenter lived from 1830-1896.
In the many miles the Nile river spans, how does it fall only a few feet? and what is falling a few feet? the depth? the lowest point of the river?
William Carpenter never stated his view point, how could he have observed a river falling a few feet if he could not see the entire river? He never elaborated on his procedure as to measure the "few feet" which the Nile dropped. Now the burden of proof is on you to prove Carpenter right.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: lifespan59 on October 20, 2008, 03:47:52 PM
"Not it's not possible, as I explained here.

Fish eye photography will not stop you seeing 100% of the subject, it will simply distort how the whole subject is seen.

Only 50% of the earth can ever be photographed at one time from space.

Therefore fish eye photography of a flat earth will not produce an image as seen from space"

---goldstein

Sir.  I already conceded to you the fish eye point on the last thread we spoke on.  In these posts, I am suggesting that the pictures in question could have been framed so that it 'looks' like a spherical "planet" drifting through "space".....

And I believe that to be proof of a conspiracy.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Ibelieveinaroundearth on October 20, 2008, 07:17:14 PM
I'm not quite clear on this "fish-eye photography" How does it only show 50% of the earth?
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: lifespan59 on October 20, 2008, 07:25:53 PM
I'm not quite clear on this "fish-eye photography" How does it only show 50% of the earth?

I think maybe you combined a few posts in that question....I had earlier, on another thread claimed that maybe this famous earth "photo" was possibly just a very high altitude picture taken through a fish-eye lens....

(http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm15/lifespan59/earth.gif)

Instead of some great voyage to "space" as they would have us believe....

But, goldstein, would have none of this and promptly shot down this theory of mine....And I don't believe he said that 50% of the earth could be seen through fish-eye photography, but rather that one could only see 50% of the earth at any one time from outer "space"....

He went on to state that "Fish eye photography will not stop you seeing 100% of the subject, it will simply distort how the whole subject is seen."

Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Johannes on October 20, 2008, 08:35:19 PM
Ah that makes perfect sense. NASA merely flew high and took a picture with a fish eye lenses. The rest of the earth is visible (just not with the fish eye view and edited in black) but they flew at a perfect height to make it a "round earth effect".
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Johannes on October 20, 2008, 09:07:19 PM
Firstly, do not try to insult me. I have read the 100 proofs that the earth is not a globe.
Thank you Tom Bishop for the wonderful link.

William Carpenter lived from 1830-1896.
In the many miles the Nile river spans, how does it fall only a few feet? and what is falling a few feet? the depth? the lowest point of the river?
William Carpenter never stated his view point, how could he have observed a river falling a few feet if he could not see the entire river? He never elaborated on his procedure as to measure the "few feet" which the Nile dropped. Now the burden of proof is on you to prove Carpenter right.
Why he proved himself right in his own book  ???
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: fpot on October 20, 2008, 09:35:22 PM
But wait, haven't you guys ever been up in a plane before, and been able to see the curvature of the earth with your own eyes? haha.

Seriously this site is hilarious. I will post my favourite bit from this thread.

And the RE believers have shown evidence, and while it is not credible to some people,
it is alot more than I have seen from any FE'er

Really? Where's your evidence that NASA has invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter straight up at 7 miles per second, and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis, explore the cosmos, and constantly wow the nation by landing a man on the moon and sending robots to mars?

You're the one making all of these claims. You're the one claiming that government contractors can send 100 tons of matter straight upwards at 7 miles a second (third stage of the Saturn V), and that NASA can do all of these amazing never before done things.

The burden of you is to prove these things to us. You're the one making the claim. The simplest explanation is that NASA really can't do all of that stuff.

If two people are having a debate, should the burden of proof rest on the shoulders of the person who make the most complicated claim, or should the burden of proof rest on the shoulders of the person who makes the simplest and easily observable claim?

In a discussion on the existence of ghosts should the burden of proof be on the group mumbling "just because you can't see something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist," or should the burden of proof be on everyone else to prove that ghosts *don't* exist?

A company called Mollar International claims to have invented a flying car with safety comparable to a land vehicle, an outstanding performance of a 400 mile range, and sophisticated never before seen computer control. They claim that the Sky Car is ready to be mass produced if only they got a few more big investments. They've released a few videos of it hovering a short distance off the ground in test flights. Should the burden of proof be on the Moller proponents who are absolutely certain that all of Moller's claims are true, or should the burden of proof be on everyone else to prove that Moller's claims are *not* true?

I like the bit about 'never before seen rocket technologies from scratch'. Are you implying that all inventions and technological innovations have to of existed in some form before they were invented? I really don't know what you are trying to get at here.

These things have been proven. They have been proven by people witnessing the rockets taking off. They have been proven by watching spacecraft re-enter the atmosphere. They have also been proven by the photographs and videos taken while in space. Your accusations that these photographs and videos are fake are weak and ironically the burden of proof is on you to prove that they are fake, which you can't. That NASA spent a lot of money and got some of the top minds in the world to develop rocket technology to propel us out of our own atmosphere is a much simpler explanation than them staging the whole thing with fake rockets/photographs/videos/physical evidence with numerous people in on the conspiracy and no apparent motive. Can't you see that? Are you really that dense? Is that infantile little analogy at the end there really supposed to convince anyone that the world is flat? Because all it did was make me laugh.

The problem with you people is that you come to a conclusion (the world is flat) and then work your way backwards into the facts (the photographs must be faked and other skewed interpretations of evidence to support your claim). The proper way to look at things is to examine the evidence and facts and then come to a conclusion, which to anyone of sound mind is that the earth is round.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: lifespan59 on October 20, 2008, 09:44:41 PM
Ah that makes perfect sense. NASA merely flew high and took a picture with a fish eye lenses. The rest of the earth is visible (just not with the fish eye view and edited in black) but they flew at a perfect height to make it a "round earth effect".

That's the way I see it Mr. Kepler.  I really believe NASA took some extremely high altitude flights---above the clouds and what not.  And from these lofty positions, they composed some very rigged photos.  

Maybe, they snapped the photos through 'this' particular window.  Maybe they didn't....
(http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm15/lifespan59/180px-Helms_window.jpg)

And maybe they 'blacked' out the surrounding part as you suggested.  Maybe they didn't.
(http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm15/lifespan59/earth.gif)

Maybe they used a fish-eye lens to get this spherical effect.  Maybe they didn't.  

What they most certainly did not do & will never do is go to "space".  NASA knows it cannot engineer a "space" journey.  It is not even possible to us.  There is only so far that we can go up "there" and that is it....And no amount of "space" technology that we have now or will ever have is going to make a difference.  

Thank you Mr. Kepler for keeping an open mind :)  
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: fpot on October 20, 2008, 09:47:39 PM
What they most certainly did not do & will never do is go to "space".  NASA knows it cannot engineer a "space" journey.  It is not even possible to us.  There is only so far that we can go up "there" and that is it....And no amount of technology that we have now or will ever have is going to make a difference.  

But thank you Mr. Kepler for keeping an open mind :)  
Pretty much the furtherest we can go at the moment is restricted by the amount of life support that can be contained on a manned vessel. What restrictions do you think are keeping us from exploring space?
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: lifespan59 on October 20, 2008, 09:57:45 PM

[/quote]
Pretty much the furtherest we can go at the moment is restricted by the amount of life support that can be contained on a manned vessel. What restrictions do you think are keeping us from exploring space?
[/quote]

I am glad you asked fpot....The earliest attempts at "rocket" science proved just how far these "rockets" and by extension, humans, can or will ever go in "space"....But put a better way is how far humans can travel from the earth. 

Anyways, these "rockets" all shared the same fate.  Each one of them blew up when they reached these enormous altitudes.  Some reports had it that they disentegrated up there in the upper "atmosphere".  But we can just go w/ 'blew up' for now. 

The point being, that these "rockets" went as far as they could go.  They went further than NASA goes now, when they snap these earth "photos".  There is something up there that is impenetrable.  I have heard it called the 'Van Allen Belt' and maybe that is what it is.  Either way, no amount of technology is going to go past 'it'....
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: fpot on October 20, 2008, 10:14:17 PM
I am glad you asked fpot....The earliest attempts at "rocket" science proved just how far these "rockets" and by extension, humans, can or will ever go in "space"....But put a better way is how far humans can travel from the earth. 

Anyways, these "rockets" all shared the same fate.  Each one of them blew up when they reached these enormous altitudes.  Some reports had it that they disentegrated up there in the upper "atmosphere".  But we can just go w/ 'blew up' for now. 

The point being, that these "rockets" went as far as they could go.  They went further than NASA goes now, when they snap these earth "photos".  There is something up there that is impenetrable.  I have heard it called the 'Van Allen Belt' and maybe that is what it is.  Either way, no amount of technology is going to go past 'it'....
See that little quote button at the top right of peoples posts? Click that to quote properly.

Of course early rockets blew up, that always happens to new technology, things going wrong. By your theory planes would never be able to fly farther then 20 feet because the that's all the Wright brothers could manage. I don't mean to get narky and rude on an internet forum, but what you just said is a total load of bullshit. It sounds like the sort of explanation you'd give a child, vague and completely void of any details and reasoning. There is just 'something' up there which is impenetrable is there? What could that be? Oh the magical Van Allen Belt oh I have heard of that! Maybe it's that!

The Van Allen Belt (that would make an awesome name for a band or clothing label or something but I digress) are charged radioactive particles that exist in the upper atmosphere of our planet. Yes, passing through the VAB is deadly to organic life and exposed sensitive electronic equipment. That you'd think that this sort of thing could cause a rocket to just magically explode shows your complete lack of understanding of what you are talking about. To safely traverse the VAB organic matter and electronic equipments needs to be shielded and protected. Have you heard of a metal called lead? It does wonders for shielding against radiation.

And by the way just in case you haven't realised, putting certain words in quotation marks doesn't make your argument any more convincing or compelling, it just makes you look really stupid.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: lifespan59 on October 20, 2008, 10:27:03 PM
This might be so, because I feel like I have to put things in simple terms which is---what people can and cannot do in this life.  Some people feel so important w/ all their "technical" jargon.  At the end of the day, this 'jargon' is still 'jargon'.  And this 'jargon' cannot change the way things are, fpot. 

I know you feel like you are standing on such high & mighty ground w/ your NASA god.  You guys have accomplished so much in such a short time.  Hallelujah!

To the "rocket" point, I might add that these "rockets" went quite a bit more than 20 feet.  Even a bit more than 2,000 feet.  But you must believe what you must.  I can only point the way....

What is your reason for believing NASA went to "space" and photographed the earth?


Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: fpot on October 20, 2008, 10:45:03 PM
This might be so, because I feel like I have to put things in simple terms which is---what people can and cannot do in this life.  Some people feel so important w/ all their "technical" jargon.  At the end of the day, this 'jargon' is still 'jargon'.  And this 'jargon' cannot change the way things are, fpot. 

I know you feel like you are standing on such high & mighty ground w/ your NASA god.  You guys have accomplished so much in such a short time.  Hallelujah!

To the "rocket" point, I might add that these "rockets" went quite a bit more than 20 feet.  Even a bit more than 2,000 feet.  But you must believe what you must.  I can only point the way....

What is your reason for believing NASA went to "space" and photographed the earth?
I see you missed the part about quotation marks in my post, or simply ignored it.

For the record I didn't use any technical jargon in my post. Which parts didn't you understand? I'll gladly explain them to you. I have seen the term 'NASA god' thrown around this forum quite a bit. Is this supposed to discredit us, by comparing NASA to those who have faith in a certain religion or something? The difference between those who have a faith in religion and those of us who know that NASA went to space and the earth is round is simply that, faith. Faith requires no evidence of any kind for people to believe, whereas us who support science require tangible evidence, which is truly in abundance when it comes to the space program. I guess in your next post you are actually going to ask me to tell you what that evidence is. Yawn.

And you completely misunderstood what I was getting at with the 20 feet comment. Perhaps you should learn to comprehend what is written before you make a comment on it. What I was saying that the first successful heavier than air flight only traveled 20 feet or so, with numerous complete failures before that. Now we have planes that travel 5000km/h whilst cruising at 500000ft. Technological advancement is a slippy slope.

And the reason NASA went to space and photographed the earth? Why did cavemen leave their caves? Why did the the spanish set off to find the new world? Why did the British embark upon the first fleet? It's human nature to want to explore, to find out new things and to go to places they haven't been before. The next challenge for the human race was to embark upon space, and then eventually the moon. I guess the next challenge is to set foot upon mars, which is something I hope to see in my lifetime.

Your writing style and general way you come across suggest someone of a very low intelligence by the way. Perhaps anyone who has half a brain and sits on his side of the fence should remark upon that before hitting the 'post reply' button.


Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: lifespan59 on October 20, 2008, 10:53:54 PM
Dear Fpot,

     I did not ask you 'why' NASA would 'try' to go into "space".  I know that answer.  I said 'why' do 'you' believe they went into "space" & photographed earth?  In more plain terms, what convinces you they were successful?...See, I should have used more quotations & maybe you would have gotten the point.  I do appreciate your enthusiasm for this lesson though :)

                             your best friend, lifespan59
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: lifespan59 on October 20, 2008, 11:23:08 PM
Hey Fpot, I am going to go make some coffee....I am hoping (crossing my fingers) that maybe you might give me something to stay up late working on???  If not, I understand....We will see....
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: MessiahOfFire on October 21, 2008, 12:41:41 AM

What is your reason for believing NASA went to "space" and photographed the earth?


Come on, are you seriously just some 13 year old that has no idea what he's talking about? The reason for people believing NASA went to space and photographed the earth are the photos and the launches that so many people took part in, and not only that, even more people would watch the launch live.

It is up to you to prove that the photos are fake, and this is probably the third time I am saying this. Prove that the photos are fake and the launches where fake. Otherwise, STOP POSTING. Fool.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: MessiahOfFire on October 21, 2008, 12:43:58 AM
Hey Fpot, I am going to go make some coffee....I am hoping (crossing my fingers) that maybe you might give me something to stay up late working on???  If not, I understand....We will see....

Make sure you don't slip too much alcohol into your coffee this time. It would be really nice if we had somebody that could talk normally too.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: lifespan59 on October 21, 2008, 12:56:04 AM
Okay, no alcohol this time.  Not yet anyways....

So, for starters, Messiah, I have no quibble w/ the actual launch.  This is most certainly happening.  Any fool could see this.  I'm with you there.
 
My problem is w/ where these "astronauts" are flying or "launching" to?  That is my concern. 

And as far as these photos?  Well I am game to break them down if you want to?  And I mean this in the best way possible, Messiah.  If I was rude  last night, I do apologize.  But seriously, please present me w/ a photo that you believe is a genuine article.  And I will show you why I think this is not the case....and why I think so?

Is that fair for starters?
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: lifespan59 on October 21, 2008, 01:04:45 AM
It seems as if Fpot was much more interested in attacking me than the subject at hand.....But it is okay.  His 'kind' burn out too quickly to bring anything substantial to the argument....
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: thre3dee on October 21, 2008, 01:52:12 AM
Hey fpot :P

I applaude your efforts to reason with these stubborn people (unless this entire forum is just a troller's trolling flame joke).

lifespan59: please watch this entire video. The whole thing.If you don't you'll miss my point.  Now... does that look like space or what? And this wasn't even a space shuttle, just a satellite deploying rocket (i assume).



I'll end my efforts here... Good luck fpot.. youre gonna need it.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: lifespan59 on October 21, 2008, 05:33:40 PM
thre3dee, I do appreciate your enthusiasm, but I will repeat that yes I do believe these "rockets" are going high up in the atmosphere.  But they are only going so far.

And by that I mean that there is only so far they can go.  Not because of technology, but because that is the way things are.  NASA can take all their fancy photos & they can edit them all they want to, but it does not change anything. 

Your "rocket" video proves that yes we can fly high.  I have no dispute with that.  We can go so high that yes we can see the blackness up there where the moon, sun & stars reside.  But there is a ceiling on that blackness thre3dee.  And NASA knows this, so they stay within it and make pretend they are in outer "space". 

I guess you & your buddy Fpot still believe in the tooth fairy too.  It's okay if it makes you feel secure at night....

P.S.---at least you did post a video.  I can't get Fpot to give me any photos to debate with him....
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: thre3dee on October 21, 2008, 05:58:52 PM
thre3dee, I do appreciate your enthusiasm, but I will repeat that yes I do believe these "rockets" are going high up in the atmosphere.  But they are only going so far.

And by that I mean that there is only so far they can go.  Not because of technology, but because that is the way things are.  NASA can take all their fancy photos & they can edit them all they want to, but it does not change anything. 

Your "rocket" video proves that yes we can fly high.  I have no dispute with that.  We can go so high that yes we can see the blackness up there where the moon, sun & stars reside.  But there is a ceiling on that blackness thre3dee.  And NASA knows this, so they stay within it and make pretend they are in outer "space". 

I guess you & your buddy Fpot still believe in the tooth fairy too.  It's okay if it makes you feel secure at night....

P.S.---at least you did post a video.  I can't get Fpot to give me any photos to debate with him....

Haha this is gold. What the hell is this ceiling you keep refering too?
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: lifespan59 on October 21, 2008, 06:11:53 PM
That is the age old question thre3dee.  What it is I do not know w/out going into religion.  I could tell you what my Bible tells me it is.  But, suffice is to say that it is there.  There is something that we cannot and will not get past high up there. 

And I know that sounds vague.  But in my humble opinion it is a much simpler truth than all the fascinating & exciting words NASA comes up with to perpetuate the lie to end all lies....

But I am positively sure we could exchange blows like this for hours & days on end....You will probably call me names and talk about how simple I might be for drawing these ridiculous conclusions.  And I most definitely will hurt your feelings and show you how gullible you most certainly are for believing in your NASA religion....

So, without further ado, why don't you pony up & present me w/ a photo which you believe to be a genuine article.  And I will show you why I think this is not the case.  Then we can have a proper debate....:)
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Johannes on October 21, 2008, 06:18:54 PM
Most people here think spaceflight is possible, just sustained spaceflight is impossible as there is no centripetal force to pull a spacecraft into orbit. But that doesn't mean we believe NASA....
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: lifespan59 on October 21, 2008, 06:28:13 PM
To all the non-believers out there in never-never land....If you got something to say, just say it.  I can take the abuse.  Throw the daggers all you want to.  Get it outta your system please.  We can trade "word" punches all night long if it makes you feel good. 

But then, when you're done w/ trying to be a 'man' please present me w/ some kinda photo or something that we can have an intelligent debate over.  I keep asking for something, but nobody will soldier up and provide it.....I will provide, if you prefer, but I just didn't want anyone to think I might doctor 'em up....

However, once the debate is over and you are proven to be full of sh**, I am gonna have to hurt your feelings.....

I love you!
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: thre3dee on October 21, 2008, 07:34:21 PM
How about this? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/Earth_&_Mir_(STS-71).jpg

Or this?

(skip ahead about a minute, just astronaut footage first - moon footage about 2 mins)
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 21, 2008, 07:42:26 PM
How about this? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/Earth_&_Mir_(STS-71).jpg

The horizon in that picture isn't an arc of a circle.

Quote
Or this?

The earth looks pretty fake at the 2:54 mark
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: thre3dee on October 21, 2008, 07:58:16 PM
Lol. With all the raw processing power of the incredible feat of engineering which is my human brain, I cannot for the life of me understand how a person could possibly believe at all that any of these theories could possibly be even remotely anything other than some idiots idea of taking thousands of incredibly dumb people for a ride and making them believe that the Earth is flat, that NASA has not gone to space, the Moon and even Mars - all despite thousands of hours of footage of lift-offs and spacewalks, hundreds of thousands of photos from spacecraft clearly hundreds to thousands of kilometres above the Earth, all the very clear photos of the Earth being a sphere, the fact that we've taken up-close photos of almost every planet and their moons.

If 3000 people out of 6 billion believe the Earth is flat and we cannot go into space (which we've been doing happily for the last 40 years), then there's clearly something very wrong going on inside their heads.

Its one of those things that boggles the mind to no end.

Seriously, I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone could actually believe all this crap. My brain hurts.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 21, 2008, 09:41:53 PM
Quote
If 3000 people out of 6 billion believe the Earth is flat and we cannot go into space (which we've been doing happily for the last 40 years), then there's clearly something very wrong going on inside their heads.

It is often argued that since the majority believes that the earth is a globe, it must be true. This is a logical fallacy.

For example: only six hundred years ago the greatest scientific minds of the day and the majority of civilization believed that witches were the cause for disease, crop failures, and natural disasters. Since the majority believed it, does that mean witches existed?

Learn more: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-belief.html
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: thre3dee on October 21, 2008, 09:59:21 PM
Quote
If 3000 people out of 6 billion believe the Earth is flat and we cannot go into space (which we've been doing happily for the last 40 years), then there's clearly something very wrong going on inside their heads.

It is often argued that since the majority believes that the earth is a globe, it must be true. This is a logical fallacy.

For example: only six hundred years ago the greatest scientific minds of the day and the majority of civilization believed that witches were the cause for disease, crop failures, and natural disasters. Since the majority believed it, does that mean witches existed?

Learn more: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-belief.html
You're talking about theories, not overwhelming evidence.

The problem with your argument is that you're still denying 40 years of 100% factual real evidence that we've actually in fact gone into space and very far from Earth. You seen the photo of Earth from the Voyager II spacecraft some 4 billion km (or miles) from Earth?

There's no point in actually showing you any photos or videos because you dismiss it in a heartbeat. Until you actually clime aboard a space shuttle and go into space, you're not going to wake up to the incredibly overwhelming evidence that is around you.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 21, 2008, 10:25:26 PM
Quote
The problem with your argument is that you're still denying 40 years of 100% factual real evidence that we've actually in fact gone into space and very far from Earth. You seen the photo of Earth from the Voyager II spacecraft some 4 billion km (or miles) from Earth?

600 years ago the argument for the unobservable was exactly the same.

"You've heard the stories the local preacher told us about witches. You've seen the diseases and famine. You've spoken to the woman who claimed to have seen a witch one time. The church has factual evidence that witches are the downfall of society. How can you not believe the overwhelming evidence?!"

The belief in the unobservable persists to this very day. The belief in the unobservable is called BLIND FAITH. It's an absolutely disgusting belief system which was at the heart of the Dark Ages and persists to this very day in many religious, political, and scientific institutions.

Blind Faith is ignorance. An appeal to an authority is ignorance. I don't care if the belief is in magical sky fairies, Santa Clause, or a Round Earth. Any time one puts his blind faith into something he has not tested and observed for his own self he is exercising a despicable form of ignorance which has corrupted civilization again and again since the dawn of time.

Nazism, Christianity, Satanism, Hinduism, Spiritualism: It's all the same. It's all based on blind faith of the unobservable. Blind faith in the unobservable is precisely what Globularists try and push on us every day.

Quote
Until you actually clime aboard a space shuttle and go into space, you're not going to wake up to the incredibly overwhelming evidence that is around you.

I look around for evidence every day. All evidence I see suggests that the earth exists as a plane.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: lifespan59 on October 21, 2008, 10:49:39 PM
Tom, you have this thing down pat....I have to apologize for my absence.  I know I started this argument w/ Thre3dee & Fpot.  And I should have manned up and finished it.  But you draw on infinitely more knowledge and expertise than I can possibly bring to the table....

I know that you don't need any praise, but these truths that you are presenting are right on....

The thing that these non-believers need to understand---and they already know this if they will just allow themselves---is that the truth is always hard to swallow.  And most of the time it doesn't feel good at first.  But once it is digested, it is the most beautiful thing in the world....It is the lies that go down so smoothly and feel so good in the beginning....And they keep feeling good until you realize that you've been had....

Thank you Mr. Bishop :)
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Winky on October 22, 2008, 12:14:10 AM
Quote
Blind Faith is ignorance. An appeal to an authority is ignorance. I don't care if the belief is in magical sky fairies, Santa Clause, or a Round Earth. Any time one puts his blind faith into something he has not tested and observed for his own self, he is exercising a despicable form of ignorance which has corrupted civilization again and again since the dawn of time.


So you have been to the Ice wall Bish? You have photos or film of it I presume. I want to know about the 'sky mirror', how you know light is bendy. Who builds all these stratolites? How can a spotlight moon have phases, or the rising/setting sun light the underneath of clouds. Why hasn't a single guard of the ice wall ever,ever blown the whistle on this conspiracy? Why has nobody ever been able to produce a proper map of the flat earth? What is pushing the Earth ever upwards?

I can't wait to see the answers and proof of all this, because after all, someone who "puts his blind faith into something he has not tested and observed for his own self, [he] is exercising a despicable form of ignorance which has corrupted civilization again and again since the dawn of time.]"



Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 22, 2008, 01:03:08 AM
Quote
So you have been to the Ice wall Bish? You have photos or film of it I presume.

I don't believe in a 40,000 foot tall Ice Wall at the edges of the earth. There are other models which do not invoke an Ice Wall, where the atmosphere can stay on a finite accelerating earth without leaking into space (Guy Lussac's Law (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=16104.msg264337#msg264337)).

What exists at the extremities of our earth is presently unknown.

Quote
I want to know about the 'sky mirror',

I don't believe in a sky mirror. The existence of any reflecting bodies or entities in the sky is presently unknown.

Quote
how you know light is bendy.

Knowing that the earth is flat, the sun can only appear to intersect with the earth's surface if its light is bending upwards. The sunset is a direct observation of bending light.

When the sun passes by a star the star's light bends and warps as the sun passes by. This is further evidence and a direct observation that the sun affects the direction of photons.

Quote
Who builds all these stratolites?

I've never heard of a "stratolite".

Quote
How can a spotlight moon have phases,

The moon is changing it's altitude in relation to the sun, causing the phases. The mechanism which causes the moon to move in this fashion is presently unknown.

Quote
Why hasn't a single guard of the ice wall ever,ever blown the whistle on this conspiracy?


I don't believe in the existence of any Ice Wall guards.

Quote
Why has nobody ever been able to produce a proper map of the flat earth?


The true layout of the earth is presently unknown. Right now there are a couple hypothetical maps going around.

Quote
What is pushing the Earth ever upwards?

The mechanism is presently unknown, but a placeholder title of "Dark Energy" has been given to the mechanism.

Quote
I can't wait to see the answers and proof of all this, because after all, someone who "puts his blind faith into something he has not tested and observed for his own self, [he] is exercising a despicable form of ignorance which has corrupted civilization again and again since the dawn of time."

I don't have answers to unobservable mechanism or unobservable entities. I don't believe in any unobservable mechanisms or entities. I will happily tell you that the specific answers you are seeking are currently unknown to human knowledge. I do not put my faith into hypotheticals and unobservables. I'm not a spiritualist.

I only believe in what I can see and test for myself. When I step off the edge of a chair and go into free fall I can see the earth physically accelerate upwards towards me. I don't see tiny undetectable "graviton" particles pulling me towards the surface. I just see an upwardly accelerating earth. That's a direct observation and test for the mechanism which keeps us pinned to the earth's surface. Science has yet to come up with a test for the hypothetical existence of "graviton particles".

Samuel Birley Rowbotham's Zetitic Philosophy is an exercise in skepticism to come to the absolute truth of a matter. It's a form of Empiricism in which all possibilities are assessed, facts collected, where the conclusion arrived at is essentially a quotient; which, if the details are correctly worked, must of necessity be true, and beyond the reach or power of contradiction. It's a philosophy where all "hypothesis" is thrown out the window. Only possibilities which can be demonstrated, tested, and peer reviewed are considered.

A Zetetic is a free-thinker; one whose views are based on logic and reason independent of authority and blind faith.

Rowbotham has an excellent chapter on the subject of Zeteticism here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za04.htm
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Winky on October 22, 2008, 01:30:07 AM
First of all, thanks! For replying and addressing each point. At least by doing that we are having a proper discussion.

I had thought all FErs believed in the ice wall, but I have had a look at your link. I understand where you are coming from even though I disagree. Pressure tries to equalise, therefore out atmosphere would rush away.

Ditto sky mirror. I thought all FErs believed in that. You don't, good call as it would appear highly suspect and 'convenient'!!

Bendy light. You assume that earth is flat and therefore come up with BL as a solution. OK, that is a theory, but in science you need to be able to test and retest to validate a theory. Right now you appear to be saying here is a theory of bendy light which proves flat earth can work. We can prove the theory because the Earth is flat! Running round in circles there mate.

The moons phases. Stand in a dark room with a torch shining towards you and hold out a tennis ball at arms length. Rotate slowly and you can see the ball lit in phases in exactly the same way as the moon is. This can be demonstrated, is simple, and matches visible behaviour of the moon. You propose an unknown mechanism of altitude changes (leaving aside laser distancing of the moon) and even accepting an unknown mechanism for the changes,  fail to see how you can produce the phases we see. I therefore posit that the conventional moon orbits the earth theory the much simpler explanation.

Ice guards... OK

Maps. Why is the true layout unknown? We have GPS (forget sats vs strats for a moment!), we have lots of technology that enables us to map the world. We need to be able to find our way from place to place and seem to be able to fly say London to Sydney without getting lost. So why cant we make a simple map?

'Dark Energy'. Why propose this? If you use gravitational equations, you can calculate how far a ball will go and its trajectory when thrown. Aha you say, but this is true for eart upwards theory. Yes, granted, but using those same equations, you can predict when sattelites will pass over head, the movement of the moons of other planets, the path of comets etc. All down to gravitational theory. So, one set of equations can show how everything in the heavens move like clockwork, predictably time after time, or we can accept that 'something' unseen, untested and possibly unknowable pushes the whole planet for no readily apparent reason!

So you can't 'see' gravity and therefore you think it must be the earth rushing up keeping you pinned to it...ok, so what keeps the atmosphere on venus, mars etc? Love? Nope, the same gravity that keeps us down.

What about comet shoemaker-levy that struck jupiter? The entire path of the comet was calculated and a date and time for impact into Jupiter was calculated using orbital mechanics - gravity. Wow, lo and behold it hit. Perhaps a lucky guess????


Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: fpot on October 22, 2008, 01:35:06 AM
Bendy light. You assume that earth is flat and therefore come up with BL as a solution. OK, that is a theory, but in science you need to be able to test and retest to validate a theory. Right now you appear to be saying here is a theory of bendy light which proves flat earth can work. We can prove the theory because the Earth is flat! Running round in circles there mate.
Circular logic, quite ironically.

What is also ironic is the way you mention the dark ages and the way they believed in witches. You know what else they believed in the dark ages? That the world was flat.

What would be hilarious is to take one of these morons on a trip on a space shuttle and watch them furrow their brows as they finally realise that the world is round. Actually, all you'd need to do is put them on a sailing ship and travel in a straight line long enough before they'd get to the same place. And no-one has made mention of being in a plane and _seeing_ the curvature of the earth with their own eyes. Or are planes part of the NASA god conspiracy as well.

Jesus christ, I can't believe there are people still this stupid in the civilised world :/
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: MadDogX on October 22, 2008, 01:52:10 AM
Bendy light. You assume that earth is flat and therefore come up with BL as a solution. OK, that is a theory, but in science you need to be able to test and retest to validate a theory. Right now you appear to be saying here is a theory of bendy light which proves flat earth can work. We can prove the theory because the Earth is flat! Running round in circles there mate.
Circular logic, quite ironically.

What is also ironic is the way you mention the dark ages and the way they believed in witches. You know what else they believed in the dark ages? That the world was flat.

What would be hilarious is to take one of these morons on a trip on a space shuttle and watch them furrow their brows as they finally realise that the world is round. Actually, all you'd need to do is put them on a sailing ship and travel in a straight line long enough before they'd get to the same place. And no-one has made mention of being in a plane and _seeing_ the curvature of the earth with their own eyes. Or are planes part of the NASA god conspiracy as well.

Jesus christ, I can't believe there are people still this stupid in the civilised world :/


Hint: there aren't.  ;)
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Moon squirter on October 22, 2008, 02:12:21 AM
Quote
how you know light is bendy.

Knowing that the earth is flat, the sun can only appear to intersect with the earth's surface if its light is bending upwards. The sunset is a direct observation of bending light.

So you are saying that Rowbothem's theories on the Sun's "Projection" and persective are wrong, and the earth does indeed "appear" to be curved.

Thanks, that's all I needed to know.

A Zetetic is a free-thinker; one whose views are based on logic and reason independent of authority and blind faith.

Someone who looks out of the window, observes that the earth appears to be flat, and then bases all thinking and reasoning around that one inconclusive observation (bendy light, celestial gears, spotlights, etc) is certainly not what I'd call a "free thinker".
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: iznih on October 22, 2008, 07:37:11 AM
Nazism, Christianity, Satanism, Hinduism, Spiritualism: It's all the same. It's all based on blind faith of the unobservable. Blind faith in the unobservable is precisely what Globularists try and push on us every day.

that made me speechless
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: thre3dee on October 22, 2008, 02:35:24 PM
How do you explain the GPS system?

The GPS system is totally dependant on ORBITAL motion to coordinate the other 24-32 satellites and relay position information. Unless you don't believe in GPS.

Also, how to do you explain the satellites in the first place? We can't go to space right? How do you explain their 26,000km orbital radius (over twice the diameter of the Earth)? How do you explain the hundreds of thousands of people using GPS on a daily basis.

fpot, you do realise how useless this is right? The problem with these people is they create an answer and then make up incredibly stupid solutions to problems without actually doing any scientific studies at all, then completely believe in their solutions despite incredibly large amounts of factual evidence completely explaining every phenomenon with accuracy and consistency. They are blinded by their own ignorance to world in front of their eyes.

So, Flat Earthers, do you solumnly and wholy believe that 99% of the world's population including the goverments (which fund NASA and other space agencies) is actually part of a massive, incredibly expensive (they spend hundreds of millions every space shuttle mission) hoax to try and persuade you 3000-4000 ignorant, blind and incredibly stupid people that the Earth is round when the rest of the world has experienced the curvature of the Earth in their daily lives.

Go to a beach and you'll see the curvature of the Earth. In fact, the furthest a person can actually see at sea level is roughly 4km due to the curvature (at an eye height of 1.6m on average).

Have a look at this picture and then read its quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Shiphorp.jpg
Quote
When a ship is at the horizon its lower part is invisible due to Earth's curvature. This was one of the first arguments favoring a round-earth model.

Also (I've quoted some important phrases),
Quote from: Wikipedia
As determined by modern instruments, a sphere approximates the earth's shape to within one part in 300. An oblate ellipsoid with a flattening of 1/300 approximates the earth exceedingly well. See Figure of the Earth.

...

As the science of geodesy measured Earth more accurately, the shape of the geoid was first found not to be a perfect sphere but to approximate an oblate spheroid, a specific type of ellipsoid. More recent measurements have measured the geoid to unprecedented accuracy, revealing mass concentrations beneath Earth's surface.

Note the extensive use of the word, MEASURED. Unlike Flat Earthers™, the rest of the world uses tools and instruments to verify that indeed we are standing on a spherical Earth (excepting deformations such as mountains and oceans).

I myself have SEEN the curvature of the Earth in a plane trip I had a while ago. Hell, I even saw it at the beach north of Brisbane a few weeks ago. Am I ignorant to the fact that I just saw the curvature of the horizon with my own eyes?

Not only did some people start hypothesising the round Earth model in favour of clear evidence, people PROVED it long ago. We use non-subjective, non-human TOOLS to MEASURE our observations. They returned the same results as the observations led us to believe.

Just found this too:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7540427.stm

Oh and I just realised something else. If the Earth is accelerating up at 9.8m/s to 'simulate' gravity then it only takes 354.03 days to reach the speed of light... In other words no matter how old FEs think the Earth is, the Earth would still be travelling thousands of times the speed of light. Why do I still see everything? And how would you explain time dilation due to our speed? We have experienced time dilation on atomic clocks in lower gravity situations such as on satellites.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: iznih on October 23, 2008, 06:06:28 AM
Oh and I just realised something else. If the Earth is accelerating up at 9.8m/s to 'simulate' gravity then it only takes 354.03 days to reach the speed of light... In other words no matter how old FEs think the Earth is, the Earth would still be travelling thousands of times the speed of light. Why do I still see everything? And how would you explain time dilation due to our speed? We have experienced time dilation on atomic clocks in lower gravity situations such as on satellites.

explained by einstein. it is in fact possible to accelerate nonstop without reaching c.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Dead Kangaroo on October 23, 2008, 06:47:34 AM
Quote
So you have been to the Ice wall Bish? You have photos or film of it I presume.

I don't believe in a 40,000 foot tall Ice Wall at the edges of the earth. There are other models which do not invoke an Ice Wall, where the atmosphere can stay on a finite accelerating earth without leaking into space (Guy Lussac's Law (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=16104.msg264337#msg264337)).

What exists at the extremities of our earth is presently unknown.

Quote
I want to know about the 'sky mirror',

I don't believe in a sky mirror. The existence of any reflecting bodies or entities in the sky is presently unknown.

Quote
how you know light is bendy.

Knowing that the earth is flat, the sun can only appear to intersect with the earth's surface if its light is bending upwards. The sunset is a direct observation of bending light.

When the sun passes by a star the star's light bends and warps as the sun passes by. This is further evidence and a direct observation that the sun affects the direction of photons.

Quote
Who builds all these stratolites?

I've never heard of a "stratolite".

Quote
How can a spotlight moon have phases,

The moon is changing it's altitude in relation to the sun, causing the phases. The mechanism which causes the moon to move in this fashion is presently unknown.

Quote
Why hasn't a single guard of the ice wall ever,ever blown the whistle on this conspiracy?


I don't believe in the existence of any Ice Wall guards.

Quote
Why has nobody ever been able to produce a proper map of the flat earth?


The true layout of the earth is presently unknown. Right now there are a couple hypothetical maps going around.

Quote
What is pushing the Earth ever upwards?

The mechanism is presently unknown, but a placeholder title of "Dark Energy" has been given to the mechanism.

Quote
I can't wait to see the answers and proof of all this, because after all, someone who "puts his blind faith into something he has not tested and observed for his own self, [he] is exercising a despicable form of ignorance which has corrupted civilization again and again since the dawn of time."

I don't have answers to unobservable mechanism or unobservable entities. I don't believe in any unobservable mechanisms or entities. I will happily tell you that the specific answers you are seeking are currently unknown to human knowledge. I do not put my faith into hypotheticals and unobservables. I'm not a spiritualist.

I only believe in what I can see and test for myself. When I step off the edge of a chair and go into free fall I can see the earth physically accelerate upwards towards me. I don't see tiny undetectable "graviton" particles pulling me towards the surface. I just see an upwardly accelerating earth. That's a direct observation and test for the mechanism which keeps us pinned to the earth's surface. Science has yet to come up with a test for the hypothetical existence of "graviton particles".

Samuel Birley Rowbotham's Zetitic Philosophy is an exercise in skepticism to come to the absolute truth of a matter. It's a form of Empiricism in which all possibilities are assessed, facts collected, where the conclusion arrived at is essentially a quotient; which, if the details are correctly worked, must of necessity be true, and beyond the reach or power of contradiction. It's a philosophy where all "hypothesis" is thrown out the window. Only possibilities which can be demonstrated, tested, and peer reviewed are considered.

A Zetetic is a free-thinker; one whose views are based on logic and reason independent of authority and blind faith.

Rowbotham has an excellent chapter on the subject of Zeteticism here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za04.htm
How does this disprove a Flat Earth?
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: sideboob on October 25, 2008, 03:30:21 AM
Quote
so far RE'ers (to my knowlage) are the only ones with even a shred of evidence to show for our theory....

I agree. RE'ers have yet to produce a shred of evidence demonstrating that NASA can do the things RE'ers claim they can do.

....you weren't agreeing with this. He said that RE are the only ones with evidence, and you said that RE doesn't.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: sideboob on October 25, 2008, 03:31:42 AM
The burden of proof is on the RE'ers because they're the ones making the claim that NASA can land men on the moon, send robots to mars, and send probes to explore the solar system. We've never claimed any of that stuff. They made the claim, so the burden is on them to prove it.

Its the REer's responsibility to prove their outlandish sci-fi claims.

Seriously? Do I have to bring up elephants yet again? What about the ice walls?
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: sideboob on October 25, 2008, 03:45:58 AM

I guess you & your buddy Fpot still believe in the tooth fairy too.  It's okay if it makes you feel secure at night....


Tooth fairy?! Bendy light? Elephants? Turtles?...
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: sideboob on October 25, 2008, 03:52:57 AM
That is the age old question thre3dee.  What it is I do not know w/out going into religion.  I could tell you what my Bible tells me it is.  But, suffice is to say that it is there.  There is something that we cannot and will not get past high up there. 

And I know that sounds vague.  But in my humble opinion it is a much simpler truth than all the fascinating & exciting words NASA comes up with to perpetuate the lie to end all lies....

But I am positively sure we could exchange blows like this for hours & days on end....You will probably call me names and talk about how simple I might be for drawing these ridiculous conclusions.  And I most definitely will hurt your feelings and show you how gullible you most certainly are for believing in your NASA religion....

The Bible, as far as I'm aware, does not say that the Earth is flat. I believe that some of the imagery used in the Bible depicts a flat world without explicitly saying it's flat.

Even if the Bible does say that it's flat, the Bible also says that snakes can talk. Is this a factual book? I doubt it.

I'm not a Christian (as you've probably gathered), though I do believe the Bible contains some good morals about how to live life, and how to get on with other humans. I also believe that the Bible was written by many different people, many years after the supposed events, and has since been translated into many different languages.

However, as it's been written by many different people, there are varying degrees of fiction and fact. Using the Bible as proof is like using Wikipedia as proof. It's a source provided by many different anonymous people.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: sideboob on October 25, 2008, 03:59:46 AM
What exists at the extremities of our earth is presently unknown.

Then go and find what is unknown and then come back.

Quote
Quote
Why has nobody ever been able to produce a proper map of the flat earth?


The true layout of the earth is presently unknown. Right now there are a couple hypothetical maps going around.

Then find out. Come back later.

Quote
Quote
What is pushing the Earth ever upwards?

The mechanism is presently unknown, but a placeholder title of "Dark Energy" has been given to the mechanism.

Find out. Come back later.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: HIPPO on October 25, 2008, 08:17:29 AM
I live on the west coast, how do you explain Tom, that I can fly to London, either over the Pacific and Russia, or over The U.S. and the Atlantic...
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Sir_Drainsalot on October 25, 2008, 09:04:44 AM
I live on the west coast, how do you explain Tom, that I can fly to London, either over the Pacific and Russia, or over The U.S. and the Atlantic...

I take it you have done this yourself, and come up with a foolproof way of telling if you are flying over the atlantic or pacific oceans? Or is this just another thought experiment?
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: neo6776 on October 25, 2008, 09:42:41 AM
The burden of proof is on the RE'ers because they're the ones making the claim that NASA can land men on the moon, send robots to mars, and send probes to explore the solar system. We've never claimed any of that stuff. They made the claim, so the burden is on them to prove it.

Its the REer's responsibility to prove their outlandish sci-fi claims.

Wrong.

Its up to you now. NASA have shown live images for a start. Then there is GPS. Then there is the old line of sight issue etc etc...

Now us REers have shown you what we know now its your turn to show us actual images from space of this supposed flat earth bollocks.

i have followed this forum for months now with interest and have not seen 1 shred of evidence or proof from you other than utter bollocks to support your claim. Its the same as religion here. You cant prove a damn thing so harp on about its for the other side to prove.

For once you prove it. You show us live images, you show us non photoshopped pics as i can tell the difference.

I wait with baited breath.....oh and the obvious excuses from you lot telling us that you want us to prove it first. No more cop outs. Just prove it.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 25, 2008, 10:13:16 AM
I live on the west coast, how do you explain Tom, that I can fly to London, either over the Pacific and Russia, or over The U.S. and the Atlantic...

Why can't you do that in the Flat Earth model?  ???

Quote
Wrong.

Its up to you now. NASA have shown live images for a start. Then there is GPS. Then there is the old line of sight issue etc etc...

Now us REers have shown you what we know now its your turn to show us actual images from space of this supposed flat earth bollocks.

i have followed this forum for months now with interest and have not seen 1 shred of evidence or proof from you other than utter bollocks to support your claim. Its the same as religion here. You cant prove a damn thing so harp on about its for the other side to prove.

Whoa whoa whoa. Globularism is the religion here. We're the skeptics. We're the ones promoting the observable and apparent.

You guys seem to be trying to claim certain unobservable things beyond human experience. You're the ones who believe things on blind faith with no further research or question. You're the ones making blind appeals to authority left and right. That definitely sounds like a religion to me.

When you claim that something unobservable exists, the burden is on you to prove it. When a religion claims the existence of an unobservable fairy in the sky the burden is on them to prove it. The burden isn't on anyone else to disprove it. The burden is on them alone to prove it.

So where's your proof that the earth is a globe? Where's your proof that NASA can do all the things in space it claims to do? Where's your proof that NASA has sent men to the moon and robots to mars?
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: neo6776 on October 25, 2008, 10:22:56 AM
I live on the west coast, how do you explain Tom, that I can fly to London, either over the Pacific and Russia, or over The U.S. and the Atlantic...

Why can't you do that in the Flat Earth model?  ???

Quote
Wrong.

Its up to you now. NASA have shown live images for a start. Then there is GPS. Then there is the old line of sight issue etc etc...

Now us REers have shown you what we know now its your turn to show us actual images from space of this supposed flat earth bollocks.

i have followed this forum for months now with interest and have not seen 1 shred of evidence or proof from you other than utter bollocks to support your claim. Its the same as religion here. You cant prove a damn thing so harp on about its for the other side to prove.

Whoa whoa whoa. Globularism is the religion here. We're the skeptics. We're the ones promoting the observable and apparent.

You guys seem to be trying to claim certain unobservable things beyond human experience. You're the ones who believe things on blind faith with no further research or question. You're the ones making blind appeals to authority left and right. That definitely sounds like a religion to me.

When you claim that something unobservable exists, the burden is on you to prove it. When a religion claims the existence of an unobservable fairy int he sky the burden is on them to prove it. The burden isn't on anyone else to disprove it. The burden is on them alone to prove it.

So where's your proof that the earth is a globe? Where's your proof that NASA can do all the things in space it claims to do? Where's your proof that NASA has sent men to the moon and robots to mars?

I'm asking you. My mind is open imo so i want you to prove to me the earth is flat.

To many posts here just reverse the question. Why not just answer is with solid proof.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 25, 2008, 10:25:21 AM
Quote
I'm asking you. My mind is open imo so i want you to prove to me the earth is flat.

Hu,am experience tells us that the earth exists as a plane.

Quote
To many posts here just reverse the question. Why not just answer is with solid proof.

It's solid enough for me. The pretense from human experience is that the earth exists as a plane.

The burden is on anyone else who thinks that the earth exists as something else beyond human experience.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: neo6776 on October 25, 2008, 10:27:02 AM
Quote
I'm asking you. My mind is open imo so i want you to prove to me the earth is flat.

Just look out your window if you want to see a flat earth.

I look out to sea and see the curvature of the earth. Oh i also see the curvature within my work..... ::)

Show me the flat earth.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Moon squirter on October 25, 2008, 11:30:24 AM
Quote
I'm asking you. My mind is open imo so i want you to prove to me the earth is flat.

Just look out your window if you want to see a flat earth.

Quote
To many posts here just reverse the question. Why not just answer is with solid proof.

It's solid enough for me. The pretense from human experience is that the earth exists as a plane.

The burden is on anyone else who thinks that the earth exists as something else beyond human experience.

From the movement and position of the heavens (at different times and at different locations), modern human experience suggests that the earth exists as a rotating globe.

Moreover, basic human reasoning is advanced enough to know that the "window test" is not reliable test; Only a lesser being could make such a mistake.

The burden of proof is on FEers to show:
   -The "window test" is a reliable test.
   -The heavens' spherical properties are an optical illusion.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 25, 2008, 12:43:13 PM
Quote
Show me the flat earth.

Just look out your window if you want to see a flat earth.

Quote
From the movement and position of the heavens (at different times and at different locations), modern human experience suggests that the earth exists as a rotating globe.

Proof? When I observe the heavens it just seems like a flat sheet suspended overhead, stretching into the horizon.

Quote
Moreover, basic human reasoning is advanced enough to know that the "window test" is not reliable test; Only a lesser being could make such a mistake.

The window tests proves that by pretense the earth is a plane.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: neo6776 on October 25, 2008, 12:45:16 PM
Proof? When I observe the heavens it just seems like a flat sheet suspended overhead, stretching into the horizon.



ok explain to me when im up in the air at work i see the curve of the earth?
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 25, 2008, 12:47:21 PM
ok explain to me when im up in the air at work i see the curve of the earth?

You don't. You're either imagining things or were looking out of a bubble window.

I've been on many international flights and I've never seen the curvature of the earth. The earth is just flat for as far as the eye can see.

TheEngineer, a pilot who posts on this forum, tells us that the horizon of the earth is not curved from the air. (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17610.msg304936#msg304936)

Quote:

Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: neo6776 on October 25, 2008, 12:51:01 PM
ok explain to me when im up in the air at work i see the curve of the earth?

You dont.

I've been on many international flights and I've never seen the curvature of the earth. The earth is just flat for as far as the eye can see.

TheEngineer, a pilot who posts on this forum, tells us that the horizon of the earth is not curved from the air. (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17610.msg304936#msg304936)

Quote:

    "I believe I said that I put myself through college working for an airline, thus having access to free flights around the world.  I also worked for a private FBO, in which the owner owned a Cessna Citation.  I am also a licensed pilot.  Not once, during any of the hundreds if not thousands of flights I've been on, have I ever witnessed the curvature of the Earth."

It is indeed.

He clearly isn't a pilot as every pilot on the planet will disagree with him.

I see it almost everyday lol

You can see the same in the water. Further the boat goes the bottom disappears and you see the top till it vanishes. Same can be seen through a pair of binoculars for goodness sake. What you are telling me is 99.9999999% of the population of this planet are wrong?
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Parsifal on October 25, 2008, 12:55:57 PM
What you are telling me is 99.9999999% of the population of this planet are wrong?

And what is so difficult to believe about that?
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 25, 2008, 12:57:58 PM
Quote
He clearly isn't a pilot as every pilot on the planet will disagree with him.

Really? Do you know any pilots we could ask?

Quote
What you are telling me is 99.9999999% of the population of this planet are wrong?

Popular opinion has been wrong about lots of things. Witches, Spirits, God, the afterlife, pop psychology, the origin of life, gravity as a force.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: neo6776 on October 25, 2008, 12:59:06 PM
What you are telling me is 99.9999999% of the population of this planet are wrong?

And what is so difficult to believe about that?

Until you show me evidence to the contrary you lot will always be wrong and classed as whack jobs. Pretty simple really.

In 22 posts i have made today i have asked for proof. For 22 replies i have had every FE'er has reversed the question. Why are you scared to explain it to me and show me evidence? Is it because *SHOCK!!!* you don't have any?? Or another reason?
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: neo6776 on October 25, 2008, 12:59:44 PM
Quote
He clearly isn't a pilot as every pilot on the planet will disagree with him.

Really? Do you know any pilots we could ask?

Indeed i do.

Ask away......
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on October 25, 2008, 01:10:35 PM
What exists at the extremities of our earth is presently unknown.

Then go and find what is unknown and then come back.

Quote
Quote
Why has nobody ever been able to produce a proper map of the flat earth?


The true layout of the earth is presently unknown. Right now there are a couple hypothetical maps going around.

Then find out. Come back later.

Quote
Quote
What is pushing the Earth ever upwards?

The mechanism is presently unknown, but a placeholder title of "Dark Energy" has been given to the mechanism.

Find out. Come back later.

What causes mass to warp spacetime?
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 25, 2008, 01:14:51 PM
Quote
In 22 posts i have made today i have asked for proof. For 22 replies i have had every FE'er has reversed the question. Why are you scared to explain it to me and show me evidence? Is it because *SHOCK!!!* you don't have any?? Or another reason?

If you want to see studies which prove Flat Earth Theory I have a list of literature in the signature link.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: neo6776 on October 25, 2008, 01:15:19 PM
Quote


The true layout of the earth is presently unknown. Right now there are a couple hypothetical maps going around.


[/quote]

LOL WHAT??

Hahaha how the hell do i know where to go when i fly from the UK to anywhere else on the planet? lmao  ;D
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: neo6776 on October 25, 2008, 01:16:04 PM
Quote
In 22 posts i have made today i have asked for proof. For 22 replies i have had every FE'er has reversed the question. Why are you scared to explain it to me and show me evidence? Is it because *SHOCK!!!* you don't have any?? Or another reason?

If you want to see studies which prove Flat Earth Theory I have a list of literature in the signature link.

I have read this and like i said earlier it makes no sense and is contrary to what i see on an almost daily basis.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 25, 2008, 01:16:59 PM
Quote
how the hell do i know where to go when i fly from the UK to anywhere else on the planet?

Easily.

Quote
I have read this and like i said earlier it makes no sense and is contrary to what i see on an almost daily basis.

The conclusions of the studies sure match up with what I see on a daily basis.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: neo6776 on October 25, 2008, 01:31:17 PM
Easily.

Elaborate please

Quote
The conclusions of the studies sure match up with what I see on a daily basis.


Dont from what i see. What do you do for a living?
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Conspiracy Mastermind on October 26, 2008, 08:32:51 AM
What a silly topic, there is no conspiracy none at all. No no no no.
Btw Tom, my non-evil cousin, er, sorry, my cousin, unfortunately your theory comes with a whopper of a global conspiracy of deception, usually it's the conspiracy theorists that have the burden of proof thrust upon them. Prove the conspiracy.
You can't because there is none, I should know, I run the non-existent conspiracy in question.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 26, 2008, 10:29:38 AM
Quote
Elaborate please

Circumnavigation is possible because North is Hubwards, South is Rimwards, East is Turnwise, and West is Widdershins.

Quote
Dont from what i see. What do you do for a living?

I conduct scientific research for a living.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Conspiracy Mastermind on October 26, 2008, 11:44:43 AM
I conduct scientific research for a living.

Yikes!
How many times, Tom, looking out of your window is NOT scientific research!
What research are you currently doing?
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: markjo on October 26, 2008, 02:54:25 PM
I conduct scientific research for a living.

Yikes!
How many times, Tom, looking out of your window is NOT scientific research!
What research are you currently doing?

I'm thinking that he's doing research into the gullibility of people on internet discussion boards.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: thre3dee on October 26, 2008, 07:24:43 PM
I conduct scientific research for a living.

Yikes!

+1...

(http://i31.tinypic.com/15pphyo.jpg)

You sure as hell don't look like a scientist. You look like a religious person who doesn't actually try to prove a damn thing he claims.

Also, haven't you noticed goldstein that Tom just replies with a Yes you can. All the time. If you can do [this] then explain how!

Out of six billion people, a few thousand believe in a theory that claims the 5.99 billion people have actually been fooled by one american space company for the last 50 years.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Circumnavigation is possible because North is Hubwards, South is Rimwards, East is Turnwise, and West is Widdershins.

What the fuck does that mean?

Quote
The true layout of the earth is presently unknown. Right now there are a couple hypothetical maps going around.
So we just say "hmm, we need to go to japan, apparently its over here. Ok. Start the engines..."

Quote
And what is so difficult to believe about that?
Are you fucking kidding me? So 5.99 billion people are wrong out of 6 billion. I'm pretty sure NASA isn't THAT good...

Quote
Popular opinion has been wrong about lots of things. Witches, Spirits, God, the afterlife, pop psychology, the origin of life, gravity as a force.
Opinion does not equal scientific study. The fact that 99% of the population believes the scientific results of the last few hundred years puts a bit of burden on the claims you people make. 0.00005% (that's 50 millionths of a percent) of the world's population claim 99.99995% of the population is completely wrong.

Absolute mind fuck that is.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Johannes on October 26, 2008, 07:33:57 PM
The government knows the true layout in the earth then programs the electronics on planes to guide pilots in a was that leads the observer to think the earth is round. In reality though, the electronics are displaying lies.

People will believe whatever they are told. Especially when they cannot confirm it for themselves. People are conformers.

Quote
What the fuck does that mean?
It means people are being led around in a circle by maps.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: thre3dee on October 26, 2008, 07:36:24 PM
The government knows the true layout in the earth then programs the electronics on planes to guide pilots in a was that leads the observer to think the earth is round. In reality though, the electronics are displaying lies.

People will believe whatever they are told. Especially when they cannot confirm it for themselves. People are conformers.

The fact that you even believe that bullshit gives me a great impression on your intelligence.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Johannes on October 26, 2008, 08:54:00 PM
It speaks more about yours that you put such blind faith into a theory with no evidence to back it up whatsoever.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: thre3dee on October 26, 2008, 10:15:31 PM
It speaks more about yours that you put such blind faith into a theory with no evidence to back it up whatsoever.
Why do these people keep saying there's no evidence. There's a whole planet of evidence. We constantly provide facts which prove the Earth is a sphere but you people have such a stick up your ass that you just say its all lies or conspiracies. It does not make sense. Not a single thing to do with the Flat Earth theory makes even remotely any sense.

Big ice walls, turtles and elephants holding the earth up, terribly explained sun and moon orbit excuses, claims that people who have seen the curvature of the Earth with their own eyes are under some spell and must be seeing things. Its all such illogical nonsense. The whole idea of this society is to find ways to deny the facts and incredible evidence provided to them on a hourly basis.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Moon squirter on October 27, 2008, 04:15:20 AM
I conduct scientific research for a living.

You a scientist?!?!?  I thought had a pathological hatred of all scientists.

I suddenly feel a little queer...
(http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:OlM544LKnagd0M:http://images.broadwayworld.com/upload/26912/harv9.jpg)
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on October 27, 2008, 12:05:52 PM
The government knows the true layout in the earth then programs the electronics on planes to guide pilots in a was that leads the observer to think the earth is round. In reality though, the electronics are displaying lies.

That's pretty interesting since the government didn't invent, engineer, or manufacture any of these electronic devices.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Vauxhall on October 27, 2008, 12:08:08 PM
The government knows the true layout in the earth then programs the electronics on planes to guide pilots in a was that leads the observer to think the earth is round. In reality though, the electronics are displaying lies.

That's pretty interesting since the government didn't invent, engineer, or manufacture any of these electronic devices.

Prove it.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on October 27, 2008, 12:25:47 PM
Prove that they did.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: markjo on October 27, 2008, 12:57:04 PM
The government knows the true layout in the earth then programs the electronics on planes to guide pilots in a was that leads the observer to think the earth is round. In reality though, the electronics are displaying lies.

That's pretty interesting since the government didn't invent, engineer, or manufacture any of these electronic devices.

But the government (FAA) does approve these devices and non-approved devices are not allowed in commercial or private aircraft.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on October 27, 2008, 01:20:37 PM
I didn't say the government didn't approve devices, I said they didn't invent, engineer, or manufacture them.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: markjo on October 27, 2008, 01:28:08 PM
I didn't say the government didn't approve devices, I said they didn't invent, engineer, or manufacture them.

And I didn't disagree with you.  I'm just saying that although the government didn't invent, engineer or manufacture them, they do control them..
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Johannes on October 27, 2008, 01:56:00 PM
The FAA is in charge of approving flight control systems and it would be illegal to fly without the FAA approval. The government is controlling this one by telling manufactures how the systems must work. The FAA has engineers that work to set standards. Another victory for FE!
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on October 27, 2008, 02:00:43 PM
I didn't say the government didn't approve devices, I said they didn't invent, engineer, or manufacture them.

And I didn't disagree with you.  I'm just saying that although the government didn't invent, engineer or manufacture them, they do control them..

Control is a strong word.  They provide specifications that the devices must adhere to for approval.  IE: you might see on a cellphone that it must be able to receive a certain amount of electrical interference.

It would be funny if they were secretly providing specifications that the devices had to give false data.  That would mean A LOT of companies would have to be let in on the conspiracies, and not just the execs.  Because the engineers would have to design the device to read things falsely.

Not to mention it's probably a lot more difficult to design a device to make up false data that still manages to get the person where they are going (for GPS devices).
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on October 27, 2008, 02:05:27 PM
The FAA is in charge of approving flight control systems and it would be illegal to fly without the FAA approval. The government is controlling this one by telling manufactures how the systems must work. The FAA has engineers that work to set standards. Another victory for FE!

Maybe, but those engineers are not the same engineers who work for companies that actually design these devices.  My father was an electrical engineer who worked on commercial planes years ago.  If he was ever paid off to keep his mouth shut, it doesn't show, because the man is not rich.  You would have to pay me a bundle to keep me quiet.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on October 27, 2008, 02:11:55 PM
On second thought, I might believe it if the company was Microsoft.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: neo6776 on October 27, 2008, 04:34:45 PM
The government knows the true layout in the earth then programs the electronics on planes to guide pilots in a was that leads the observer to think the earth is round. In reality though, the electronics are displaying lies.

People will believe whatever they are told. Especially when they cannot confirm it for themselves. People are conformers.

It means people are being led around in a circle by maps.

Hahahahahaha  ;D

Best post ever!!!! So when i'm flying in a straight line to another country i'm being deceived and actually being led round in circles  ;D

Do you actually have any proof of this utter bullshit you speak of at all?
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: neo6776 on October 27, 2008, 04:35:46 PM
It speaks more about yours that you put such blind faith into a theory with no evidence to back it up whatsoever.

No its shows how much a mug you are to beleive in something that doesnt exist. Like god for instance.

Prove to me the earth is flat please even though in my work i see the curve all the time and have done for years.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: neo6776 on October 27, 2008, 04:36:50 PM
The FAA is in charge of approving flight control systems and it would be illegal to fly without the FAA approval. The government is controlling this one by telling manufactures how the systems must work. The FAA has engineers that work to set standards. Another victory for FE!

What about when i fly manually?

No victory at all. Just more utter bullshit.

Proof plox.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: markjo on October 27, 2008, 07:11:13 PM
The FAA is in charge of approving flight control systems and it would be illegal to fly without the FAA approval. The government is controlling this one by telling manufactures how the systems must work. The FAA has engineers that work to set standards. Another victory for the conspiracy!

Fixed that for you.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Johannes on October 27, 2008, 08:07:13 PM
The FAA is in charge of approving flight control systems and it would be illegal to fly without the FAA approval. The government is controlling this one by telling manufactures how the systems must work. The FAA has engineers that work to set standards. Another victory for FE!

Maybe, but those engineers are not the same engineers who work for companies that actually design these devices.  My father was an electrical engineer who worked on commercial planes years ago.  If he was ever paid off to keep his mouth shut, it doesn't show, because the man is not rich.  You would have to pay me a bundle to keep me quiet.
Did he design the software and the hardware to trick the pilots? No because each airline/plane contractor engineer makes only small parts of the final product. FAA makes specifications so that no one can really tell that the electronics are wrong.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Johannes on October 27, 2008, 08:08:45 PM
The government knows the true layout in the earth then programs the electronics on planes to guide pilots in a was that leads the observer to think the earth is round. In reality though, the electronics are displaying lies.

People will believe whatever they are told. Especially when they cannot confirm it for themselves. People are conformers.

It means people are being led around in a circle by maps.

Hahahahahaha  ;D

Best post ever!!!! So when i'm flying in a straight line to another country i'm being deceived and actually being led round in circles  ;D

Do you actually have any proof of this utter bullshit you speak of at all?
Airlines don't claim to fly in straight lines.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: NTheGreat on October 28, 2008, 03:38:49 AM
Quote
FAA makes specifications so that no one can really tell that the electronics are wrong.

So how do you know that the electronics are wrong?
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: markjo on October 28, 2008, 05:15:26 AM
Quote
FAA makes specifications so that no one can really tell that the electronics are wrong.

So how do you know that the electronics are wrong?

Because the electronics make you think that you are navigating a round earth when the earth is actually flat.  Duh!   ::)
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on October 28, 2008, 09:09:53 AM
Did he design the software and the hardware to trick the pilots? No because each airline/plane contractor engineer makes only small parts of the final product. FAA makes specifications so that no one can really tell that the electronics are wrong.

The government does not make the software, a contractor does!!!  Everything is done by contractors, the government makes two things, jack and shit.  I guess you have never worked in a government office before or met a government employee.

I'll let you in on something, there are four reasons why a person will take a civilian job in the government.

1.  They will hire you out of college for a well paid internship and give you good training so later you can go to private industry and make loads of money.
2.  The Benefits are far greater than private industry, though the pay may be lower.
3.  They know that government employees don't have to do anything except making sure that damned contractor down the hall is doing their job, and the delivery dates will be met.
4.  Job security, once your in, it literally takes an act of congress to get rid of you. 

Hence why government employees are the laziest workforce on the planet.  Everybody is all but guaranteed the same raise every year, therefore there is no reason to bust your ass for your boss, it won't get you anywhere any faster.

In conclusion, in order for software to be designed to fake flightpath and distances not only on a single plane, but to make sure these fake readings don't cause midair collisions with other planes and miscalculations of how much fuel to put in the plane (how can that be faked!? they know exactly how much extra fuel they need for the distance they are traveling), the government would still have to let contracting engineers that design the software and the electronics in on the conspiracy because THEY are the ones designing these things, not the government. 

Government merely provides the requirements.  For example when Lockeed was contracted for the F-22 raptor.  There was a government requirement for supercruise (being able to go supersonic without the use of afterburners), and certain stealth requirements, as well as cost requirements (each fighter must cost less than x), sensor requirements (detect enemies at x range, etc).  They did not tell Lockeed what material to make the plan from, or exactly what its wingspan should be (though they may say, no bigger than x).  They also do not mitigate which engineers/programmers at Lockeed gets to work on which part.

They do not provide code to be used for the software.  They may ask for certain modifications of the software if something does not meet the requirements (or if there is a change in requirements).  Again, this would require the engineer to be informed of the requested change and they will probably start asking questions (to themselves or others) if they are told to have software give false readings!  We are talking thousands maybe millions of engineers AROUND THE WORLD that would have to be in some way aware of the conspiracy.

The top execs of any company or government agency are not qualified to engineer or design these devices, they need engineers and programmers, rocket scientists etc.  They are also not qualified to even understand how they could split the project up in a way that each person only works on a small part.  Not even a project manager would know that, especially in the government. 

Break down the task as far as you want, somewhere somehow somebody is going to see that what they are coding is doing something different than what the product advertises it is supposed to do.  Most engineers are smart enough to figure that out, especially since it is their profession.


Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Johannes on October 28, 2008, 04:49:42 PM
What about when i fly manually?

Yeah I asked this before (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=23384.msg490430#msg490430). No answers really. Surprised?
north is hubwards, south is rimwards, east is turnwise, and west is widdershins.

The navigation system is rigged to give you the illusion you are flying straight.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Johannes on October 28, 2008, 04:51:33 PM
Quote
FAA makes specifications so that no one can really tell that the electronics are wrong.

So how do you know that the electronics are wrong?
How do you know they are right?
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Johannes on October 28, 2008, 04:56:41 PM
Did he design the software and the hardware to trick the pilots? No because each airline/plane contractor engineer makes only small parts of the final product. FAA makes specifications so that no one can really tell that the electronics are wrong.

The government does not make the software, a contractor does!!!  Everything is done by contractors, the government makes two things, jack and shit.  I guess you have never worked in a government office before or met a government employee.

I'll let you in on something, there are four reasons why a person will take a civilian job in the government.

1.  They will hire you out of college for a well paid internship and give you good training so later you can go to private industry and make loads of money.
2.  The Benefits are far greater than private industry, though the pay may be lower.
3.  They know that government employees don't have to do anything except making sure that damned contractor down the hall is doing their job, and the delivery dates will be met.
4.  Job security, once your in, it literally takes an act of congress to get rid of you. 

Hence why government employees are the laziest workforce on the planet.  Everybody is all but guaranteed the same raise every year, therefore there is no reason to bust your ass for your boss, it won't get you anywhere any faster.

In conclusion, in order for software to be designed to fake flightpath and distances not only on a single plane, but to make sure these fake readings don't cause midair collisions with other planes and miscalculations of how much fuel to put in the plane (how can that be faked!? they know exactly how much extra fuel they need for the distance they are traveling), the government would still have to let contracting engineers that design the software and the electronics in on the conspiracy because THEY are the ones designing these things, not the government. 

Government merely provides the requirements.  For example when Lockeed was contracted for the F-22 raptor.  There was a government requirement for supercruise (being able to go supersonic without the use of afterburners), and certain stealth requirements, as well as cost requirements (each fighter must cost less than x), sensor requirements (detect enemies at x range, etc).  They did not tell Lockeed what material to make the plan from, or exactly what its wingspan should be (though they may say, no bigger than x).  They also do not mitigate which engineers/programmers at Lockeed gets to work on which part.

They do not provide code to be used for the software.  They may ask for certain modifications of the software if something does not meet the requirements (or if there is a change in requirements).  Again, this would require the engineer to be informed of the requested change and they will probably start asking questions (to themselves or others) if they are told to have software give false readings!  We are talking thousands maybe millions of engineers AROUND THE WORLD that would have to be in some way aware of the conspiracy.

The top execs of any company or government agency are not qualified to engineer or design these devices, they need engineers and programmers, rocket scientists etc.  They are also not qualified to even understand how they could split the project up in a way that each person only works on a small part.  Not even a project manager would know that, especially in the government. 

Break down the task as far as you want, somewhere somehow somebody is going to see that what they are coding is doing something different than what the product advertises it is supposed to do.  Most engineers are smart enough to figure that out, especially since it is their profession.



Planes use fictitious technologies like "GPS" to navigate. That allows the military to mislead the FAA. Engineers think they are working on a RE based navigation system but in realities they are using a faux navigation system.

The FAA mandates standards that engineers have to implement but the standards are inheritantly flawed because of the fake infrastructure around.

The avionics are just conspiracy propaganda....
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: NTheGreat on October 28, 2008, 05:56:57 PM
Quote
How do you know they are right?

I don't. I'm asking how you know they are wrong when you said 'FAA makes specifications so that no one can really tell that the electronics are wrong.'

Quote
The FAA mandates standards that engineers have to implement but the standards are inheritantly flawed because of the fake infrastructure around.

How are they flawed? Besides, I don't see why following a couple of safety guidelines would make a plane waltz off onto a completely different course.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: markjo on October 28, 2008, 07:58:24 PM
Planes use fictitious technologies like "GPS" to navigate. That allows the military to mislead the FAA. Engineers think they are working on a RE based navigation system but in realities they are using a faux navigation system.

Umm...  You do realize that GPS is a relatively recent technology, don't you?  There has been around 50 years or more of old fashioned celestial, compass and dead reckoning navigation techniques that seem to have worked (for the most part).  None of which could possibly hide the discrepancies between FE and RE distances, especially in the southern hemiplane.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on October 29, 2008, 07:26:31 AM
Planes use fictitious technologies like "GPS" to navigate. That allows the military to mislead the FAA. Engineers think they are working on a RE based navigation system but in realities they are using a faux navigation system.

The FAA mandates standards that engineers have to implement but the standards are inheritantly flawed because of the fake infrastructure around.

The avionics are just conspiracy propaganda....

To your first point, you need to think more about what you are saying.  If one were to design a device that pinpoints a location and calculates distance under the assumption of a round earth, but the earth was not round, then the device would be inaccurate.  The longer the flight, the more off course you would be.

Second, what fake infrastructure? People fly all the time. 

Third, you are making things up just to support your point of view.  That goes against Rowbatham and Zetetic beliefs.

From ENAG:
Quote
None can doubt that by making special experiments, and collecting manifest and undeniable facts, arranging them in logical order, and observing what is naturally and fairly deducible therefrom, the result must be more consistent and satisfactory than the contrary method of framing a theory or system--assuming the existence and operation of causes of which there is no direct and practical evidence, and which is only claimed to be "admitted for the sake of argument," and for the purpose of giving an apparent and plausible, but not necessarily truthful explanation of phenomena. All theories are of this character. "Supposing, instead of inquiring, imagining systems instead of learning from observation and experience the true constitution of things.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: rcpilot on October 29, 2008, 12:20:57 PM
The FAA is in charge of approving flight control systems and it would be illegal to fly without the FAA approval. The government is controlling this one by telling manufactures how the systems must work. The FAA has engineers that work to set standards. Another victory for FE!
Except for the fact that this whole 'government GPS conspiracy' argument is ridiculous considering pilots used to do their own calculations which corrected for the spherical nature of the earth.  Is every pilot prior to the advent of GPS part of the RE conspiracy?

There are so many ways you personally could go out and dispute RE 'theory'.  Have you attempted to use basic trig to figure out your position relative to objects in the sky?  Have you looked at the way that you can see cloud tops in relatively small cracks of cloud cover of an overcast day?  Have you done anything beyond try to come up with oddball theories as to why huge numbers of people are lying to you for no good reason?  Are the adventurers who circumnavigate the southern ocean all part of this conspiracy too?  Is everyone in the southern hemisphere part of the conspiracy?  (Surely they'd notice if our knowledge of the earth and the maps they used to take part in trade, travel etc. don't match up in the least when it comes to distance.)

This sounds like the intelligent design argument but stranger.  'There are small holes in this theory that don't affect it as a whole, so this other theory which has no plausible explanation or science behind it is right.'
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Johannes on October 29, 2008, 01:31:53 PM
The navigation system is rigged to give you the illusion you are flying straight.

Yes, and so what happens if you don't use any navigation system? That was my question in the thread I linked. Did you even read it?
Your plane gets shot down when it come close to the ice wall or you run out of fuel.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on October 29, 2008, 01:42:48 PM
The navigation system is rigged to give you the illusion you are flying straight.

Yes, and so what happens if you don't use any navigation system? That was my question in the thread I linked. Did you even read it?
Your plane gets shot down when it come close to the ice wall or you run out of fuel.

Before GPS, that is how everyone navigated.  See the list of people who have circumnavigated the world here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_circumnavigations

Just to add, there are people who have circumnavigated the southern oceans.  The distances are known.

Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Johannes on October 29, 2008, 03:52:01 PM
The navigation system is rigged to give you the illusion you are flying straight.

Yes, and so what happens if you don't use any navigation system? That was my question in the thread I linked. Did you even read it?
Your plane gets shot down when it come close to the ice wall or you run out of fuel.

Before GPS, that is how everyone navigated.  See the list of people who have circumnavigated the world here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_circumnavigations

Just to add, there are people who have circumnavigated the southern oceans.  The distances are known.


These maps are designed to appear spherical but they are really just a loop.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Johannes on October 29, 2008, 03:55:40 PM
The navigation system is rigged to give you the illusion you are flying straight.

Yes, and so what happens if you don't use any navigation system? That was my question in the thread I linked. Did you even read it?
Your plane gets shot down when it come close to the ice wall or you run out of fuel.

Ha! Now I know you're an alt. Imagine that we're not flying near the ice wall. Because we're scared of the killer robot penguins and their lizard masters.

Say we start at London and point our plane east. Then turn off navigation. What towns do we fly over?
You follow a route that is significantly different than the one predicted in RE theory. OF course the difference might only be noticable after a few hundred miles...
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on October 29, 2008, 04:29:00 PM
The navigation system is rigged to give you the illusion you are flying straight.

Yes, and so what happens if you don't use any navigation system? That was my question in the thread I linked. Did you even read it?
Your plane gets shot down when it come close to the ice wall or you run out of fuel.

I mentioned nothing about maps.  Do you agree if the earth was a disk with the north pole in the middle that circumnavigating the southern hemisphere would take much longer than the northern?

My point was there are people who have done this in the list I provided, the distance is known.  If the earth was a disk then circumnavigation of the southern hemisphere would take much longer than in the northern hemisphere.

Before GPS, that is how everyone navigated.  See the list of people who have circumnavigated the world here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_circumnavigations

Just to add, there are people who have circumnavigated the southern oceans.  The distances are known.


These maps are designed to appear spherical but they are really just a loop.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Johannes on October 29, 2008, 04:36:18 PM
Maps - calculations - both really tell you the same. Many early "circumnavigators" came out with maps anyway.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on October 29, 2008, 04:52:53 PM
If the earth was a disk then circumnavigation of the southern hemisphere would take much longer than in the northern hemisphere.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Johannes on October 29, 2008, 04:55:03 PM
How many airlines offer flights around Antarctica?  ;D
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on October 29, 2008, 05:38:03 PM
How many airlines offer flights around Antarctica?  ;D

Not many, but if you read my previous post, and did a little research, you would see that there have been people that have circumnavigated the earth in both the northern and southern hemispheres.  Here is a picture of a southern hemisphere route in red.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/CircumnavigationByCapes.png)

Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: blackgoat on October 30, 2008, 03:58:14 PM
As we move out closer to the edge of the disk, or south if you will, there is a greater concentration of dark energy.  Dark energy acts on the acceleration of planes, boats or any other body in movement.

Due to the greater concentration of dark energy, boats and planes actually move faster than the ones closer to the north pole - this difference in acceleration, which is not simply evident from observing navigational instruments, is directly proportional to the added distance it takes to circumnavigate the globe as me move further south.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: BlueThen on October 30, 2008, 04:00:30 PM
The burden of proof is on the RE'ers because they're the ones making the claim that NASA can land men on the moon, send robots to mars, and send probes to explore the solar system. We've never claimed any of that stuff. They made the claim, so the burden is on them to prove it.

Its the REer's responsibility to prove their outlandish sci-fi claims.
   The burden of proof is on both sides. Not one or the other. You can't honestly think that we're expected to believe whatever you say until we have proof, while we can't expect you to believe whatever we say until you find proof. But anyways, if you ever want to try and convince us that the Earth is flat, then yea, you're going to need proof... or at least enough evidence to outweigh the evidence of a round Earth.

   You'll never win a debate relying on the other side giving proof, mostly because you're just avoiding even trying to convince us that your theory is true. It's like trying to win a war only by defense, it can't be done, unless the other side surrenders. But you know that RE'rs won't ever give up to their theory, because they've yet to have practical evidence as to believe the FET.

   FE'rs did a good job on proving that it's POSSIBLE that the Earth is flat. But I've yet to see any practical reasons, evidence, or proof as to why the Earth is flat. I have a good reason to believing why the Earth is round. And fairly practical if you ask me. The theory is globally accepted and taught in schools. By now, compared to how much we've advanced and moved on from the ages, we're definitely capable of knowing the shape of the planet we live on. There's countless instruments that we use everyday in which either wouldn't work on a Flat Earth, or directly shows us the shape of the Earth. The government has few reasons as to hiding this, even money is a impractical reason as to why they'd want to hide the shape of the planet from the people who live on it. Even IF they had a good reason for hiding it, this would have to go through a VERY complicated process, involving having to silence hundreds, thousands, even millions of people who were to potentially, or already know that the Earth is truly flat.

   I believe in Gravitation as well. But some of you just won't realize that we don't know why gravitation exists. We only know that it DOES exists, only because it's a phenomenon (which by definition, means unexplained) that is observed in ALL mass. Whether it be planets and galaxies or atoms and molecules. It happens, and gravitation is what we call it.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Johannes on October 30, 2008, 06:14:57 PM
Say we start at London and point our plane east. Then turn off navigation. What towns do we fly over?
You follow a route that is significantly different than the one predicted in RE theory. OF course the difference might only be noticable after a few hundred miles...

Christ. That's a bit of a bombshell. You mean that we'd be able to figure out within a couple of hours that our maps were totally wrong? Makes the conspiracy a bit implausable doesn't it?
Pilots do not fly straight for long distances.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on October 31, 2008, 06:15:53 AM
As we move out closer to the edge of the disk, or south if you will, there is a greater concentration of dark energy.  Dark energy acts on the acceleration of planes, boats or any other body in movement.

Due to the greater concentration of dark energy, boats and planes actually move faster than the ones closer to the north pole - this difference in acceleration, which is not simply evident from observing navigational instruments, is directly proportional to the added distance it takes to circumnavigate the globe as me move further south.

BWAHAHA how convenient.  Even nature is conspiring to hide the fact that the earth is flat eh?  *Cough* Win for RE *Cough*.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: IHOP on October 31, 2008, 10:16:52 AM
This is part of an article from the BBC on what the world thinks of you and some of their proof

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7540427.stm

If the earth was flat as suggested by these "theorists", a plane flying from Santiago (Chile) to Sydney (Australia) would have to cross Mexico and California before reaching its destination. Having spent many hours on that route, I can assure the world that it doesn't. The world is not a flat disc. Period.
Alex Williams, London

The flat-earth theory of the planet being a disc can be proven false quite easily. Simply get a satellite photo of the South Pole showing Antarctica as one landmass surrounded by water.

Oh wait, they don't trust satellite photos. But they do trust aircraft. The reason planes fly routes in arcs is because this is the shortest and most efficient route on a curved sphere. Simply show that the distance/fuel consumption between two points in the Northern Hemisphere is roughly the same as between two points in the Southern Hemisphere.

For example, the distance between Rio de Janeiro and Cape Town is 3775 miles, and the distance from New York to London is 3470 miles. If the disc theory was correct, it would be something like 4x as far between the Southern Hemisphere cities, since you'd have to traverse the two points further from the center of the disc (ie the North Pole). Mr Davis can even fly the plane if he wants!

But, I forgot, logic has already failed these people. Why should this be any different?
Matt, NYC, US
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Johannes on October 31, 2008, 01:30:48 PM
As we move out closer to the edge of the disk, or south if you will, there is a greater concentration of dark energy.  Dark energy acts on the acceleration of planes, boats or any other body in movement.

Due to the greater concentration of dark energy, boats and planes actually move faster than the ones closer to the north pole - this difference in acceleration, which is not simply evident from observing navigational instruments, is directly proportional to the added distance it takes to circumnavigate the globe as me move further south.
Excellent theory, I will have to research this on my trip to Argentina next week.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on October 31, 2008, 02:08:08 PM
As we move out closer to the edge of the disk, or south if you will, there is a greater concentration of dark energy.  Dark energy acts on the acceleration of planes, boats or any other body in movement.

Due to the greater concentration of dark energy, boats and planes actually move faster than the ones closer to the north pole - this difference in acceleration, which is not simply evident from observing navigational instruments, is directly proportional to the added distance it takes to circumnavigate the globe as me move further south.
Excellent theory, I will have to research this on my trip to Argentina next week.

yeah we should start playing baseball in the southern hemisphere because apparently the DE will allow a pitcher to throw faster.   ::)


Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: chippewagon55 on October 31, 2008, 04:21:53 PM
go to google and type earth, then go look at the images.  all of the images show a spherical object AKA Earth.  Also all of the images have a different section of the earth.  explain why that would be.


Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: markjo on October 31, 2008, 09:38:09 PM
go to google and type earth, then go look at the images.  all of the images show a spherical object AKA Earth.  Also all of the images have a different section of the earth.  explain why that would be.

Obviously because Google is part of the conspiracy.  Just look at the source of much of Google Earth's "satellite" imagery.  Google also partnered with the military on a new spy "satellite".
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on November 01, 2008, 06:38:37 AM
go to google and type earth, then go look at the images.  all of the images show a spherical object AKA Earth.  Also all of the images have a different section of the earth.  explain why that would be.

Obviously because Google is part of the conspiracy.  Just look at the source of much of Google Earth's "satellite" imagery.  Google also partnered with the military on a new spy "satellite".

Everybody is in on the conspiracy, everybody knows the earth is flat.  We all just pretend that it is round to screw with those that actually believe that it is flat.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: paddy on November 02, 2008, 01:55:00 AM
Okay, here's a few quick questions for FEers:

1) Why didn't the USSR expose the hoax, causing a massive rise against the Western World, when the US and the USSR were the only ones in the space game at that time?  Keep in mind the USSR had no need for a hoax to make money off of a Round Earth hoax - they had full control over their spending unlike the US where people had to be 'duped' into funding it.

2) Why didn't the USSR just do their own moon landing hoax?  It would have been cheaper.

3) How do you explain the findings of Eratosthenes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes#Eratosthenes.27_measurement_of_the_Earth.27s_circumference) over two thousand years ago?  Even with the margin for error, what he observed was a physical effect that can only be explained by a spherical world.

4) Why is the math supporting Round Earth so simple yet explains so much?  It explains daylight hours, distances, seasons, solar cycles, the movement of the stars, the planets - all very elegantly and succinctly.  If there was a conspiracy, the odds of such simple formulas explaining so much would be simply astounding.  Say you can fake all the data... ok, but you can't fake formulas, and the exact same math works for everything we observe under RO, gracefully and simply.  That's one heck of a coincidence. 


Lastly, what do you make of the ground telescopes that hobbyists use to track satellites and the space station?

http://www.hobbyspace.com/SatWatching/index.html (http://www.hobbyspace.com/SatWatching/index.html)

If you are so committed to flat earth, and put so much time into defending these ideas, why not find a group of amateurs meeting for satellite watching and just see for yourself what they see?  You may not want to outright announce you're a FEer, but just go and see what can be seen with a 12 inch telescope lens.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 02, 2008, 03:47:52 PM
Quote
1) Why didn't the USSR expose the hoax, causing a massive rise against the Western World, when the US and the USSR were the only ones in the space game at that time?  Keep in mind the USSR had no need for a hoax to make money off of a Round Earth hoax - they had full control over their spending unlike the US where people had to be 'duped' into funding it.

The Russians were in on the space hoax too. During the Cold War NASA and the Russian Space Agency worked closely together on multi-billion dollar space projects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo-Soyuz_Test_Project

Quote
2) Why didn't the USSR just do their own moon landing hoax?  It would have been cheaper.

The Russians did claim to send the first man into space, and they did claim to send robotic rovers to the moon. Under agreement with NASA the Russians likely let them put the first man on the moon.

Quote
3) How do you explain the findings of Eratosthenes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes#Eratosthenes.27_measurement_of_the_Earth.27s_circumference) over two thousand years ago?  Even with the margin for error, what he observed was a physical effect that can only be explained by a spherical world.

It's a common misconception that Eratosthenes was measuring the circumference of the Round Earth in his shadow experiment. Eratosthenes had simply assumed that the earth was a sphere in his experiment, based on the work of Aristotle. He was actually measuring the diameter of the Flat Earth, which is a figure identical to the circumference of the Round Earth.

We can use Eratosthenes' shadow experiment to determine the diameter of the Flat Earth.

Syene and Alexandria are two North-South points with a distance of 500 nautical miles. Eratosthenes discovered through the shadow experiment that while the sun was exactly overhead of one city, it was 7o12' south of zenith at the other city.

7o12' makes a sweep of 1/25th of the FE's total longitude from 90oS to 90oN.

Therefore we can take the distance of 500 nautical miles, multiply by 25, and find that the radius of the Flat Earth is about 12,250 nautical miles. Doubling that figure for the diameter we get a figure of 25,000 miles.

The earth is physically much larger, of course. A circle with a diameter of 25,000 nautical miles is simply the area of land the light of the sun affects, and represents the area of our known world.

Quote
4) Why is the math supporting Round Earth so simple yet explains so much? 

It's not and it doesn't.

Quote
It explains daylight hours, distances, seasons, solar cycles, the movement of the stars, the planets - all very elegantly and succinctly.

Those phenomena are all based on patterns. When a star takes a particular path in the sky for 2000 thousand consecutive years, it's easy to predict the path of the star in year 2001.

Quote
If there was a conspiracy, the odds of such simple formulas explaining so much would be simply astounding.  Say you can fake all the data... ok, but you can't fake formulas, and the exact same math works for everything we observe under RO, gracefully and simply.  That's one heck of a coincidence. 

Those formulas are just algebraic equations based on what's seen in the sky. The formulas are based on patterns and cycles.

It is often argued that the RE model must be correct because Astronomers can predict the Lunar Eclipse and similar events. This is a misunderstanding of astronomy.

The Lunar Eclipse is not predicted based on the motions of the earth and sun, or the position of the earth. The Lunar Eclipse is predicted based on historic timetables of past eclipses. The Lunar Eclipse comes in repeating patterns, and by studying the particulars of previous eclipses it's possible to create an equation to predict when the next one will occur.

The analysis of repeating patterns is the one and only way astronomers know how to predict Lunar Eclipses, Solar Eclipses, Planetary Transits, and all other recurring phenomenas of the cosmos. The prediction is based on a pattern which occurs in the sky and has nothing to do with the positioning of celestial bodies or the study of any particular cosmic model.

Read the Lunar Eclipse chapter in Zetetic Cosmogony (http://books.google.com/books?id=GzkKAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA#PPA74,M1) for more information.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: paddy on November 02, 2008, 04:36:27 PM
...

I'll reply to your points in bullet form, to cut down on the vertical size of quoting it in full...

1) That program with the Soviets took place in the 80s, not during the 'race to the moon' a decade before.  My point during the moon race, is 1) at the time of the moon race, what incentive would the Soviets have to let the US fake a "win" when they have full control over their own people's funds, and cannot profit from the US deception?   I am suggesting this is out of character for the Soviets, so what motive would they have then to go along with the deception? 2) I assume you believe the cold war was a hoax then?  If that is your suggestion I can accept that, but I just want you to clarify as mortal enemies do not collaborate as such.

3) Regarding Eratosthenes, the only thing that would cause the shadows to be in different places would be if A) the planet was spherical, and the sun was far away, or B) the planet is flat, and the sun is near.  The problem is if you plot multiple 'shadow' lengths instead of just two, you get results that are curved under RO, and linear shifts under FE.  Later experiments do not work with FE 'near sun' linear math, but do with RE math.

4) What issue can you take with RE math?  "It's not and it doesn't." isn't very descriptive.

The "gravity model" with a RE and round planets are all described by one simple formula:  F = Gm1m2/r2

With that one formula, it is easy to drop the information into a computer model and see all the results that describe the patterns observed.  You only need initial velocities, mass, positions, and it all works.  Planetary motion works.  Lunar cycles work.  Seasons work.  Shadows work.  Star movement works.  These are not simply formulas that "happened" to match observed patterns, they are consistent and predictive.

My point is, why does one simple formula work so well, for so much, if it is entirely artificial?  The whole model, lets you take the earth, tilted on it's axis, orbiting the sun, and everything just works.  The position of the sun on the horizon, the seasons, the time zones, the lunar phases, the planetary movements - everything.  If it worked in places and broke in places, I'd understand why someone would consider it an incomplete theory.  But it doesn't break.  Not only that - it's elegant.  Simple, precise, and from what we can tell in nature, usually the most elegant solutions are the most accurate. 

RE even accounts for why the world looks flat from ground level, based on the distance to the horizon and diameter of the earth. 

In RE vs FE, the constructs to make RE work are simple, elegant, and work seamlessly for the solar system.  FE has tons of unknowns, huge contrived constructs, and is generally unwieldy as far as theories go.  By "contrivances" I mean that FE has a lot of secondary theories that have to also be right, for the premise to be right, and appear to be retroactively applied when the core concept is challenged.  This ranges from Dark Energy to Bendy Light to giant Conspiracies to unknown acceleration sources for an entire world.

Can you at least understand, from a neutral observer's standpoint, why RE makes so much more sense than FE? 


Please don't get too caught up in that, I am really curious where you think RE math fails to be elegant.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: NTheGreat on November 02, 2008, 04:37:20 PM
Quote
The Russians were in on the space hoax too. During the Cold War NASA and the Russian Space Agency worked closely together on multi-billion dollar space projects.

A single mission occurring after the space race had finished designed to improve international relations does not imply that both parties had been part of an elaborate hoax all along.

Quote
It's a common misconception that Eratosthenes was measuring the circumference of the Round Earth in his shadow experiment...

You cannot use Eratosthenes's shadow experiment to determine the diameter of the FE.

Quote
Those phenomena are all based on patterns. When a star takes a particular path in the sky for 2000 thousand consecutive years, it's easy to predict the path of the star in year 2001.

The problem isn't so much with the laws, it's with the theories or hypothesis that explain them.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Johannes on November 04, 2008, 09:07:54 AM
When your people are starving it is a good distraction to claim their country is flying into space
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Edtharan on November 07, 2008, 07:06:29 AM
Quote
If there was a conspiracy, the odds of such simple formulas explaining so much would be simply astounding.  Say you can fake all the data... ok, but you can't fake formulas, and the exact same math works for everything we observe under RO, gracefully and simply.  That's one heck of a coincidence. 

Those formulas are just algebraic equations based on what's seen in the sky. The formulas are based on patterns and cycles.

It is often argued that the RE model must be correct because Astronomers can predict the Lunar Eclipse and similar events. This is a misunderstanding of astronomy.

The Lunar Eclipse is not predicted based on the motions of the earth and sun, or the position of the earth. The Lunar Eclipse is predicted based on historic timetables of past eclipses. The Lunar Eclipse comes in repeating patterns, and by studying the particulars of previous eclipses it's possible to create an equation to predict when the next one will occur.
When taking astronomy at school, one of my tasks for the year was to measure the speeds of the Earth, Sun and Moon and using just the formulas (those simple ones) calculate when the next luna eclipse was to occur. I did not use any historical data, just the data I collected myself. Sorry, it does not require any historical tables at all.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 07, 2008, 12:29:22 PM
Quote
If that is your suggestion I can accept that, but I just want you to clarify as mortal enemies do not collaborate as such.

Russia and the US were never "mortal enemies," they worked together as allies during WWII and were friends immediately after the Cold War. The fact that NASA and the Soviets worked together on billion dollar space projects during the Cold War demonstrates that there was never really any active aggression or xenophobia between the two nations.

Quote
What issue can you take with RE math?  "It's not and it doesn't." isn't very descriptive
.

The formulas in RE math are based on patterns of occurrences and paths in the sky, not the geometry of the solar system.

Quote
With that one formula, it is easy to drop the information into a computer model and see all the results that describe the patterns observed.


Nope.

Quote
My point is, why does one simple formula work so well, for so much, if it is entirely artificial?

It doesn't. You have yet to demonstrate that it does.

Quote
Please don't get too caught up in that, I am really curious where you think RE math fails to be elegant.

It fails to be elegant because the formulas are based on repeating patterns in the sky. The formulas are equally applicable to predicting celestial events of any world-model of the earth.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 07, 2008, 12:30:57 PM
Quote
When taking astronomy at school, one of my tasks for the year was to measure the speeds of the Earth, Sun and Moon and using just the formulas (those simple ones) calculate when the next luna eclipse was to occur. I did not use any historical data, just the data I collected myself. Sorry, it does not require any historical tables at all.

Those formulas were derived based on historic charts and tables. Astronomers have studied the period and cycle of the eclipse over the last 2000 years and have made formulas which can predict when the next one will occur.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: iznih on November 07, 2008, 01:04:43 PM
Quote
When taking astronomy at school, one of my tasks for the year was to measure the speeds of the Earth, Sun and Moon and using just the formulas (those simple ones) calculate when the next luna eclipse was to occur. I did not use any historical data, just the data I collected myself. Sorry, it does not require any historical tables at all.

Those formulas were derived based on historic charts and tables. Astronomers have studied the period and cycle of the eclipse over the last 2000 years and have made formulas which can predict when the next one will occur.

i thought that was the approach of all sciences (except math)
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 07, 2008, 03:13:45 PM
i thought that was the approach of all sciences (except math)

A prediction for the Lunar Eclipse based on patterns of past occurrences tells us nothing about the root mechanism for the Lunar Eclipse, or which model is more accurate.

It's just a pattern in the sky.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Moon squirter on November 08, 2008, 12:19:36 AM
Quote
My point is, why does one simple formula work so well, for so much, if it is entirely artificial?

It doesn't. You have yet to demonstrate that it does.


That's not how science works, Tom.  You will be rewarded if you can demonstrate that a formula doesn't work.   It's religion that works your way round (e.g. making statements with no supporting evidence).

Remember, theories are just ideas that have not been demonstrated to be wrong.  The burden is on you.

Also, if you are really an atheist, I'm convince you are someone who was once devoutly religious, lost their faith and are now using FET as a substitute.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 08, 2008, 01:48:05 AM
Quote
That's not how science works, Tom.  You will be rewarded if you can demonstrate that a formula doesn't work.   It's religion that works your way round (e.g. making statements with no supporting evidence).

The formula isn't even integrated into the predictions for the lunar eclipse, or the transits of the planets. I'm not sure why you think it is.

Quote
Remember, theories are just ideas that have not been demonstrated to be wrong.  The burden is on you.

What ideas? Astronomers freely admit that the formulas for the prediction of celestial events are based on patterns and cycles.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on November 08, 2008, 02:28:06 AM
Astronomers freely admit that the formulas for the prediction of celestial events are based on patterns and cycles.
A formula is formed based on observation yes.
But then it is applied to other celestial objects to predict their behavior. An accurate prediction, helps to confirm the formula.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Edtharan on November 08, 2008, 02:55:15 AM
Quote
Those formulas were derived based on historic charts and tables. Astronomers have studied the period and cycle of the eclipse over the last 2000 years and have made formulas which can predict when the next one will occur.
Actually I used Newton's laws of motion and gravity to calculate the position, and these laws were not based on past lunar eclipses, but instead were based on on rolling marbles down slopes (and in the Physics classes the year before we had to demonstrate that these laws did give the correct results for marbles rolled down slopes).

Now, unless Newton's Laws actually describe a fundamental similarity in the behaviours of the motions of the planets and how marbles roll down hills (and the path of projectiles, and any other object in motion - to a reasonable degree of accuracy), then there should be no reason why the laws created to describe the motion of marbles rolling down slopes should be in any way related to the future timing and position of eclipses.

In the Flat Earth model, the positions of the Moon and Sun are in now way related to the cause of gravity so there should not be any reason why these phenomena are related. However, in the Round Earth model there is the claim that the motion of the Moon around the Earth and the Earth around the Sun are related to the motion of Marbles rolling down slopes, specifically, both are governed by gravity.

So if Round Earth is correct and gravity controls the motions of the Moon, Earth and Marbles, then you should be able to use the same formulas to work out their motions, you just need to change the various data that you feed into the formulae. And this is indeed what I did to calculate the timing of the eclipses.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on November 10, 2008, 02:01:01 PM
A formula is formed based on observation yes.
But then it is applied to other celestial objects to predict their behavior. An accurate prediction, helps to confirm the formula.
Dude, I'm saying Newton measured gravitation by observation and applied it to other objects and confirmed the formulas. This is an RE position.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: markjo on November 11, 2008, 05:33:56 AM
Quote
If that is your suggestion I can accept that, but I just want you to clarify as mortal enemies do not collaborate as such.

Russia and the US were never "mortal enemies," they worked together as allies during WWII and were friends immediately after the Cold War. The fact that NASA and the Soviets worked together on billion dollar space projects during the Cold War demonstrates that there was never really any active aggression or xenophobia between the two nations.

Tom, does the Cuban Missile Crisis sound familiar?  You know, one itchy trigger finger away from WWIII?  Or was that just a college prank that Khrushchev tried pulling on Kennedy? ::)
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 11, 2008, 09:19:14 PM
Quote
Tom, does the Cuban Missile Crisis sound familiar?  You know, one itchy trigger finger away from WWIII?  Or was that just a college prank that Khrushchev tried pulling on Kennedy? ::)

There's a difference between protecting one's territory and active aggression.

It it not possible to befriend your neighbor while installing a home alarm system?
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Edtharan on November 11, 2008, 09:42:56 PM
Quote
Tom, does the Cuban Missile Crisis sound familiar?  You know, one itchy trigger finger away from WWIII?  Or was that just a college prank that Khrushchev tried pulling on Kennedy? ::)

There's a difference between protecting one's territory and active aggression.

It it not possible to befriend your neighbor while installing a home alarm system?
How about threatening to shoot them if the move in next door, yet also claiming to be bets friends? That is more like what occurred in the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 11, 2008, 10:02:31 PM
The Cuban Missile Crisis and every event during the Cold War were all passive preventative tactics.

I'd buy a dog to keep my neighbor from jumping the fence and breaking into my house when I'm away, despite my visiting him on the weekends for friendly house parties. That's perfectly acceptable.

There's a difference between protective measures and active aggression. During the Cold War the US and Russia worked hand-in-hand on many political, scientific, and entrepreneurial ventures as allies, partners, and friends. Throughout the Cold War commerce traded freely between the two nations and civilians were free to travel between the two countries as they wished. The two countries were never at anywhere close to "war" with each other. No one was ever expecting or planning any war. There was never any active hostility between the US and Russia.

The Cold War was really nothing more than the result of post-WWII paranoia. The countries who survived the ashes of WWII took turns buying bigger and meaner dogs for their yards in the far off unlikely chance that a neighbor would jump the fence and try to break in.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Edtharan on November 11, 2008, 10:15:48 PM
The Cuban Missile Crisis and every event during the Cold War were all passive preventative tactics.

I'd buy a dog to keep my neighbor from jumping the fence and breaking into my house when I'm away, despite my visiting him on the weekends for friendly house parties. That's perfectly acceptable.

There's a difference between protective measures and active aggression. During the Cold War the US and Russia worked hand-in-hand on many political, scientific, and entrepreneurial ventures as allies, partners, and friends. Throughout the Cold War commerce traded freely between the two nations and civilians were free to travel between the two countries as they wished. The two countries were never at anywhere close to "war" with each other. No one was ever expecting or planning any war. There was never any active hostility between the US and Russia.

The Cold War was really nothing more than the result of post-WWII paranoia. The countries who survived the ashes of WWII took turns buying bigger and meaner dogs for their yards in the far off unlikely chance that a neighbor would jump the fence and try to break in.
And the biggest "Dog" of all would be to show that the other country's government was lying to the population. This would have destroyed the morale of the country and all faith they had in their government. The resulting civil war would have completely prevented the other government from even thinking about "jumping the fence". Not only that, if they were interested in jumping the fence themselves, it would have provided a really good opportunity to do so as the other country would ahve been too involved in the ensuing civil and political disruption to do any thing about it.

So in light of that: It is unlikely that during the Cold War, Russia and America would have trusted each other enough to collaborate on such a huge conspiracy.

Do you know anything about politics?
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Rig Navigator on November 12, 2008, 08:50:14 AM
Of course, you are forgetting that the FES has denied the existence of nuclear weapons (http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=567.msg29634#msg29634 (http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=567.msg29634#msg29634) or http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=528.msg24056#msg24056 (http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=528.msg24056#msg24056)) why not deny the existence of the Cold War.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Dewi on November 13, 2008, 07:46:00 AM
Surely though, none of this banter is answering the original post. As I understand it, FE'ers were asked to provide evidence that the world was indeed flat.

Have to say, I'm very disappointed in the responses from those who believe in the flat earth. I expected good solid arguements, backed up by a modicum of common sense. Instead I'm greeted with 'if a plane flies over the ice wall, it is shot down'... that is simply not constructive nor does it lead to sensible debate.

I am puzzled that every question posed seems to be answered with a question, or as is becoming more apparent, the answer is unknown. I can readily accept that science has not got all the answers, but I would ask for definative answers to the following:

What was/is the purpose of a sextant?

How would a FE'er explain the magnetic poles and the invention by the Chinese of the compass?

If the world is indeed flat, which I am open-minded to at this point, but there are no definitive maps of the earth, how is this explained when FE'ers readily accept that planes fly over the earth on a regular basis?

The arguements put forward regarding the FFA may well stand in the US, but unfortunately the FFA are not absolute, nor is the US government. I do not reside in the US, and I am aware of many aviation authorities that are not controlled by government organisations.

The rocket arguements need to take into account the V rocket and the more advanced V2, both of which were the precursors towards the rocket technology we have today. Also technology such as the Paveway and Pathfinder missles need to be taken into account.

Contrary to popular belief, many civilisations long before the middle ages have sumised that the earth is oblate spheroid and have used this information for many inventions. They could be wrong, but to simply argue that this is some sort of modern day conspiracy cheapens the origins of The Flat Earth Society and its founding father.

One final point. Although I could accept that electronics can be manipulated by regulation, this arguement only stands for standard aircraft. It would not stand for instance if someone owned a microlite aircraft which has no such electronics, or for that matter a simple hand glider which has little or no mechanical or electrical parts.

Cheers, Dewi
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Dewi on November 13, 2008, 08:53:03 AM
Sorry... thats what I meant... got a bit carried away with myself  :-X

In all seriousness though, to prove a conspiracy, surely first it must be proved that there is something to conspire about?

As I say, I'm looking at this purely from an information point of view rather than dictating my belief one way or the other... I find it fascinating that non-believers of the flat earth theory are being branded as NASA-believers... it is the first I have heard of this. I'm also fascinated by this conspiracy theory that seems to include American and Soviet governments, but which seems to exclude all other major governments across the world and many organisations which have no direct government influence.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: trig on November 13, 2008, 01:42:21 PM
The Cuban Missile Crisis and every event during the Cold War were all passive preventative tactics.

I'd buy a dog to keep my neighbor from jumping the fence and breaking into my house when I'm away, despite my visiting him on the weekends for friendly house parties. That's perfectly acceptable.

There's a difference between protective measures and active aggression. During the Cold War the US and Russia worked hand-in-hand on many political, scientific, and entrepreneurial ventures as allies, partners, and friends. Throughout the Cold War commerce traded freely between the two nations and civilians were free to travel between the two countries as they wished. The two countries were never at anywhere close to "war" with each other. No one was ever expecting or planning any war. There was never any active hostility between the US and Russia.

The Cold War was really nothing more than the result of post-WWII paranoia. The countries who survived the ashes of WWII took turns buying bigger and meaner dogs for their yards in the far off unlikely chance that a neighbor would jump the fence and try to break in.
As usual, Tom Bishop and other conspiracy theorists insult millions of countrymen and others just to make a totally baseless claim.

At the very least, the dead from the wars in Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and Afghanistan (the russian invasion) are the direct consequence of the cold war. Those are several million, or a few times more dead than all the USA citizens that have died in all the other wars that the USA has participated in.

The fact that there was never a direct confrontation of troops from the USA and the USSR does not erase the fact that millions of lives were lost in the global confrontation between capitalism and communism, otherwise known as the cold war.

And by the way, we all faced probable extinction when, as part of the cold war, the USA and the USSR almost sent everything they had against each other over some missiles in Cuba.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Earthquakesdontbend on November 15, 2008, 01:01:17 PM
Excuse me if I'm just popping up in the debate here, but I've got a few things to say regarding the stupidity of so-called "bendy light".

It was said about 5 pages ago that the sun is the proof of bendy light. Indeed, light can bend, as observed around black holes and the sun.

But why?

Let's start from the beginning. Photons, or the quantum of light as we know it, contains energy. Else, there would be no temperature, no solar energy and so forth and so on. Therefore, photons have a mass. Even though this mass is so small that it could be regarded as zero, it is yet a mass.

Let me explain to you why light bends.

The sun is in fact a very massive object composed of gas. There is so much gas that, in fact, a fusion reaction has started in the core of the sun. If you don't believe in fusion, don't read the rest of this.

The fusion reaction pretty much proves that the sun is being pulled inwards by a force that we call "gravity". Now, gravity is the reason why light bends around the sun. Since photons have a mass (even though minimal), they are attracted by the gigantic mass of the sun. Gravity pulls them around the sun, and therefore we can se stars behind it.

Assuming that "bendy light" is the reason why I, flying in an aircraft, can see the curvature of the earth, there must also be gravity pulling the light and thereby bending it. In case the earth was flat, and yet had gravity, the entire disk would collapse upon itself in a catastrophic event that would, in case the earth really was flat and it happened, make me a believer. Now, this has never happened and never will happen - since - the earth is a sphere. Density in the core reveals to us that the earth is actually being pulled inwards, but the significally lower mass of the earth means that no fusion reaction can begin.

- Earthquakes don't bend
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Earthquakesdontbend on November 16, 2008, 12:35:23 AM
By now, the "conspiracy" involves about... what could it be?

Thousands of people, from all over the world.

What I find the most unlikely about a NASA conspiracy is that the Soviets also have pictures of a round earth. If NASA would have discovered that the earth was flat, they would probably have proven that the Soviet images were fake by taking pictures of a flat earth and then publishing them. NASA would have punched a huge hole in the Soviet space programme and the cold war would have ended 40 years earlier.

And don't you tell me that the USA and USSR were staging every single event during the cold war. Agent Orange mutations, napalm burns, the Korea War, the Berlin wall - in case those were staged, then about half south-east Asia, and all the inhabitants of Berlin, would be participants in the conspiracy.

You'll end up with the entire world participating in a gigantic conspiracy.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Recusant on November 16, 2008, 01:16:55 AM
What I find the most unlikely about a NASA conspiracy is that the Soviets also have pictures of a round earth. If NASA would have discovered that the earth was flat, they would probably have proven that the Soviet images were fake by taking pictures of a flat earth and then publishing them. NASA would have punched a huge hole in the Soviet space programme and the cold war would have ended 40 years earlier.
NASA and the Soviet space programme likely came to the real conclusion around the same time as each other and decided to just keep perpetuating the Round Earth story for the sake of mutual profit.

"Mum's the word, comrade."

"Da! And ve share vealth!"
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Earthquakesdontbend on November 16, 2008, 01:37:47 AM
And China?

And all the other nations that have had space probes flying up there in the sky.
Are you trying to tell me that the number of conspirators just DOUBLED?

Look at historical events. As the number of conspirators rise, so does the probability of a leak. A "leak" in the NASA or Soviet space programme, in the GPS industry, in the private companies that would have known if the earth was flat, has yet to occur. The only thing the FE's got at the moment is speculations. And I could SPECULATE that I am only a machine, and that I am an experiment - and the whole scientific world is testing how a machine works in a gigantic conspiracy of global proportions.

Then again, is that likely? So far, I've not even been given a hint in that direction by anyone. In this case, I will have to choose between the most probable and the least probable scenario. Either I am a complex machine with fake blood, own thoughts, feelings, a skeleton which only appears to be made of organic material - or - I am in fact a human, as everybody else. I have to say, the second alternative seems most likely.

My point is, you can never be sure, but you have to consider what is the most likely case. Either NASA, in a true conspiracy-book fashion, never went to space, staged all the launches, hid the space shuttle, took the astronauts away from the launch pad at the final hour, sent a fake-lander to the moon and faked hundreds of tons of photographs. Or, NASA went to space, using rockets based on hundreds of years of science, took real and practical photographs, sent a by modern-day technology fully possible robot to Mars and landed humans on the moon.

Again, the second is the most likely.

And - you have yet to "break down" one of the moon-landing photographs and explain to the RE-supporters what is so incredibly fake with it.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Edtharan on November 16, 2008, 02:55:16 AM
What I find the most unlikely about a NASA conspiracy is that the Soviets also have pictures of a round earth. If NASA would have discovered that the earth was flat, they would probably have proven that the Soviet images were fake by taking pictures of a flat earth and then publishing them. NASA would have punched a huge hole in the Soviet space programme and the cold war would have ended 40 years earlier.
NASA and the Soviet space programme likely came to the real conclusion around the same time as each other and decided to just keep perpetuating the Round Earth story for the sake of mutual profit.

"Mum's the word, comrade."

"Da! And ve share vealth!"
Actually if you have ever studied Economics, Money does not have nay intrinsic value. Money only reflects the value we place in what you can do with it. The current economic crisis is a good example of this. The value of the money is only what we place in it. If we, for some reason, loose that value we place in it (because we don't trust it), the value of that currency can fall fast.

So, you have to ask yourself, what is it that these conspirators value? It has been suggested that Money is what they value (that the conspiracy exists for the sake of making money), but as anybody who know even a little about economic knows, Money by itself is not really valuable.

What is important if you are going to ahve a conspiracy to make money on such a large (global) scale is that you need trust. But Trust is exactly what a conspiracy can not have. To trust them you first have to know them and then they have to be trustworthy and someone who constantly lies to you is not trust worthy.

So conspiracies on such global scale are self defeating (ie do not exist).

The other thing is it is absolutely TRIVIAL to disprove the Earth is Round, if it is indeed Flat.

Remember, the time-scales that this conspiracy has gone on for would mean that the technological know-how that the conspirators used to p[rove the Earth was flat (to themselves) would be available in any high school textbook and probably available at the local hardware stores.

Basic geometry can be used to prove that the Earth is either Flat or Round. If a person could do this in a couple of weekends with only a small budget, then how could such a conspiracy last? Remember the only reason they they could make wealth out of this conspiracy is if they had enough trust. But as ANYBODY could disprove the conspiracy so easily, then they could not retain that trust.

The only conclusions are that if a conspiracy was so easily broken, then either everybody (but you) is in on this, or that the conspiracy does not exist.

Given four clear nights, some simple tools and a car I (or anybody else) could blow this conspiracy wide open. The question is, why haven't they?

And, here it is:

At the first location, at a preset time, measure the angle of several stars from your position as compared to the horizontal. Repeat this at 3 other locations (4 in total) as far apart as you can get and measure the distances travelled over the ground to get there (work out the straight line distance).

You now have the data needed to map the changes of angle to the stars as a distance on the surface of the Earth.

This base line data (and an understanding of geometry that any high school student should know) can be used to confirm any map's accuracy. So if that any conspiracy exists that is falsifying the maps, then you can go out and check the accuracy of them. Using this data you can confirm that at the same latitude/distance from the "Equator" (where the sun is over head at the equinoxes) has the same ground distances for a given longitude (angle around the north pole).

On a flat Earth this is impossible. On a round Earth this is expected.

No amount of bendy light, fiddled with GPS receivers, etc can explain this away. The further out from the north pole that you go on a flat earth the further the ground distance you have to travel for a given angle around the north pole. On a round earth, the distance increases the closer you get to the Equator and decreases towards either pole.

This conspiracy is bunk simply because it is so trivial to break it that any high school student could do it in a couple of weekends.

(oh, and to make ground distance measurements easier use one of these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trundle_wheel )
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 16, 2008, 01:20:48 PM
Quote
Basic geometry can be used to prove that the Earth is either Flat or Round. If a person could do this in a couple of weekends with only a small budget, then how could such a conspiracy last? Remember the only reason they they could make wealth out of this conspiracy is if they had enough trust. But as ANYBODY could disprove the conspiracy so easily, then they could not retain that trust.

Have you read Earth Not a Globe or any of the other Flat Earth literature in my signature link?
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: NTheGreat on November 16, 2008, 04:46:37 PM
Quote
Have you read Earth Not a Globe or any of the other Flat Earth literature in my signature link?

The literature in your signature is all well and good, but we've yet to see a single experiment done that suggests a FE model over a RE model.

Also worthy of note is that not all of the stuff in your signature supports a FE viewpoint. I recently came across a copy of 'Flat Earth: The history of an Infamous Idea' in the library of the university I attend, and noticed that it claimed to disprove the FE model, according to the blurb inside the front cover.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Edtharan on November 16, 2008, 06:32:59 PM
Quote
Have you read Earth Not a Globe or any of the other Flat Earth literature in my signature link?
Have you tried the experiments that I have posted?

According to the Links you told me about (in your sig),
Quote
Zetetic Astronomy: http://books.google.com/books?id=oTUDAAAAQAAJ&printsec=titlepage#PPA3,M1
Page 3
None can doubt that by making special experiments and collecting manifest and undeniable facts, arranging them in logical order, and observing what is naturally and fairly deductible, the result will be far more consistent and satisfactory than by framing a theory or system and assuming the existence of causes for which there is no direct evidence, and which can only be admitted "for the sake of argument".

This is the opening statement of that book, but for FE to be accepted we have to accept that there is a Conspiracy for which there is no direct evidence, and which can only be admitted "for the sake of argument".

So to claim that there is a conspiracy is directly in opposition to the material that you supplied. If we are to accept the philosophy that you ahve direct us to, then we have to reject the concept of a conspiracy as there is no direct evidence. (and actually there is evidence against it  ::)  - specifically, economics).
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Johannes on November 16, 2008, 08:25:29 PM
Excuse me if I'm just popping up in the debate here, but I've got a few things to say regarding the stupidity of so-called "bendy light".

It was said about 5 pages ago that the sun is the proof of bendy light. Indeed, light can bend, as observed around black holes and the sun.

But why?

Let's start from the beginning. Photons, or the quantum of light as we know it, contains energy. Else, there would be no temperature, no solar energy and so forth and so on. Therefore, photons have a mass. Even though this mass is so small that it could be regarded as zero, it is yet a mass.

Let me explain to you why light bends.

The sun is in fact a very massive object composed of gas. There is so much gas that, in fact, a fusion reaction has started in the core of the sun. If you don't believe in fusion, don't read the rest of this.

The fusion reaction pretty much proves that the sun is being pulled inwards by a force that we call "gravity". Now, gravity is the reason why light bends around the sun. Since photons have a mass (even though minimal), they are attracted by the gigantic mass of the sun. Gravity pulls them around the sun, and therefore we can se stars behind it.

Assuming that "bendy light" is the reason why I, flying in an aircraft, can see the curvature of the earth, there must also be gravity pulling the light and thereby bending it. In case the earth was flat, and yet had gravity, the entire disk would collapse upon itself in a catastrophic event that would, in case the earth really was flat and it happened, make me a believer. Now, this has never happened and never will happen - since - the earth is a sphere. Density in the core reveals to us that the earth is actually being pulled inwards, but the significally lower mass of the earth means that no fusion reaction can begin.

- Earthquakes don't bend
Read up on the electromagnetic accelerator.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: markjo on November 16, 2008, 08:53:48 PM
Read up on the electromagnetic accelerator.

Quote from: http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0022-3735/16/4/017
Abstract. An electromagnetic accelerator employing a capacitor bank is described, which can be used to accelerate masses up to 1 g to velocities between 10 m s-1 and 300 m s-1. The theoretical model is compared with experimental results and photographs of the acceleration process are shown. The results indicate that the electromagnetic accelerator is a highly reliable device; the operation is reproducible. It can be used to accelerate all kinds of mases (dust, liquids, organic material, etc.) in any environment (vacuum, atmospheric pressure, high pressure, or liquids).

So what do electromagnetic accelerators have to do with bendy light?
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Rig Navigator on November 17, 2008, 04:38:31 AM
This is the opening statement of that book, but for FE to be accepted we have to accept that there is a Conspiracy for which there is no direct evidence, and which can only be admitted "for the sake of argument".

So to claim that there is a conspiracy is directly in opposition to the material that you supplied. If we are to accept the philosophy that you ahve direct us to, then we have to reject the concept of a conspiracy as there is no direct evidence. (and actually there is evidence against it  ::)  - specifically, economics).

I could grow to like this guy. ;)  You don't actually expect the FEers to conform to the ideas of Rowbotham do you? 

When his experiments are done, and don't give the results that the FEers want, then they drop him like a hot potato.  Look at "bendy light."  Observations of the Sun can't be rectified with the experiments of Rowbotham, so they had to make up "bendy light" to explain the position of the Sun in the sky and sunrise/sunset.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Edtharan on November 17, 2008, 07:32:09 AM
Read up on the electromagnetic accelerator.
I have. I have even made one (it is not all that hard, the trick is in the timing of turning on and off of the electromagnets, and I did it by hand  :o). And it does not do what you think it does.

An electromagnetic accelerator accelerates conductive objects by inducing and electric current in the object to be accelerated by creating an oscillating magnetic field. According to the electromagnetic theory (which has been confirmed by experiment), when you have an oscillating magnetic field, it induces an electric current in nearby conductors (sometimes called eddy currents as the flow of current in the conductor is in eddies). When you have an electric current, it crates a magnetic field (this is what an electro magnet does).

However, the magnetic field that is induced this way in the conductor is in the opposite direction to the initial magnet. this means that a North pole in the initial field will have the north pole in the conductor so close to it. This sets up a repulsion and gives a "push" to the conductor.

Why timing is important is that to get faster acceleration you need to have several electro magnets placed along the path of acceleration and switch them on or off as the object that is being accelerated passes them. Also, you want to turn on the electro magnets at the best possible time (when the accelerating object just passes it) so as to give it the maximum push that you can.

So yes, I really do know what an electromagnetic accelerator is. And it does not do what you think it does.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Johannes on November 21, 2008, 10:05:24 AM
So basically 11 pages and no reasons to debunk FE theory....

another victory.... for FE!
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Dark Knight on November 21, 2008, 10:22:23 AM
Japan found out the hard want that the earth is Flat.  Imagine all the gas they burned up controlling all that territory between New Zeland, Wake, Coral Midway and Pearl Harbor.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Edtharan on November 21, 2008, 04:26:44 PM
So basically 11 pages and no reasons to debunk FE theory....

another victory.... for FE!
You could write 11 thousand pages and not debunk the claim that I have an invisible unicorn in my back yard. This does not mean that there is an invisible unicorn in my back yard.

According to the rules of logic and debate, you can never disprove a positive. So it would be impossible to disprove that there is a conspiracy. But this does not mean that there is a conspiracy.

However, according to the rules of logic and debate, you can disprove a negative. So the claim that there is not a conspiracy can be easily disproved with a singe piece of reliable evidence for the conspiracy.

But there has not been one single piece of evidence.

The only logical conclusion is that there is no conspiracy.

Now for someone who is not irrational to come to the conclusion that there is a conspiracy, it means that they have evidence for a conspiracy. As there a a lot of people on these boards that accept that there is a conspiracy, then there must be some evidence that you have somewhere. Or are you all irrational (and bordering on paranoid delusional).
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 21, 2008, 04:29:46 PM
So basically 11 pages and no reasons to debunk FE theory....

another victory.... for FE!
You could write 11 thousand pages and not debunk the claim that I have an invisible unicorn in my back yard. This does not mean that there is an invisible unicorn in my back yard.

According to the rules of logic and debate, you can never disprove a positive. So it would be impossible to disprove that there is a conspiracy. But this does not mean that there is a conspiracy.

However, according to the rules of logic and debate, you can disprove a negative. So the claim that there is not a conspiracy can be easily disproved with a singe piece of reliable evidence for the conspiracy.

But there has not been one single piece of evidence.

The only logical conclusion is that there is no conspiracy.

Now for someone who is not irrational to come to the conclusion that there is a conspiracy, it means that they have evidence for a conspiracy. As there a a lot of people on these boards that accept that there is a conspiracy, then there must be some evidence that you have somewhere. Or are you all irrational (and bordering on paranoid delusional).

Um no. We don't need to prove that NASA is lying. You need to prove that NASA is telling the truth. Manned space travel is your claim, not ours. You're the one making all of these claims. We're the skeptics here. You're the one claiming that the government can send 100,000 tons of matter straight upwards at 7 miles a second, land men on the moon, and send robots to mars. You're the only one here claiming a bunch of extraordinary never before done things.

The burden of you is to prove these things to us. You're the one making the claim. The simplest explanation is that NASA really can't do all of that stuff.

If two people are having a debate, should the burden of proof rest on the shoulders of the person who make the most complicated claim, or should the burden of proof rest on the shoulders of the person who makes the simplest and easily observable claim?

In a discussion on the existence of ghosts should the burden of proof be on the group mumbling "just because you can't see something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist," or should the burden of proof be on everyone else to prove that ghosts *don't* exist?

A company called Mollar International claims to have invented a flying car with safety comparable to a land vehicle, an outstanding performance of a 400 mile range, and sophisticated never before seen computer control. They claim that the Sky Car is ready to be mass produced if only they got a few more big investments. They've released a few videos of it hovering a short distance off the ground in test flights. Should the burden of proof be on the Moller proponents who are absolutely certain that all of Moller's claims are true, or should the burden of proof be on everyone else to prove that Moller's claims are *not* true?
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: iznih on November 21, 2008, 06:10:17 PM
i think space travel is simpler than a conspiracy of the dimension fe needs. even watergate couldn?t be kept covered up. i think it was a former us president who once said (as i already posted earlier): a maximum of three people can keep a secret. if two of them are dead.

"a bunch of extraordinary never before done things."

everything that is done for the first time is extraordinary and has never been done before. interestinly this applies to all things mankind ever did.

Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 21, 2008, 07:54:29 PM
Quote
i think space travel is simpler than a conspiracy of the dimension fe needs.

Either NASA invented robots and rocket ships and sent them into space or NASA did not invent robots and rocket ships and send them into space. The simplest explanation is that they did not.

Quote
even watergate couldn?t be kept covered up. i think it was a former us president who once said (as i already posted earlier): a maximum of three people can keep a secret. if two of them are dead.

What the hell are you talking about? The government can keep secrets just fine. If the government had a problem keeping secrets then it would be easy for you to find us some classified or top secret data available to the public.

Quote
everything that is done for the first time is extraordinary and has never been done before. interestinly this applies to all things mankind ever did.

Either NASA did the extraordinary, or NASA did not do the extraordinary. The simplest explanation is that they did not.

It seems that the burden of proof is still on you.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: markjo on November 21, 2008, 08:52:16 PM
Quote
i think space travel is simpler than a conspiracy of the dimension fe needs.

Either NASA invented robots and rocket ships and sent them into space or NASA did not invent robots and rocket ships and send them into space. The simplest explanation is that they did not.

The simplest explanation is not always the correct one. 

Quote
Quote
everything that is done for the first time is extraordinary and has never been done before. interestinly this applies to all things mankind ever did.

Either NASA did the extraordinary, or NASA did not do the extraordinary. The simpelest explanation is that they did not.

The simplest explanation is not always the correct one.  I would contend that the things that NASA does are extraordinary precisely because they are not simple.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Recusant on November 21, 2008, 08:55:19 PM
The simplest explanation is not always the correct one. 
Yes, it is.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 21, 2008, 08:58:26 PM
Quote
The simplest explanation is not always the correct one.

Should the burden of proof be on the group promoting the simplest and easily observable explanation, or should the burden of proof be on the group promoting the most complicated and unobservable explanation?

Should the burden of proof be on those who believe that time travel exists and that people have traveled through time, or should the burden of proof be on everyone else to prove that time travel is *not* possible?
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: markjo on November 21, 2008, 09:13:04 PM
Quote
The simplest explanation is not always the correct one.

Should the burden of proof be on the group promoting the simplest and easily observable explanation, or should the burden of proof be on the group promoting the most complicated and unobservable explanation?

Should the burden of proof be on those who believe that time travel exists and that people have traveled through time, or should the burden of proof be on everyone else to prove that time travel is *not* possible?

Time travel and space travel are not the same thing.  There is plenty of evidence that space travel is real.  Whether you choose believe that evidence or not is up to you.  We can only present the evidence, we can't make you believe it.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Rig Navigator on November 21, 2008, 11:33:12 PM
Should the burden of proof be on the group promoting the simplest and easily observable explanation, or should the burden of proof be on the group promoting the most complicated and unobservable explanation?

It seems like the burden of proof should be on the group claiming that the rocket that is launched and observed by thousands of people as it takes off isn't what it seems.  You are the ones with the claim that what is being observed isn't what it seems.

You are the one that has the alternative explanation to the observations.  I see the rocket accelerate off of the ground and see the pictures of the results.  You say to accept the more simple explanation.  Is it simpler to accept that in the last 50 years rocket technology has improved from being able to lift a few tons of explosives from Germany to England to being able to insert men and equipment into orbit; or is it simpler to say that there is a multinational conspiracy that is continuously creating new images, launching fake missions and embezzling the money?

I think that it is simpler to go with the advancement of technology.  This is something that I can observe the effects of in my daily life.  In computer technology alone, the processing and storage equipment has grown a thousand-fold since the 1980s.  We have gone from drill oil wells in tens of feet of water to drilling wells in water over a mile deep.  The depth of those wells has increased by miles.  Cars have gone from being simply made of steel to being made of exotic metals and plastics.  Portable phones have gone from bag phones that had to be carried over my shoulder to a phone with a camera that I can fit in the pocket of my pants, and if I choose I can communicate using a satellite with a portable phone.

I find it more difficult to believe in a multinational conspiracy that relies on thousands of people spread over at least six countries.  This is a time when the President of the United States can't even get a blow job in his office without the press finding out and it becoming a big scandal.

So yes, the simplest explanation is that NASA, the Soviets, the Chinese, the Indians, and the Europeans have developed the technology to lift tons (not the 100,000 tons that you claim) into space and work there effectively.
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: NTheGreat on November 22, 2008, 04:57:36 AM
Quote
Either NASA invented robots and rocket ships and sent them into space or NASA did not invent robots and rocket ships and send them into space. The simplest explanation is that they did not.

NASA, or a contractor, created rockets and the probes inside them. People saw them being built and launched.

What's the simplest explanation: That The ships launched off to the planets as observed, or that they flew off course as soon as they left our sights, landed somewhere in the world when nobody could see it, and NASA lunched a stratellite to represent it so the groups following it would not be fooled. They then sat down and produced thousands of photo realistic images using just a handful of people and very ineffective computer software?
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Dewi on November 22, 2008, 05:12:20 AM
Quote
The simplest explanation is not always the correct one.

Should the burden of proof be on the group promoting the simplest and easily observable explanation, or should the burden of proof be on the group promoting the most complicated and unobservable explanation?

Exactly. Fully agree with you Tom.

So where is the proof of the conspiracy? If I'm understanding this thread correctly, it isn't about whether the world is flat or round. It is about the conspiracy that surrounds our belief either way.

So by your very arguement of the simplest and easily observable explanation, lets take a closer look at NASA. Why would NASA be involved in a conspiracy? The arguement again and again is profit, but unfortunately that isn't the simple and easy explanation is it?

How many government departments are there that are not as open as NASA? How much of your tax money gets spent on Black Ops where there is little or no accountability for the huge sums of money spent? There are far easier ways to profit than to try and convince the population of the world that the world is in fact not the shape we are lead to believe.

India have a space program, as does China, France, the UK, America and Russia... the Australians send satellites up into space... so they must all be in the conspiracy.

There are in excess of a million companies who make electronics and instrumentation. They would all be in on the conspiracy together. For what, profit? And why, as mentioned in another thread, if all this is done for profit, is there not another company doubling their profits by proving the world is flat? Using instrumentation to catagorically prove that we're being lied to?

By your own arguement Tom, the burden of proof for the world being round is left to the people who do not believe the world to be flat, but the burden of proof that the world's goverments, independent companies and individuals are conspiring to hide the true nature of the world lies with FE'ers... because there not being a conspiracy is the simplest and easily observed answer.

Could you provide a simple and easily observed answer to how this conspiracy could have come about, its purpose and provide proof that is indisputable?
Title: Re: Proof of Conspiracy
Post by: Edtharan on November 23, 2008, 04:02:05 PM
Quote
The simplest explanation is not always the correct one.

Should the burden of proof be on the group promoting the simplest and easily observable explanation, or should the burden of proof be on the group promoting the most complicated and unobservable explanation?

Should the burden of proof be on those who believe that time travel exists and that people have traveled through time, or should the burden of proof be on everyone else to prove that time travel is *not* possible?
The problem is that FE is not the simplest explanation. For FE to work (ie so that we observer the behaviours in the world that we do), FE needs exotic materials that are so strong that they defy the known laws of physics, require exotic forces that although have massive effects, have never been observed (eg: FE type Dark energy, Bendy light, etc), giant conspiracies that is claimed to exist to make profit, but no reasonable method for them to do so (ie one that fits with maths and economics), that there can be more money made with the conspiracy than can be made without the conspiracy, that nobody that might have wanted to break the conspiracy ever fooled the members of the conspiracy into thinking that they accepted the conspiracy so as to gather proof of the conspiracy, that nobody ever worked for the conspiracy that became disgruntled with them (bad pay, personality conflicts with co-workers, etc), unlikely events like Fish just swimming in the right direction and with the right speed to boost the speed of ships so as to make travel times appear to be that of a round earth, that the speed of these boosted ships goes unnoticed despite the easy method of checking your speed based on the changes of angles of stars as you move (this also works if bendy light is real too).

See, a conspiracy to fake a round earth even though the earth was flat would have to address all these (and much more besides). Where as a RE has none of these complexities. So which is actually simpler?