The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: Dirk Starlight on July 11, 2009, 02:10:12 AM

Title: FET = Religion in disguise? + Rant
Post by: Dirk Starlight on July 11, 2009, 02:10:12 AM
I've been lurking for a couple days now, and it just seems ridiculous of some of the posts. Also, by reading the "FAQ", it seems as if this idea is based off a religion of some sorts.

Flat Earth Theory doesn't deny the existence of the other planets in the solar system. It just states that the Earth is "unique", or something along those lines. Personally, I'm a science nerd I guess. I like to study things. People say that "science is wrong." So... we've been wrong for over 600 years now? Don't tell me people haven't been to Antarctica before some government got their hands on it. Or... maybe it's a secret society of people that have been so technologically advanced, that they have protected it since the beginning of time!  :o

Back to my point: These are all religious views. We're special. Someone placed us here. You may not think that, but that's what it comes off as. Why would one planet of of the millions, hell, billions out there, be flat, while the rest are all spherical, or as close as you can get to that. The universe follows patterns. It may not seem like it to some, but there is.

Reading up another topic in this forum, about math. Math in the universe. Well, did humans just think of math to explain things? Or does the universe actually follow these rules? Do FEer's believe that there are other stars?  Yes. But you don't think the sun is considered a star. There is proof that the Sun is 93,000,000 miles away, and that it is just an ordinary star. I bet you all the money in the world that if you can get a tape measure that long, it would reach the Sun. Not at 3,000 miles, but at 93,000,000 miles.

Stars come in all different shapes and sizes. Just like humans. There are red stars, blue stars, yellow stars, white stars, etc. So, as you can see, there is a pattern here. They all form the same: in nebulae, which is an observed phenomenon. Go ahead. Get a telescope. Go get a star chart and wait for Winter to come around if your in the Northern Hemisphere.  See Orion? Good. See that thing right underneath it's belt? That's Orion's nebula. Stars are currently being born here, and if you had a longer life span, you would be able to notice changes. (Technically, they might already be born, just that it takes a while for light to reach here. I don't feel like looking it up right now, nor can I do the calculations seeing as it's Summer here.)

Which brings me to another point. Moons. Jupiter has almost a hundred moons IIRC. It may even be over that now. All the planets have moons but two. Which shows you that it is a natural phenomenon. And Solar Eclipses? Have you ever seen one? You can clearly see that it is the moon before it passes over the Sun. But not according to FEer's. It's a... what did you call it? Antimoon? Or something like that. The point is, that it's not some invisible thing out there. It's the moon. You can tell. When you have a New Moon phase, if it lines up on a node, than you will get an eclipse.

No one here has even swayed my opinion of the Earth at all. In fact, in just bolster's my opinion of a Round Earth (or spherical I guess). Everything can be described with detailed observations. And math if you want to get really technical. The truth is, we're just an ordinary planet which has been fortunate enough to have life on it. We haven't even begun to scratch the surface of the possibility of life on other planets.

And now on to the conspiricy...

Why would other countries just be starting to get in on it now? Why would NASA want to share it's secret with a few select group of people from other countries? They would be losing money if they did. If they were smart, they would just try to set up another NASA in that country. But oh wait, don't tell me it already is the same group of people, just in a different country?

That "Ice Wall"? That's a continent. Called Antarctica. And oddly enough, it describes your Theory's Ice Wall. A large mass of land and mountains with ice and snow on top of it.

This is plenty enough for tonight though. It's 5 A.M. here, so I guess the sun should be moving over soon, and not the Earth rotating.  ::)

/endrant.
Title: Re: FET = Religion in disguise? + Rant
Post by: Dirk Starlight on July 11, 2009, 02:11:25 AM
I just realized I left out a huge part to that math section. More on that tomorrow.
Title: Re: FET = Religion in disguise? + Rant
Post by: Parsifal on July 11, 2009, 02:31:32 AM
I've been lurking for a couple days now, and it just seems ridiculous of some of the posts. Also, by reading the "FAQ", it seems as if this idea is based off a religion of some sorts.

Nope.

People say that "science is wrong."

Anybody who says that does not understand what science is.

Back to my point: These are all religious views. We're special. Someone placed us here. You may not think that, but that's what it comes off as. Why would one planet of of the millions, hell, billions out there, be flat, while the rest are all spherical, or as close as you can get to that. The universe follows patterns. It may not seem like it to some, but there is.

Where did you get the idea that Flat Earthers believe that the Earth is the only flat body in the Universe, or that someone placed us here?

Reading up another topic in this forum, about math. Math in the universe. Well, did humans just think of math to explain things? Or does the universe actually follow these rules? Do FEer's believe that there are other stars?  Yes. But you don't think the sun is considered a star. There is proof that the Sun is 93,000,000 miles away, and that it is just an ordinary star. I bet you all the money in the world that if you can get a tape measure that long, it would reach the Sun. Not at 3,000 miles, but at 93,000,000 miles.

That's a pretty safe bet, considering we're never going to make a tape measure that long. Regardless, the conclusion that the Sun is that far away assumes the Earth to be round when interpreting the evidence. If you assume the Earth to be flat, you get a much smaller figure.

Stars come in all different shapes and sizes. Just like humans. There are red stars, blue stars, yellow stars, white stars, etc. So, as you can see, there is a pattern here. They all form the same: in nebulae, which is an observed phenomenon. Go ahead. Get a telescope. Go get a star chart and wait for Winter to come around if your in the Northern Hemisphere.  See Orion? Good. See that thing right underneath it's belt? That's Orion's nebula. Stars are currently being born here, and if you had a longer life span, you would be able to notice changes. (Technically, they might already be born, just that it takes a while for light to reach here. I don't feel like looking it up right now, nor can I do the calculations seeing as it's Summer here.)

We know how RET works. Instead of trying to explain to us what we already understand, why don't you try justifying why it is a better theory than FET?

Which brings me to another point. Moons. Jupiter has almost a hundred moons IIRC. It may even be over that now. All the planets have moons but two. Which shows you that it is a natural phenomenon. And Solar Eclipses? Have you ever seen one? You can clearly see that it is the moon before it passes over the Sun. But not according to FEer's. It's a... what did you call it? Antimoon? Or something like that. The point is, that it's not some invisible thing out there. It's the moon. You can tell. When you have a New Moon phase, if it lines up on a node, than you will get an eclipse.

I don't see what moons being a natural phenomenon has to do with the Earth being flat. The Moon is responsible for solar eclipses in FET, just as in RET.

No one here has even swayed my opinion of the Earth at all.

This one always gets me. What makes you think we care enough about what you think to try to sway your opinion?

Why would other countries just be starting to get in on it now? Why would NASA want to share it's secret with a few select group of people from other countries? They would be losing money if they did. If they were smart, they would just try to set up another NASA in that country. But oh wait, don't tell me it already is the same group of people, just in a different country?

It has been an international conspiracy for decades. Other countries are not just "starting to get in on it now."

That "Ice Wall"? That's a continent. Called Antarctica. And oddly enough, it describes your Theory's Ice Wall. A large mass of land and mountains with ice and snow on top of it.

Yes, that is exactly what the Ice Wall is. Thank you for rephrasing that part of the FAQ in this thread, it really helped to clarify your point.
Title: Re: FET = Religion in disguise? + Rant
Post by: Crudblud on July 11, 2009, 04:11:42 AM
Flat Earth Theory,
Religion in disguise!
Flat Earth Theory,
More than meets the eye!
Title: Re: FET = Religion in disguise? + Rant
Post by: Lord Wilmore on July 11, 2009, 04:25:51 AM
Hmmm, topic full of questions with a dash of Conspiracy- definitely a recipe for General Discussion. Moved.
Title: Re: FET = Religion in disguise? + Rant
Post by: Squat on July 11, 2009, 04:28:46 AM

Stars come in all different shapes and sizes. Just like humans. There are red stars, blue stars, yellow stars, white stars, etc. So, as you can see, there is a pattern here. They all form the same: in nebulae, which is an observed phenomenon. Go ahead. Get a telescope. Go get a star chart and wait for Winter to come around if your in the Northern Hemisphere.  See Orion? Good. See that thing right underneath it's belt? That's Orion's nebula. Stars are currently being born here, and if you had a longer life span, you would be able to notice changes. (Technically, they might already be born, just that it takes a while for light to reach here. I don't feel like looking it up right now, nor can I do the calculations seeing as it's Summer here.)

We know how RET works. Instead of trying to explain to us what we already understand, why don't you try justifying why it is a better theory than FET?



The maps work.

HTH
Title: Re: FET = Religion in disguise? + Rant
Post by: James on July 11, 2009, 05:21:47 AM
No, no, no, no, no.

I am openly an atheist and I am a committed Flat Earther, as are the majority of Flat Earthers on this website. Belief in an Earth of any shape does not imply any kind of metaphysical or spiritual belief whatsoever.

I am deeply sceptical of organised religion. I am also of the opinion that globularism acts in much the same manner as an organised religion - needlessly complicated and obscure dogmas are passed down to the general public, unquestioning, from a tiny, exclusive scientific elite.

Zetetic science delivers the scientific discourse back into the hands of the public - it encourages personal scepticism and independent investigation into phenomena.
Title: Re: FET = Religion in disguise? + Rant
Post by: Lord Wilmore on July 11, 2009, 05:24:44 AM
No, no, no, no, no.

I am openly an atheist and I am a committed Flat Earther, as are the majority of Flat Earthers on this website. Belief in an Earth of any shape does not imply any kind of metaphysical or spiritual belief whatsoever.

I am deeply sceptical of organised religion. I am also of the opinion that globularism acts in much the same manner as an organised religion - needlessly complicated and obscure dogmas are passed down to the general public, unquestioning, from a tiny, exclusive scientific elite.

Zetetic science delivers the scientific discourse back into the hands of the public - it encourages personal scepticism and independent investigation into phenomena.

James, is it me, or has this question been coming up a lot lately? It just seems amazing that so many people assume this site has religious connotations which it clearly does not.
Title: Re: FET = Religion in disguise? + Rant
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 11, 2009, 05:47:16 AM
James, is it me, or has this question been coming up a lot lately? It just seems amazing that so many people assume this site has religious connotations which it clearly does not.

It's amusing that people would accuse the FES of being a religion when the Zetetic philosophy is to assume nothing and to proceed only by inquiry.

In fact, it's the RE'ers who are practicing religion (blind faith). Instead of seeking the truth for their own selves they're content with armchair assumption and a relentlessly blind faith in NASA.
Title: Re: FET = Religion in disguise? + Rant
Post by: Lord Wilmore on July 11, 2009, 05:58:06 AM
James, is it me, or has this question been coming up a lot lately? It just seems amazing that so many people assume this site has religious connotations which it clearly does not.

It's amusing that people would accuse the FES of being a religion when the Zetetic philosophy is to assume nothing and to proceed only by inquiry.

In fact, it's the RE'ers who are practicing religion (blind faith). Instead of seeking the truth for their own selves they're content with armchair assumption and a relentlessly blind faith in NASA.

In particular, I find the blind faith they exhibit in theoretical models that conform to their worldview (worldview being a tragically metaphorical concept for them) remarkable. Most of those who claim to be atheists have simply ovethrown the old 'god' and in its stead placed the new idols of globularist science. For them, the fantasies of Newton are the founding mythology in their slavish cult of theoretical science.
Title: Re: FET = Religion in disguise? + Rant
Post by: Parsifal on July 11, 2009, 07:43:53 AM
In particular, I find the blind faith they exhibit in theoretical models that conform to their worldview (worldview being a tragically metaphorical concept for them) remarkable. Most of those who claim to be atheists have simply ovethrown the old 'god' and in its stead placed the new idols of globularist science. For them, the fantasies of Newton are the founding mythology in their slavish cult of theoretical science.

This is exactly what I was trying to point out with my "why do you believe the Earth is round?" thread. Unfortunately, that point seems to have been missed by all those who could have benefited from it - they all seem to be interpreting the question as "why don't you believe the Earth is flat?".
Title: Re: FET = Religion in disguise? + Rant
Post by: shades on July 11, 2009, 09:03:33 AM
I think the flat earth thing is bullshit, but I don't really think it has much religious theme.

Title: Re: FET = Religion in disguise? + Rant
Post by: James on July 11, 2009, 10:31:45 AM
In particular, I find the blind faith they exhibit in theoretical models that conform to their worldview (worldview being a tragically metaphorical concept for them) remarkable. Most of those who claim to be atheists have simply ovethrown the old 'god' and in its stead placed the new idols of globularist science. For them, the fantasies of Newton are the founding mythology in their slavish cult of theoretical science.

This is exactly why I have been openly critical of science fiction in its various forms. Star Trek, Star Wars, and their attendant franchises and offshoots are to Globular Fundamentalism what the Iliad and the Odyssey were to Hellenism. The new myths are designed to manipulate the public to the same extent, if not moreso, as the old ones were.
Title: Re: FET = Religion in disguise? + Rant
Post by: Moon squirter on July 11, 2009, 12:58:36 PM
In particular, I find the blind faith they exhibit in theoretical models that conform to their worldview (worldview being a tragically metaphorical concept for them) remarkable. Most of those who claim to be atheists have simply ovethrown the old 'god' and in its stead placed the new idols of globularist science. For them, the fantasies of Newton are the founding mythology in their slavish cult of theoretical science.

This is exactly why I have been openly critical of science fiction in its various forms. Star Trek, Star Wars, and their attendant franchises and offshoots are to Globular Fundamentalism what the Iliad and the Odyssey were to Hellenism. The new myths are designed to manipulate the public to the same extent, if not moreso, as the old ones were.

Are you saying that modern science fiction is a tool of the Conspiracy?
Title: Re: FET = Religion in disguise? + Rant
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on July 11, 2009, 01:03:31 PM
In particular, I find the blind faith they exhibit in theoretical models that conform to their worldview (worldview being a tragically metaphorical concept for them) remarkable. Most of those who claim to be atheists have simply ovethrown the old 'god' and in its stead placed the new idols of globularist science. For them, the fantasies of Newton are the founding mythology in their slavish cult of theoretical science.

This is exactly why I have been openly critical of science fiction in its various forms. Star Trek, Star Wars, and their attendant franchises and offshoots are to Globular Fundamentalism what the Iliad and the Odyssey were to Hellenism. The new myths are designed to manipulate the public to the same extent, if not moreso, as the old ones were.

Are you saying that modern science fiction is a tool of the Conspiracy?


Let's remember Dogplatter thinks everything that appears to favor RET is part of the Conspiracy.  It's all very zetetic.
Title: Re: FET = Religion in disguise? + Rant
Post by: Lord Wilmore on July 11, 2009, 01:21:21 PM
In particular, I find the blind faith they exhibit in theoretical models that conform to their worldview (worldview being a tragically metaphorical concept for them) remarkable. Most of those who claim to be atheists have simply ovethrown the old 'god' and in its stead placed the new idols of globularist science. For them, the fantasies of Newton are the founding mythology in their slavish cult of theoretical science.

This is exactly why I have been openly critical of science fiction in its various forms. Star Trek, Star Wars, and their attendant franchises and offshoots are to Globular Fundamentalism what the Iliad and the Odyssey were to Hellenism. The new myths are designed to manipulate the public to the same extent, if not moreso, as the old ones were.

Are you saying that modern science fiction is a tool of the Conspiracy?


Let's remember Dogplatter thinks everything that appears to favor RET is part of the Conspiracy.  It's all very zetetic.

To be quite honest, anyone with a background knowledge of cultural theory would agree with him to some degree. Marxists believe that almost every facet of modern western culture reinforces capitalism. Feminists believe the same thing about patriarchy. Black rights activists feel the same way about white culture. Really this is no different.
Title: Re: FET = Religion in disguise? + Rant
Post by: James on July 11, 2009, 01:48:57 PM
This is exactly why I have been openly critical of science fiction in its various forms. Star Trek, Star Wars, and their attendant franchises and offshoots are to Globular Fundamentalism what the Iliad and the Odyssey were to Hellenism. The new myths are designed to manipulate the public to the same extent, if not moreso, as the old ones were.

Are you saying that modern science fiction is a tool of the Conspiracy?


That is exactly what I am saying.

Let's remember Dogplatter thinks everything that appears to favor RET is part of the Conspiracy.  It's all very zetetic.

You're completely misrepresenting my beliefs on this matter, and I'm disappointed in you for doing so, you know full well that isn't the case and there is no need to try and smear me in front of the globularists. There is nothing unzetetic about the fact that media which promotes the notion that there are solar systems of round spinning planets can be considered "a tool of" the Conspiracy.

Did Robert J Stevens sit down and personally write the plot of the latest episode of Star Trek? No. Does the existence of science fiction benefit the Conspiracy by perpetuating the beliefs which are central to their deception? Yes, of course it does, how could you possibly deny that fact?
Title: Re: FET = Religion in disguise? + Rant
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on July 11, 2009, 04:32:30 PM
Let's remember Dogplatter thinks everything that appears to favor RET is part of the Conspiracy.  It's all very zetetic.

You're completely misrepresenting my beliefs on this matter, and I'm disappointed in you for doing so, you know full well that isn't the case and there is no need to try and smear me in front of the globularists. There is nothing unzetetic about the fact that media which promotes the notion that there are solar systems of round spinning planets can be considered "a tool of" the Conspiracy.

Did Robert J Stevens sit down and personally write the plot of the latest episode of Star Trek? No. Does the existence of science fiction benefit the Conspiracy by perpetuating the beliefs which are central to their deception? Yes, of course it does, how could you possibly deny that fact?

That they benefit the Conspiracy, there is no doubt.  That they were designed to benefit the Conspiracy, as you stated, is what I call into question.  It sounds ludicrous to me.
Title: Re: FET = Religion in disguise? + Rant
Post by: Delthan on July 11, 2009, 05:02:41 PM
In particular, I find the blind faith they exhibit in theoretical models that conform to their worldview (worldview being a tragically metaphorical concept for them) remarkable. Most of those who claim to be atheists have simply ovethrown the old 'god' and in its stead placed the new idols of globularist science. For them, the fantasies of Newton are the founding mythology in their slavish cult of theoretical science.

This is exactly why I have been openly critical of science fiction in its various forms. Star Trek, Star Wars, and their attendant franchises and offshoots are to Globular Fundamentalism what the Iliad and the Odyssey were to Hellenism. The new myths are designed to manipulate the public to the same extent, if not moreso, as the old ones were.

Even I will agree that going to Star Trek for scientific knowledge is a very BAD idea, though I know very few people who actually watch it to learn science...
Title: Re: FET = Religion in disguise? + Rant
Post by: markjo on July 11, 2009, 05:37:06 PM
Even I will agree that going to Star Trek for scientific knowledge is a very BAD idea, though I know very few people who actually watch it to learn science...

Good science fiction is based on good science.  It's amazing how much technology that we take for granted today were actually inspired by Star Trek.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_William_Shatner_Changed_the_World
Title: Re: FET = Religion in disguise? + Rant
Post by: Delthan on July 11, 2009, 05:50:22 PM
Even I will agree that going to Star Trek for scientific knowledge is a very BAD idea, though I know very few people who actually watch it to learn science...

Good science fiction is based on good science.  It's amazing how much technology that we take for granted today were actually inspired by Star Trek.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_William_Shatner_Changed_the_World

Hey, I'll be the first to point out the many benefits Star Trek has brought, though its overuse of 'Treknobabble' is often too much for the casual viewer who can't distinguish between the real and fictional science - I like Trek for its moral and cultural message mostly - not to say I don't enjoy the purely geeky technical moments too  ;D
Title: Re: FET = Religion in disguise? + Rant
Post by: James on July 11, 2009, 05:54:27 PM
That article just serves to completely corroborate my point:

Quote
It also discusses how NASA's newest deep space probe's ion propulsion was inspired by the Star Trek episode Spock's Brain. Shatner also states that "those pesky trekkies are everywhere in the space program," hence the name for the first Space Shuttle Enterprise.

Title: Re: FET = Religion in disguise? + Rant
Post by: Delthan on July 11, 2009, 06:02:08 PM
That article just serves to completely corroborate my point:

Quote
It also discusses how NASA's newest deep space probe's ion propulsion was inspired by the Star Trek episode Spock's Brain. Shatner also states that "those pesky trekkies are everywhere in the space program," hence the name for the first Space Shuttle Enterprise.



Which is what exactly? That Trekkies are in on the Conspiracy?
Title: Re: FET = Religion in disguise? + Rant
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 11, 2009, 06:50:19 PM
Which is what exactly? That Trekkies are in on the Conspiracy?

No, it demonstrates his point by showing that NASA is based on fiction.

In addition, the movie "What happened on the moon" demonstrates how NASA's project Apollo was tightly based on another piece of (pre-star trek) fiction:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3186616594425246748&q=what+happened+on+the+moon&total=51&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

It's a bit long, so prepare yourself.
Title: Re: FET = Religion in disguise? + Rant
Post by: Moon squirter on July 12, 2009, 03:59:29 AM
Which is what exactly? That Trekkies are in on the Conspiracy?

No, it demonstrates his point by showing that NASA is based on fiction.

In addition, the movie "What happened on the moon" demonstrates how NASA's project Apollo was tightly based on another piece of (pre-star trek) fiction:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3186616594425246748&q=what+happened+on+the+moon&total=51&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Let's take a step back here.  Science fact and science fiction are always going to be closely related because they are about the same subject.  Ion thrusters have no use in a manned space flight because of their small thrust (unlike the "Ion Drives" on Startrek).  Also, we don't anything about how Ion drives work on Startrek, just that the have the word "ion" in their name.

The "Enterprise" was a well-known and deliberate nod to star trek.  Just accept it.  There's no deeper meaning:

Enterprise, the first Space Shuttle Orbiter, was originally to be named Constitution (in honor of the U.S. Constitution's Bicentennial). However, viewers of the popular TV Science Fiction show Star Trek started a write-in campaign urging the White House to rename the vehicle to Enterprise... (http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/shuttle/resources/orbiters/enterprise.html)


Title: Re: FET = Religion in disguise? + Rant
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 12, 2009, 04:43:02 AM
Quote
Let's take a step back here.  Science fact and science fiction are always going to be closely related because they are about the same subject.

Wrong. Science "Fact" and Science Fiction are always going to be closely related because your Science "Fact" is, in actuality, Science Fiction.

Watch the movie I linked above starting at the 24 minute mark. Project Apollo was based directly on a Sci-Fi movie of a previous generation called Frau im Mond by Fritz Lang. From the upright presentation of the Saturn V, the identical vehicle assembly building, the giant puller vehicle, the "10-9-8" countdown, to the depictions on the Apollo insignia patches showing movie sets copied directly from Frau im Mond - Project Apollo gives its startlingly obvious signs of film fiction.
Title: Re: FET = Religion in disguise? + Rant
Post by: Moon squirter on July 12, 2009, 12:11:30 PM
Quote
Let's take a step back here.  Science fact and science fiction are always going to be closely related because they are about the same subject.

Wrong. Science "Fact" and Science Fiction are always going to be closely related because your Science "Fact" is, in actuality, Science Fiction.

Watch the movie I linked above starting at the 24 minute mark. Project Apollo was based directly on a Sci-Fi movie of a previous generation called Frau im Mond by Fritz Lang. From the upright presentation of the Saturn V, the identical vehicle assembly building, the giant puller vehicle, the "10-9-8" countdown, to the depictions on the Apollo insignia patches showing movie sets copied directly from Frau im Mond - Project Apollo gives its startlingly obvious signs of film fiction.

1. The upright presentation of the Saturn V.
      What would be the advantage of wheeling-out a launch-readied 3000-ton Rocket horizontally?
      Irrelevant.
2. Identical vehicle assembly building
      An extremely large hanger with hanger-like doors, able to accommodate an enormous rocket.
      Irrelevant.
3. Giant puller vehicle
      Large vehicle required to transport large rocket and launchpad from hanger to launch side.
      Irrelevant.
4. "10-9-8" countdown
      Yep, countdowns generally count down.

When I was twelve I used to be taken it by this sort of stuff.  Since then I have learn to consider each piece of evidence independently, and avoid being taken-in by narrative, dramatic music or charismatic/concerned-looking participants.

As a film, it appears that "Woman in the Moon" was ahead of its time and the attention to detail was incredible.  However the points you cite only serve add credit the film's meticulous forethought, not provide evidence of a Conspiracy.
Title: Re: FET = Religion in disguise? + Rant
Post by: Delthan on July 12, 2009, 12:55:11 PM
Quote
Let's take a step back here.  Science fact and science fiction are always going to be closely related because they are about the same subject.

Wrong. Science "Fact" and Science Fiction are always going to be closely related because your Science "Fact" is, in actuality, Science Fiction.

Watch the movie I linked above starting at the 24 minute mark. Project Apollo was based directly on a Sci-Fi movie of a previous generation called Frau im Mond by Fritz Lang. From the upright presentation of the Saturn V, the identical vehicle assembly building, the giant puller vehicle, the "10-9-8" countdown, to the depictions on the Apollo insignia patches showing movie sets copied directly from Frau im Mond - Project Apollo gives its startlingly obvious signs of film fiction.

What you fail to realise Tom, is that science fiction can quite often become science fact - to take other examples from 'How William Shatner changed the world', the Tricorder device often used in the series, was a direct inspiration for medical imaging devices that are used in hospitals, the communicator became the cell phone, and the inventor of the personal computer was apparently inspired by the user firendly computers on the show.

That's just from one sci fi franchise.  Who knows what other fiction inspired fact.
Title: Re: FET = Religion in disguise? + Rant
Post by: bobbyfett on July 12, 2009, 01:01:23 PM
Also, a lot of science fiction is actually leaked technology which is given to selected sci fi writers to incorporate into their work, and then it is officially released by NASA. That way we are more accepting of this technology when it arrives and do not ask questions about where it came from, or we accept the simplest answer given ("I invented it." LOL) And so the conspiracy trundles on.
Title: Re: FET = Religion in disguise? + Rant
Post by: markjo on July 12, 2009, 01:56:03 PM
Which is what exactly? That Trekkies are in on the Conspiracy?

No, it demonstrates his point by showing that NASA is based on inspired by fiction.

Fixed that for you.  Besides, it's not just NASA that was inspired by Star Trek.
Title: Re: FET = Religion in disguise? + Rant
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 13, 2009, 01:04:02 AM
Quote
When I was twelve I used to be taken it by this sort of stuff.  Since then I have learn to consider each piece of evidence independently, and avoid being taken-in by narrative, dramatic music or charismatic/concerned-looking participants.

Since then you have learn to take each piece of evidence independently? It appears that nether your English or reasoning skills have improved since those twelve year old days.

You avoid being "taken" in by narrative, what the hell does that mean? Does that mean that you're plugging your ears no matter how convincing the narrative might be? What kind of lame reasoning is that?

The video demonstrates that Project Apollo was based directly on a fiction movie. Every element of Apollo is based directly on Science Fiction. NASA even changed the designs of its space suits after A Space Odyssey came out to match the designs in the movie.

I mean really, who had the bright idea of transporting a 360 foot rocket vertically on a custom platform and not horizontally on trucks and trains like the Russians and Nazi's did with their rockets? It's clear beyond all doubt that NASA was going for shock and awe - to reflect the spectacular events in Frau im Mond.

With NASA it's not a matter of what's necessary or functional. It's "what looks good". NASA is a movie studio through and through.
Title: Re: FET = Religion in disguise? + Rant
Post by: Delthan on July 13, 2009, 01:31:07 AM
Quote
When I was twelve I used to be taken it by this sort of stuff.  Since then I have learn to consider each piece of evidence independently, and avoid being taken-in by narrative, dramatic music or charismatic/concerned-looking participants.

Since then you have learn to take each piece of evidence independently? It appears that nether your English or reasoning skills have improved since those twelve year old days.

You avoid being "taken" in by narrative, what the hell does that mean? Does that mean that you're plugging your ears no matter how convincing the narrative might be? What kind of lame stance is that?

The video demonstrates that Project Apollo was based directly on a fiction movie. Every element of Apollo is based directly on Science Fiction. NASA even changed the designs of its space suits after A Space Odyssey came out to match the designs in the movie.

I mean really, who had the bright idea of transporting a 360 foot rocket vertically and not horizontally like the Russians and Nazi's did with their rockets? It's clear beyond all doubt that NASA was going for shock and awe - to reflect the spectacular events in Frau im Mond.

With NASA it's not a matter of what's necessary or functional. It's "what looks good". NASA is a movie studio through and through.

 ::)
Title: Re: FET = Religion in disguise? + Rant
Post by: bobbyfett on July 13, 2009, 04:11:21 AM
Quote
When I was twelve I used to be taken it by this sort of stuff.  Since then I have learn to consider each piece of evidence independently, and avoid being taken-in by narrative, dramatic music or charismatic/concerned-looking participants.

Since then you have learn to take each piece of evidence independently? It appears that nether your English or reasoning skills have improved since those twelve year old days.

You avoid being "taken" in by narrative, what the hell does that mean? Does that mean that you're plugging your ears no matter how convincing the narrative might be? What kind of lame reasoning is that?

The video demonstrates that Project Apollo was based directly on a fiction movie. Every element of Apollo is based directly on Science Fiction. NASA even changed the designs of its space suits after A Space Odyssey came out to match the designs in the movie.

I mean really, who had the bright idea of transporting a 360 foot rocket vertically on a custom platform and not horizontally on trucks and trains like the Russians and Nazi's did with their rockets? It's clear beyond all doubt that NASA was going for shock and awe - to reflect the spectacular events in Frau im Mond.

With NASA it's not a matter of what's necessary or functional. It's "what looks good". NASA is a movie studio through and through.

Tom, why do you claim that NASA take their instruction from movie studios? Isn't it more likely that there is some other higher force at play?
Title: Re: FET = Religion in disguise? + Rant
Post by: dyno on July 13, 2009, 05:47:24 AM
It appears the point FErs are making is that if it exists in Hollywood, it must be fake. Patently absurd.
Title: Re: FET = Religion in disguise? + Rant
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 13, 2009, 09:57:26 AM
Quote
It appears the point FErs are making is that if it exists in Hollywood, it must be fake. Patently absurd.

It's a fact that NASA takes its direction from Hollywood. Why else would they change the design of their space suits right after A Space Odyssey came out? Because a low budget movie studio could build a better space suit than millions of dollars of NASA R&D? Give me a break.
Title: Re: FET = Religion in disguise? + Rant
Post by: bobbyfett on July 13, 2009, 10:02:29 AM
Quote
It appears the point FErs are making is that if it exists in Hollywood, it must be fake. Patently absurd.

It's a fact that NASA takes its direction from Hollywood. Why else would they change the design of their space suits right after A Space Odyssey came out? Because a low budget movie studio could build a better space suit than millions of dollars of NASA R&D? Give me a break.

It is more likely that NASA gives the instructions to Hollywood, telling them what new technologies they've "discovered" and telling the directors to put them into their films. When NASA finally produces the alien technology they claim to have found (by magic) we're not surprised because we've seen it in the movies.
Title: Re: FET = Religion in disguise? + Rant
Post by: markjo on July 13, 2009, 10:20:05 AM
Quote
It appears the point FErs are making is that if it exists in Hollywood, it must be fake. Patently absurd.

It's a fact that NASA takes its direction from Hollywood. Why else would they change the design of their space suits right after A Space Odyssey came out? Because a low budget movie studio could build a better space suit than millions of dollars of NASA R&D? Give me a break.

NASA's space suits have evolved over the years.  Why would you consider that odd?
http://space.about.com/od/spaceexplorationtools/tp/spacesuitevolution.htm
Title: Re: FET = Religion in disguise? + Rant
Post by: zork on July 14, 2009, 01:34:11 AM
Quote
It appears the point FErs are making is that if it exists in Hollywood, it must be fake. Patently absurd.

It's a fact that NASA takes its direction from Hollywood. Why else would they change the design of their space suits right after A Space Odyssey came out? Because a low budget movie studio could build a better space suit than millions of dollars of NASA R&D? Give me a break.
Yeah, right. Outward design is always most important. Did you know that gray colored spacesuits are 50% better than yellow colored spacesuits? And orange color makes it 20% more efficient as gray. And if you change the some other minor aspect so that suit looks cooler then it automatically gets also better.
Title: Re: FET = Religion in disguise? + Rant
Post by: Ski on July 14, 2009, 06:44:04 PM
It appears the point FErs are making is that if it exists in Hollywood, it must be fake. Patently absurd.

How about: "If it is physically impossible, but exists in Hollywood, it's pretty damn likely to be fake."
Title: Re: FET = Religion in disguise? + Rant
Post by: dyno on July 15, 2009, 04:48:01 AM
It appears the point FErs are making is that if it exists in Hollywood, it must be fake. Patently absurd.

How about: "If it is physically impossible, but exists in Hollywood, it's pretty damn likely to be fake."
ah but who decides what is physically impossible? we are arguing from opposing viewpoints. what i believe completely reasonable you see as fantastic. we can't argue plausibility from opinion.