The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: toothyp1cks on December 03, 2009, 11:48:32 PM

Title: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: toothyp1cks on December 03, 2009, 11:48:32 PM
Okay, here we go. First time poster; long time lurker.
So far all I have seen in FE arguments about, well anything is "CONSPIRACEH!!" (A summary, obviously).
You don't really have a lot of proof the conspiracy exists. So here I go, to try and figure out weather the conspiracy actually exists.

1. The rules:

In the Australian legal system the burden of proof is with the prosecuter. The prosecuter must prove the defendant murdered the victim. It is not the defendant's jobto prove he didn't.
By extension, the flat earth therory supporters are the prosecuters because you are accusing NASA (mainly) of a conspiracy. Therefore, you have the burden of proof. You must prove that the conspiracy is real. If you do not prove it and simply say 'well, it could exist', you have failed the burden of proof, just as saying 'well, he could have stabbed her' is not sufficent to jail a man for life.

2. The evidence:
The only evidence I will accept is actual evidence. Like I said before, 'well, it could exist' is not evidence of its existence, therfore, not evidence so do not waste my time and yours trying to prove it could exist. I want actual proof it does. Saying 'NASA silences the proof, therefore we have no evidence' is not an argument either. If you have no evidence, guess what, YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE! Therefore, you fail the burden of proof.

3. The arguments:
?You spelt this wrong, therefore I am right.? = Fail.
?You are an idiot, therefore I am right.? = Fail.
?You are homosexual, therefore I am right.? = Fail.
Etc.
?<Inset copious evidence here>, therefore I am right.? = Win.

4. The shape of the Earth:
I am sorry, but I cannot allow the shape of the Earth to be an argument. If we assume the world is flat, conspiracy = real. If we assume it round, conspiracy = fake. Since if we allow this the thread will become FET vs. RET like all the others we will assume neither. The shape of the Earth is NOT an argument for ANYONE! THIS IS FUCKING IMPORTANT SO READ IT AGAIN AND MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND IT! Use only things such as eyewitness accounts and items proved to be fake as evidence. For an item to be successfully proved as fake it must actually be accepted as fake by EVERYONE.

5. Finally:
I am probably asking a bit much but please, everyone, be impartial and fair. Do not be insulting or rude because if you are everyone stops being impartial, it turns into a shit-flinging competition and nothing gets done.

So, in summary:
1.   Do not use the shape of the earth as an argument
2.   Do not be insulting
3.   FE members must prove the conspiracy does exist, not just that it could.
4.   RE members must disprove the evidence.
5.   When one side is completely trashed and fails to continue to debate, the other side is the winner.

3, 2, 1, GO!
P.S. I require sources with evidence.
Title: Re: Beyond All Reasonable Doubt
Post by: watchayakan on December 04, 2009, 01:36:14 AM
In advance, I suggest no FE'r try to use the first moon landing as evidence.  You will be decimated, especially if you do not use reliable sources.
Title: Re: Beyond All Reasonable Doubt
Post by: toothyp1cks on December 04, 2009, 02:14:32 AM
In advance, I suggest no FE'r try to use the first moon landing as evidence.  You will be decimated, especially if you do not use reliable sources.

I thought about that but I decided to let them have it. After all, it could be fake. But like I said, if you want to use it as evidence, everyone has to agree it was fake. On the topic of the moon landing tha fact the flag is moving proves nothing, because the force of the flagpole going into the ground also set the flag into motion and with nothing to stop it from moving, it started to move.

But I doubt anyone will post anyway. I set pretty stringent restrictions to ensure only top quality stuff gets through, so I doubt any FET evidence will actually pass muster.
Title: Re: Beyond All Reasonable Doubt
Post by: Tristan on December 04, 2009, 04:50:19 AM
On the topic of the moon landing tha fact the flag is moving proves nothing, because the force of the flagpole going into the ground also set the flag into motion and with nothing to stop it from moving, it started to move.

Actually, I read a funny interview with a NASA engineer who said that they spent several days designing and choreographing the whole thing because they thought it would be more "patriotic" if the flag appeared to wave. If they knew that conspiracy theorist would use it as "evidence" that they faked the landings, they wouldn't have bothered.
Title: Re: Beyond All Reasonable Doubt
Post by: Its a Sphere on December 04, 2009, 05:13:14 AM
But I doubt anyone will post anyway. I set pretty stringent restrictions to ensure only top quality stuff gets through, so I doubt any FET evidence will actually pass muster.

You should add lame semantic nitpicking = fail to section 3 also.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: toothyp1cks on December 05, 2009, 08:25:18 PM
Hmmm. No posts from any FE'ers with any evidence at all...
What does this prove, I wonder?
I'll give it another day or so before I call it.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: markjo on December 05, 2009, 09:52:28 PM
FE'ers will probably say something like "if we had evidence of a conspiracy, then it wouldn't be a very good conspiracy, would it?"
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: toothyp1cks on December 05, 2009, 10:21:52 PM
FE'ers will probably say something like "if we had evidence of a conspiracy, then it wouldn't be a very good conspiracy, would it?"

Hence number 2.

2. The evidence:
The only evidence I will accept is actual evidence. Like I said before, 'well, it could exist' is not evidence of its existence, therfore, not evidence so do not waste my time and yours trying to prove it could exist. I want actual proof it does. Saying 'NASA silences the proof, therefore we have no evidence' is not an argument either. If you have no evidence, guess what, YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE! Therefore, you fail the burden of proof.

Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: toothyp1cks on December 07, 2009, 02:41:33 PM
That's it, I call victory.
The conspiracy does not exist because it has not been proved to exist therefore NASA is telling the truth and the Earth is a sphere. The FET is wrong, the RET is right, we can close down these forums and all go to sleep knowing that we were right all along.

Don't thank me, its just my job.
 ;)
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Robert64 on December 07, 2009, 02:48:19 PM
That's it, I call victory.
The conspiracy does not exist because it has not been proved to exist therefore NASA is telling the truth and the Earth is a sphere. The FET is wrong, the RET is right, we can close down these forums and all go to sleep knowing that we were right all along.

Don't thank me, its just my job.
 ;)

We have conclusively disproven FEt numerous times, but they just ignore the offending thread or change the subject to one they can argue in.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: toothyp1cks on December 07, 2009, 02:54:05 PM
That's it, I call victory.
The conspiracy does not exist because it has not been proved to exist therefore NASA is telling the truth and the Earth is a sphere. The FET is wrong, the RET is right, we can close down these forums and all go to sleep knowing that we were right all along.

Don't thank me, its just my job.
 ;)

We have conclusively disproven FEt numerous times, but they just ignore the offending thread or change the subject to one they can argue in.

I know, nearly every thread results in the FE'ers running and hiding under the rock of "BLAH BLAH BLAH CAN'T HEAR U" but I figured that I'd give disproving it once and for all, unquestionably, a go.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Robert64 on December 07, 2009, 03:03:11 PM
That's it, I call victory.
The conspiracy does not exist because it has not been proved to exist therefore NASA is telling the truth and the Earth is a sphere. The FET is wrong, the RET is right, we can close down these forums and all go to sleep knowing that we were right all along.

Don't thank me, its just my job.
 ;)

We have conclusively disproven FEt numerous times, but they just ignore the offending thread or change the subject to one they can argue in.

I know, nearly every thread results in the FE'ers running and hiding under the rock of "BLAH BLAH BLAH CAN'T HEAR U" but I figured that I'd give disproving it once and for all, unquestionably, a go.

I commend your effort, but from experience I doubt the FE'ers stubbornness will allow it to get anywhere.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2009, 03:09:47 PM
I've already proven that a space conspiracy exists.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: toothyp1cks on December 07, 2009, 03:11:34 PM
I've already proven that a space conspiracy exists.
Well then, oh beneficent one, mind sharing. And don't link to another thread, I want the evidence here. Copy and paste if you have to.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Robert64 on December 07, 2009, 03:13:41 PM
I've already proven that a space conspiracy exists.
Way to provide evidence. Try again.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: toothyp1cks on December 07, 2009, 03:37:48 PM
Still waiting for that evidence Tom. Or has it been lost in the mail somewhere and you haven't made backups (i.e. doesn't exist).
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2009, 04:00:13 PM
I've already proven that a space conspiracy exists.
Well then, oh beneficent one, mind sharing. And don't link to another thread, I want the evidence here. Copy and paste if you have to.

The CSA (Chinese Space Agency) is running a fake space program.





http://en.epochtimes.com/n2/china/shenzhou-vii-fake-spacewalk-5809.html
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: toothyp1cks on December 07, 2009, 04:13:29 PM
I've already proven that a space conspiracy exists.
Well then, oh beneficent one, mind sharing. And don't link to another thread, I want the evidence here. Copy and paste if you have to.

The CSA (Chinese Space Agency) is running a fake space program.





http://en.epochtimes.com/n2/china/shenzhou-vii-fake-spacewalk-5809.html

Yep. That all seems reasonable enough. So China has faked a mission out of their space program and probably more, but this does not prove that there is a conspiracy out there, it just proves that China...
Well, it has its problems. China 'could be' motivated by many other reasons. Even if I did believe that China faked it because the Earth was flat and not because they're tyrants (for want of a better word, no offence) you still have
NASA
The CSA (Canadian)
The ESA
The ISA
JAXA
The Turkish Space Agency (It's name has symbols that don't show up on this forum in it)
KCST
ARCASPACE
MNSA
and whichever one is the Russian space agency
to go. I know this seems like I'm asking a bit much but maybe you could recruit some others to help?
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2009, 04:26:37 PM
There is evidence for a NASA conspiracy. Please search.

ESA and others are all working with NASA on the ISS. NASA actually helped to build those organizations in the 80's.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Don B on December 07, 2009, 04:34:14 PM
I've already proven that a space conspiracy exists.
Well then, oh beneficent one, mind sharing. And don't link to another thread, I want the evidence here. Copy and paste if you have to.

The CSA (Chinese Space Agency) is running a fake space program.





http://en.epochtimes.com/n2/china/shenzhou-vii-fake-spacewalk-5809.html

As you have stated in the past, videos can be faked and modified. YouTube is hardly a credible source of information by your own rules. As for "The Epoch Times", you're citing a publication highly critical of the Chinese government. They'll gladly shoot down any accomplishment of those in power.

Try to cite something credible.


Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2009, 04:35:45 PM
The videos aren't faked.

If you're concerned about fakery, look at the original footage.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Don B on December 07, 2009, 05:30:45 PM
The videos aren't faked.

If you're concerned about fakery, look at the original footage.

I did and saw nothing damning. Do you understand how things work in microgravity? Do you really think that if there were a conspiracy in play, with all the multi-million dollar special effects out there, that "they" would neglect to edit out the studio lights or a simple bubble? Do you think that they'd ignore all the fanboys on IMDB that point out every little FX glitch?

And again, the "Conspiracy", according to FE, dates back much further than NASA or any other nations space program.

It's funny to me that according to you, the videos are real when convenient and bogus when it suits you.

And I'm going to ask you (Tom Bishop) every single day until you give me (us) an answer to tell us the names of the two colleges (or debate colleges, your modified term after being questioned on your unsubstantiated claim) you chair? You likely won't, because in your own words, you're not "keen on being stalked". So again, can you at least detail the curriculum of both these [debate] colleges?

Until then Mr. Bishop, you are (and will remain) a fool.



Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2009, 05:43:36 PM
Quote
I did and saw nothing damning. Do you understand how things work in microgravity?

Last I checked there weren't any bubbles in microgravity.

Quote
So again, can you at least detail the curriculum of both these [debate] colleges?

I've described the curriculum towards the middle of this thread:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=34267.0
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: toothyp1cks on December 07, 2009, 05:50:16 PM
The videos aren't faked.

If you're concerned about fakery, look at the original footage.

I did and saw nothing damning. Do you understand how things work in microgravity? Do you really think that if there were a conspiracy in play, with all the multi-million dollar special effects out there, that "they" would neglect to edit out the studio lights or a simple bubble? Do you think that they'd ignore all the fanboys on IMDB that point out every little SF glitch?

And again, the "Conspiracy", according to FE, dates back much further than NASA or any other nations space program.

It's funny to me that according to you, the videos are real when convenient and bogus when it suits you.

You, Mr. Bishop, are a fool.

Well then. For the record, we'll accept that this spacewalk (the Chinese one) has been faked because, quite obviously, it has. The videos look fine to me and the points brought up in them make perfect sense and are logical. The news blog is critical of the Chinese government but the glitches (bubbles and some others) clearly don't occur in space, so it can only be faked. It seems unbiased. Whether this fakery was because China is part of the epic conspiracy remains to be proven.
No personal attacks please because if everyone starts throwing them around it only de-rails the thread and I don't want that. Even if Tom contradicts himself in other threads I only want those brought up if it happens in this thread, i.e. only if he contradicts himself in this thread.

There is evidence for a NASA conspiracy. Please search.

ESA and others are all working with NASA on the ISS. NASA actually helped to build those organizations in the 80's.
Me searching is not the point of this thread either (though I am fully willing to look at other threads if you link them, or tell me to search for a particular title). The point is for you to present you're evidence and me to refute it (if I can). By all means reference other threads (or even copy & paste) but you need to explain it as well.
And also, is there any evidence that NASA and the others are conpiratorily linked?

So currently: You need to prove NASA is in on it and the others are NASA's children, or that everyone is in on it (and for that you need to prove the motivation behind China's fakery is the conspiracy and not something else because China's motives are questionable and there are other explanations).
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Don B on December 07, 2009, 06:02:05 PM
Quote
I did and saw nothing damning. Do you understand how things work in microgravity?

Last I checked there weren't any bubbles in microgravity.

Quote
So again, can you at least detail the curriculum of both these [debate] colleges?

I've described the curriculum towards the middle of this thread:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=34267.0

Oh, you clever cut-n-paste bandit you! Address the points I raised in their full context.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2009, 02:20:11 AM
Quote
So currently: You need to prove NASA is in on it and the others are NASA's children, or that everyone is in on it (and for that you need to prove the motivation behind China's fakery is the conspiracy and not something else because China's motives are questionable and there are other explanations).

Here's evidence of some NASA fakery:

http://www.screencast.com/users/tbishop/folders/Jing/media/d5784ce2-2348-40a0-8f9b-0ddf37763b6e
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Robert64 on December 08, 2009, 02:58:06 AM
Quote
So currently: You need to prove NASA is in on it and the others are NASA's children, or that everyone is in on it (and for that you need to prove the motivation behind China's fakery is the conspiracy and not something else because China's motives are questionable and there are other explanations).

Here's evidence of some NASA fakery:

http://www.screencast.com/users/tbishop/folders/Jing/media/d5784ce2-2348-40a0-8f9b-0ddf37763b6e
Congrats tom, you have accurately shown that the sun is a sphere, as it is still a circle when seen from the moon!

Um, what where you trying to say again?
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2009, 03:47:32 AM
The Apollo sun is a stage light.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Don B on December 08, 2009, 04:21:35 AM
Quote from: Tom Bishop
I've described the curriculum towards the middle of this thread:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=34267.0

I read through all six pages. You did not describe the curriculum.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2009, 04:39:22 AM
Quote from: Tom Bishop
I've described the curriculum towards the middle of this thread:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=34267.0

I read through all six pages. You did not describe the curriculum.

Gave you the wrong thread. It's described here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=34149.msg841562#msg841562
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Robert64 on December 08, 2009, 05:32:01 AM
The Apollo sun is a stage light.
How did you come to that conclusion?
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Its a Sphere on December 08, 2009, 05:39:14 AM
The Apollo sun is a stage light.
How did you come to that conclusion?

Please describe it with real words outlining the how and why you arrived at your conclusion and not just supply a link, or "see my video".


I've already proven that a space conspiracy exists.
Well then, oh beneficent one, mind sharing. And don't link to another thread, I want the evidence here. Copy and paste if you have to.

The CSA (Chinese Space Agency) is running a fake space program.





http://en.epochtimes.com/n2/china/shenzhou-vii-fake-spacewalk-5809.html
Also, nice link from the anti-CCP paper. http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/china/shenzhou-vii-fake-spacewalk-5809.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epoch_Times
Quote
Credibility:
Independent assessments:
Dr. Liu Kang, professor of Chinese Cultural Studies at Duke University, stated in 2006 that the paper did not adhere to basic journalistic standards of professionalism and objectivity, and is "not viewed as an independent objective news media".[19] Liu remarked that the newspaper is seen by the overseas Chinese community as "Falun Gong propaganda" and said the newspaper's credibility as media professionals has been damaged by Wang Wenyi,[19] who used her Epoch Times journalist pass to gain access to a White House lawn press briefing where she hurled insults at Chinese President Hu Jintao.[45] President George W. Bush apologized to the Chinese for the incident.[46] In turn, The Epoch Times apologized to the U.S. President,[47] whilst denying any direct ties to, or funding from, Falun Gong.[19]


Though funnier is your link's use of a real US space program to support a fake Chinese one.

Quote
It was shot by NASA?s space shuttle Discovery STS-121 on July 2006 during a mission at the International Space Station (ISS). When the shuttle observes the earth following the tangential direction, i.e., the spherical edge of the earth, we can see that there is a soft circle of blue around the earth, making the edge of the earth image a bit blurry.

This is the atmosphere of the earth. This blue circle becomes even more apparent when there are clouds over the earth. The appearance of this blue is due to the same reason behind why we see the sky as blue?air molecules scatter blue light more strongly. Because air molecules are mainly concentrated within 15 kilometers of the earth?s surface, and given the earth?s radius of 6,370 kilometers, at this distance it just becomes a thin layer.

Let us take a look at the photo (see photo above) in the Xinhua news report or the so-called live broadcast video. The edge of the earth near the top of the Shenzhou VII shuttle was almost smooth, and there was no blue atmosphere around it. Similar to the ISS, Shenzhou VII also maintained a close to circular orbit, with both flying at a distance of about 340 kilometers from the earth?s surface.


Thanks for confirming that your sources, that you believe in, indicate that not only is sustained space flight possible, but that it has happened and that the Earth is in fact, a sphere.  Your proof of a Chinese Conspiracy, just disproved your flat earth.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Robert64 on December 08, 2009, 05:40:33 AM
The Apollo sun is a stage light.
How did you come to that conclusion?

Please describe it with real words outlining the how and why you arrived at your conclusion and not just supply a link, or "see my video".
If you add "and is valid and makes sense", then it will be impossible for him to comply.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Tristan on December 08, 2009, 06:39:02 AM
The CSA (Chinese Space Agency) is running a fake space program.

The programme is not fake, Tom. There are some nutters on the web trying to convince people that debris=bubbles, but no one from any reputable media source or scientific agency believes it to be fake. In fact, Shenzhou VII was tracked by NASA through out the entire mission because it came uncomfortably close to the ISS.

But this is all irrelevant, because even if the video (or the entire programme) was faked, that doesn't prove anything beyond china having a fake space programme. China would have many motives to fake a spacewalk, none of which require the earth to be flat.

Furthermore, this whole argument is painting you in a corner, because the "evidence" for it being fake (such as the apparent lack of atmosphere around earth) comes from comparing the Shenzhou footage to images taken from Atlantis and the ISS.

So really, in this case, it doesn't help you - someone has to have a real space programme for either side of this argument to work.



Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Tristan on December 08, 2009, 06:41:13 AM
The Apollo sun is a stage light.

Yeah, not quite Tom. This one's been covered too: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=34457.msg845137#msg845137
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: lawton27 on December 08, 2009, 08:20:04 AM
The Apollo sun is a stage light.

Remind me how that video shows that the sun is stage light?
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Thermal Detonator on December 08, 2009, 10:03:29 AM
The Apollo sun is a stage light.

I addressed how your argument of this proves nothing. You have said not a word to refute my explanation. Until you do, your "sun is a stage light" idea is lying in shreds on the ground. Deal with it, Bishop.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Robert64 on December 08, 2009, 10:08:14 AM
The Apollo sun is a stage light.

I addressed how your argument of this proves nothing. You have said not a word to refute my explanation. Until you do, your "sun is a stage light" idea is lying in shreds on the ground. Deal with it, Bishop.

My educated guess for Tom's reply:
"I already proved it was a stage light. Please watch the video again."
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Thermal Detonator on December 08, 2009, 10:24:34 AM
Nah, this is a classic use of Bishop's Razor - his argument has been proved invalid so his response is to pretend that never happened.
Bishop knows nothing about photography and I know quite a bit, and was able to show how the image was indeed what you'd expect to get with the sun in the frame. I work in an imaging field, it's my job to understand these things.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Robert64 on December 08, 2009, 10:31:18 AM
Nah, this is a classic use of Bishop's Razor - his argument has been proved invalid so his response is to pretend that never happened.
Bishop knows nothing about photography and I know quite a bit, and was able to show how the image was indeed what you'd expect to get with the sun in the frame. I work in an imaging field, it's my job to understand these things.
So technically this is as close as we can get to Bishop accepting defeat? Sweet!
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Its a Sphere on December 08, 2009, 10:42:45 AM
Nah, this is a classic use of Bishop's Razor - his argument has been proved invalid so his response is to pretend that never happened.
Bishop knows nothing about photography and I know quite a bit, and was able to show how the image was indeed what you'd expect to get with the sun in the frame. I work in an imaging field, it's my job to understand these things.

We need another descriptive term, that isn't just exclusive to Bishop, where several posts which invalidate a FE argument are put forth, but of the 8 total statements one is incorrect and/or ambiguous and the seven statements are ignored and the odd one is singled out and focused upon followed by the claim that since one of the 8 is false all are false and the stance has been proven in the name of FE!
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Robert64 on December 08, 2009, 10:48:33 AM
the Argument Evasion through Nitpicking Tactic?
AEtNT
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Wings_RE on December 08, 2009, 12:03:37 PM
What puzzles me the most in this RE- or FE-world is not if it truly is either flat or round, but Bishops inability to link any - ANY - proof NOT typed or halusinated either by himself or peers.
The only times "they" (small green persons from the FW aka flat world) link anything, the link is either some ole chewed-up rant about mr. Hickupbottom proving the earth was flat using a candle and a teaspoon of onion-juice (relax guys, it's only an example) or a link leading back to the lame-ass statements that has repeated themselves for quite some time now, that only proves that the only proof they have is that they say it's proof.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Robert64 on December 08, 2009, 12:32:30 PM
What puzzles me the most in this RE- or FE-world is not if it truly is either flat or round, but Bishops inability to link any - ANY - proof NOT typed or halusinated either by himself or peers.
The only times "they" (small green persons from the FW aka flat world) link anything, the link is either some ole chewed-up rant about mr. Hickupbottom proving the earth was flat using a candle and a teaspoon of onion-juice (relax guys, it's only an example) or a link leading back to the lame-ass statements that has repeated themselves for quite some time now, that only proves that the only proof they have is that they say it's proof.
Yup, but its fun to watch them try anyway. Good way to remind you that no matter how bad you feel about yourself, there are far worse individuals.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2009, 01:22:36 PM
Nah, this is a classic use of Bishop's Razor - his argument has been proved invalid so his response is to pretend that never happened.
Bishop knows nothing about photography and I know quite a bit, and was able to show how the image was indeed what you'd expect to get with the sun in the frame. I work in an imaging field, it's my job to understand these things.

No. The sun is never inconsistently bright like that.

If you're interested in rebutting the video, please provide a valid example.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: markjo on December 08, 2009, 01:25:40 PM
No. The sun is never inconsistently bright like that.

But sometimes film is inconsistent in recording very bright objects like the sun.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2009, 01:27:15 PM
No. The sun is never inconsistently bright like that.

But sometimes film is inconsistent in recording very bright objects like the sun.

No it's not. During an overexposure the entirety of the sun is pure white on the film, indicating a loss of data.

The sun is never inconsistently bright.

If you're interested in rebutting the video, please provide a valid example.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Robert64 on December 08, 2009, 02:00:04 PM
No. The sun is never inconsistently bright like that.

But sometimes film is inconsistent in recording very bright objects like the sun.

No it's not. During an overexposure the entirety of the sun is pure white on the film, indicating a loss of data.

The sun is never inconsistently bright.

If you're interested in rebutting the video, please provide a valid example.

I'm guessing what you can see are artefacts caused by the camera being overexposed to a very bright light, and as it is brighter the closer you are to the middle it is a rotationally symmetrical pattern.

About the sun always being "consistently bright", one word:

SUNSPOTS
(http://www.hko.gov.hk/education/edu05spacewx/images/sunspots.jpg)
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Thermal Detonator on December 08, 2009, 02:02:13 PM
No. The sun is never inconsistently bright like that.

But sometimes film is inconsistent in recording very bright objects like the sun.

No it's not. During an overexposure the entirety of the sun is pure white on the film, indicating a loss of data.

The sun is never inconsistently bright.

If you're interested in rebutting the video, please provide a valid example.

This is my previous post, which you did not respond to, because I am totally right and you are totally wrong:

What makes you think it is a stage light?

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=33855.msg830773#msg830773

All I see in that crummy video is you tooling around with Photoshop. There is no evidence at all that it isn't the sun in the picture - most of what you're looking at in the original image is lens flare. If you think the big wide circle is supposed to be the edge of the actual sun or a stage light, you are far wrong. Film and scanned images have limits to their dynamic range, and the lens flare alone on the original negative would have easily reached d-max, meaning that the smaller spot of the sun within it could not be seen as seperate from the flare. Don't forget I work for the conspiracy in the imaging field and so I know what I'm talking about. The square blocks within the image after you've tampered with it are merely jpeg compression artefacts. What about that picture makes you think it's not the sun, exactly?
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2009, 02:09:20 PM
Quote
I'm guessing what you can see are artefacts caused by the camera being overexposed to a very bright light, and as it is brighter the closer you are to the middle it is a rotationally symmetrical pattern.

About the sun always being "consistently bright", one word:

SUNSPOTS

That's not a ring shaped sunspot taking up 75% of the sun.

If you're interested in rebutting the video, please provide a valid example.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2009, 02:28:28 PM
No. The sun is never inconsistently bright like that.

But sometimes film is inconsistent in recording very bright objects like the sun.

No it's not. During an overexposure the entirety of the sun is pure white on the film, indicating a loss of data.

The sun is never inconsistently bright.

If you're interested in rebutting the video, please provide a valid example.

This is my previous post, which you did not respond to, because I am totally right and you are totally wrong:

What makes you think it is a stage light?

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=33855.msg830773#msg830773

All I see in that crummy video is you tooling around with Photoshop. There is no evidence at all that it isn't the sun in the picture - most of what you're looking at in the original image is lens flare. If you think the big wide circle is supposed to be the edge of the actual sun or a stage light, you are far wrong. Film and scanned images have limits to their dynamic range, and the lens flare alone on the original negative would have easily reached d-max, meaning that the smaller spot of the sun within it could not be seen as seperate from the flare. Don't forget I work for the conspiracy in the imaging field and so I know what I'm talking about. The square blocks within the image after you've tampered with it are merely jpeg compression artefacts. What about that picture makes you think it's not the sun, exactly?

It's not a lens flare, either. There's already a lens flare on that sun. A lens flare is never as bright as the sun.

If you're interested in rebutting the video, please provide a valid example.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Thermal Detonator on December 08, 2009, 02:39:59 PM
Bishop, by disagreeing with me I can only conclude that you don't understand any of the following terms:
(a) lens flare
(b) d-max
(c) jpeg compression artefacts

Additionally, I suspect you don't understand the concept of film halation.
Go away and read up on these things. Once you understand them all, the inevitable conclusion will be as I stated - that is why the sun appears like that.
I expect an apology when you have read up on them. There are many fields I talk about on this forum where I have only an interested amateur's knowledge. However, on the subject of photographic imaging, it is my professional field. You'd do well to remember that while cleaning the ketchup nozzle at your branch of McDonald's.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Robert64 on December 08, 2009, 02:45:08 PM
Quote
I'm guessing what you can see are artefacts caused by the camera being overexposed to a very bright light, and as it is brighter the closer you are to the middle it is a rotationally symmetrical pattern.

About the sun always being "consistently bright", one word:

SUNSPOTS

That's not a ring shaped sunspot taking up 75% of the sun.

If you're interested in rebutting the video, please provide a valid example.

When did I say it was a sunspot?
And you admit the existence of sunspots? Then why did you say the sun was "never inconsistently bright"? That was what I was disproving.

And you made the mistake of arguing with who appears to be a pretty adept photographer (TD). GG.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: markjo on December 08, 2009, 02:56:15 PM
If you're interested in rebutting the video, please provide a valid example.

Since you are the one saying that the sun in that photo is a stage light, you are the one that needs to provide a valid example for comparison.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Robert64 on December 08, 2009, 02:59:29 PM
If you're interested in rebutting the video, please provide a valid example.

Since you are the one saying that the sun in that photo is a stage light, you are the one that needs to provide a valid example for comparison.
Not that he can prove it with any example he gives, since he can easily photoshop the image he uses as a controlled reference.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2009, 03:40:23 PM
Bishop, by disagreeing with me I can only conclude that you don't understand any of the following terms:
(a) lens flare
(b) d-max
(c) jpeg compression artefacts

Additionally, I suspect you don't understand the concept of film halation.
Go away and read up on these things. Once you understand them all, the inevitable conclusion will be as I stated - that is why the sun appears like that.
I expect an apology when you have read up on them. There are many fields I talk about on this forum where I have only an interested amateur's knowledge. However, on the subject of photographic imaging, it is my professional field. You'd do well to remember that while cleaning the ketchup nozzle at your branch of McDonald's.

There already is a lens flare on that sun. It is not a lens flare. A lens flare is never as intense as the sun.

It's not a jpeg artifact.

If you're interested in rebutting the video, please provide a valid example.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Don B on December 08, 2009, 04:12:16 PM
Bishop, by disagreeing with me I can only conclude that you don't understand any of the following terms:
(a) lens flare
(b) d-max
(c) jpeg compression artefacts

Additionally, I suspect you don't understand the concept of film halation.
Go away and read up on these things. Once you understand them all, the inevitable conclusion will be as I stated - that is why the sun appears like that.
I expect an apology when you have read up on them. There are many fields I talk about on this forum where I have only an interested amateur's knowledge. However, on the subject of photographic imaging, it is my professional field. You'd do well to remember that while cleaning the ketchup nozzle at your branch of McDonald's.

There already is a lens flare on that sun. It is not a lens flare. A lens flare is never as intense as the sun.

It's not a jpeg artifact.

If you're interested in rebutting the video, please provide a valid example.

You made the outlandish claims, the onus of proving it is on you Mr. Bishop, owner/chairman of private (unnamed for fear of stalkers) colleges.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Wings_RE on December 08, 2009, 04:17:57 PM
Hey moderators...where are you all now...mr. Bishop is starting to sound like a door-hinge gone dry.
I do believe he deserves a good spanki...er, sorry...a good warning.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2009, 04:21:43 PM
Bishop, by disagreeing with me I can only conclude that you don't understand any of the following terms:
(a) lens flare
(b) d-max
(c) jpeg compression artefacts

Additionally, I suspect you don't understand the concept of film halation.
Go away and read up on these things. Once you understand them all, the inevitable conclusion will be as I stated - that is why the sun appears like that.
I expect an apology when you have read up on them. There are many fields I talk about on this forum where I have only an interested amateur's knowledge. However, on the subject of photographic imaging, it is my professional field. You'd do well to remember that while cleaning the ketchup nozzle at your branch of McDonald's.

There already is a lens flare on that sun. It is not a lens flare. A lens flare is never as intense as the sun.

It's not a jpeg artifact.

If you're interested in rebutting the video, please provide a valid example.

You made the outlandish claims, the onus of proving it is on you Mr. Bishop, owner/chairman of private (unnamed for fear of stalkers) colleges.

Actually the outlandish claim is sending men to the moon.

If you're interested in rebutting the video, please provide a valid example.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: markjo on December 08, 2009, 06:07:02 PM
It's not a lens flare, either. There's already a lens flare on that sun. A lens flare is never as bright as the sun.

Then it's a good thing that the lens flare isn't brighter than the rest of the sun.  As you can see clearly from your own video, the ring in question is darker than the rest of the sun.
(http://i48.tinypic.com/2w5k19i.jpg)

If you're interested in rebutting the video, please provide a valid example.

You still haven't repeated your "analysis" on a control picture of a studio light and/or a control picture of the sun for comparison.  It's hard to rebut "evidence" that you haven't provided yet.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Thermal Detonator on December 08, 2009, 06:18:56 PM
Bishop, by disagreeing with me I can only conclude that you don't understand any of the following terms:
(a) lens flare
(b) d-max
(c) jpeg compression artefacts

Additionally, I suspect you don't understand the concept of film halation.
Go away and read up on these things. Once you understand them all, the inevitable conclusion will be as I stated - that is why the sun appears like that.
I expect an apology when you have read up on them. There are many fields I talk about on this forum where I have only an interested amateur's knowledge. However, on the subject of photographic imaging, it is my professional field. You'd do well to remember that while cleaning the ketchup nozzle at your branch of McDonald's.

There already is a lens flare on that sun. It is not a lens flare. A lens flare is never as intense as the sun.

It's not a jpeg artifact.

If you're interested in rebutting the video, please provide a valid example.

Oh I see you didn't bother to go and read up on the topics I suggested? A pity. A lens flare on a photograph CAN be as bright as the image of the sun itself - but since you deny this, I take it as definitive proof you don't know what you are talking about. Somebody who claims lens flare is never as intense as the sun clearly doesn't understand how photographic film works, so I suggest you crawl back into your hole until you've done proper research. You're laughable.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: ERTW on December 08, 2009, 06:47:47 PM
Nah, this is a classic use of Bishop's Razor - his argument has been proved invalid so his response is to pretend that never happened.
Bishop knows nothing about photography and I know quite a bit, and was able to show how the image was indeed what you'd expect to get with the sun in the frame. I work in an imaging field, it's my job to understand these things.

No. The sun is never inconsistently bright like that.

If you're interested in rebutting the video, please provide a valid example.

Never inconsistently bright like that? Sheesh...

By this do you mean that the stars consist of a form of matter that has gravitational properties and the Earth does not?

It is not known what the stars exist as. They may be made of plasma, energy, matter, or a combination thereof.


If it could be anything how do you know how consistent it is? Regardless, I know of a few plasmas that are inconsistently bright.


Quote
This is odd, because when I jump or walk off an elevated platform I get the impression that I am falling towards the earth, not the other way round.

When you fall you're feeling what it's like to be in an inertial frame of reference rather than one where you are pinned to the earth's surface.

Quote
I'm not trying to attack you by the way, I'm just curious as to what your theory is in regards to this.

The nature of the stars are unknown.
In RET we have observed these things called solar flares, which are really bright.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: toothyp1cks on December 08, 2009, 08:39:56 PM
Alright then. This has grown in my absence (I seem to have been IP banned from my laptop for some reason. Lucky I've got a desktop CPU as well). Since photography isn't my strong point (or indeed, any of my points at all) I'll just stick to summarising what's happened so far and draw myself a conclusion.

Bishop said that the sun in that photo was a stage light. Everyone jumped on that with teeth gnashing and so whether that's right is still up in the air. Even if it is right it only proves that that photo is faked. We have no motive (which we need because otherwise we are just speculating as to whether it was faked because the world is flat) and I don't even know which Apollo mission that is from so it could just be an attempt to frighten the Russians or likewise.
About the sun being a stagelight, it is probably just something to do with the camera/film/storage. Cameras are never great at taking photos of bright things and so I'd like a control image of the sun (from anyone; at least 1 RE and 1 FE) to be tested by them and me to see what results we get. Preferably an original image saved as a .jpg and hopefully (but not likely) from the same camera line. Use photoshop for the test just like Bishop did.

So in summary:
Still want motives for the Chinese, want NASA links depending on motives for the Chinese and we need control images of sun to be tested in photoshop like Bishop did.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Tristan on December 09, 2009, 05:41:36 AM
If you're interested in rebutting the video, please provide a valid example.

There are lots of things that get discussed on this site that I am not an expert on, and whilst that doesn't invalidate my opinion, I often don't feel qualified to give a response that, in itself, is anything more than conjecture. However, as a professional visual effects artist, with a background in cinematography, this is something about which I can speak with some authority - so challenge accepted. A proper analysis is unfortunately going to take longer than my lunch break, so I'll have to get back to you later on that - but watch this space. (do you like what I did there with the whole "space" thing. I thought so.)


Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Its a Sphere on December 09, 2009, 05:58:02 AM
If you're interested in rebutting the video, please provide a valid example.

1)You have drawn a conclusion based on your biased opinion alone.
2)You have made the statement that the sun is never inconsistently bright like that, which is irrelevant to the sun's appearance on a photograph-a converted digital photograph at that.
3)You have obviously not seen the sun in every instance, nor done the same procedure to every photograph ever taken of the sun, so you have no basis to make that claim.
4)You have no body of evidence showing known pictures of stage lights taken with that make and model of camera with the same settings and then converted to a digital image in the same manner.
5)You have no body of evidence showing known pictures of the sun taken with that make and model of camera with the same settings and then converted to a digital image in the same manner.
6)You have no body of evidence showing known pictures of stage lights taken with a different make and model of camera.
7)You have no body of evidence showing known pictures of the sun taken with a different model of camera.
8)You have no body of evidence showing the results after transition from film to digital of a current model film camera photograph of the sun.
9)You have no body of evidence showing the results after transition from film to digital of a current model film camera photograph of a stage light.
10)You proposed no hypothesis which could be validated or falsified by your series of tests.
11)A sample size of 1 is a poor basis for a conclusion.
See what happens when you just experiment and then try to apply what you see to what you wanted it to say in the first place?
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Raiku on December 10, 2009, 03:24:39 PM
Lens flare as far as I know does not make things darker.  It can make things brighter, though.  Perhaps the lighter areas are lens flare.

BTW, Bishop I feel like owning your moon crap with this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories)

Read the whole thing, and every single one of your evidence of Apollo fraud gets flattened!

Ha...  Ha ha...  Bad joke...
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: toothyp1cks on December 26, 2009, 10:21:11 PM
Finally found a way around my laptop ban.

Shameless self-bump for continued discussion/admittance of defeat.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Thermal Detonator on December 27, 2009, 05:21:34 AM
I think we've crushed Bishop in this one, he's crawled away to hide. No posts from him on this page.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Dino on December 27, 2009, 06:30:39 PM
Alright then. This has grown in my absence (I seem to have been IP banned from my laptop for some reason. Lucky I've got a desktop CPU as well). Since photography isn't my strong point (or indeed, any of my points at all) I'll just stick to summarising what's happened so far and draw myself a conclusion.

Bishop said that the sun in that photo was a stage light. Everyone jumped on that with teeth gnashing and so whether that's right is still up in the air. Even if it is right it only proves that that photo is faked. We have no motive (which we need because otherwise we are just speculating as to whether it was faked because the world is flat) and I don't even know which Apollo mission that is from so it could just be an attempt to frighten the Russians or likewise.
About the sun being a stagelight, it is probably just something to do with the camera/film/storage. Cameras are never great at taking photos of bright things and so I'd like a control image of the sun (from anyone; at least 1 RE and 1 FE) to be tested by them and me to see what results we get. Preferably an original image saved as a .jpg and hopefully (but not likely) from the same camera line. Use photoshop for the test just like Bishop did.

So in summary:
Still want motives for the Chinese, want NASA links depending on motives for the Chinese and we need control images of sun to be tested in photoshop like Bishop did.

Motives for the Chinese: the elite running the world have achieved political unification, as evidenced by lack of major wars for the past 60 years. What is good for the ruling elite in the US or Russia also goes for China. To the extent that there may be any real international tensions (as opposed to those made up by the press) the US has so much leverage over china due to the massive amount of US debt they hold -- which the US could default on if it chose -- so chinese officials, to the extent that they are aware the world is flat, are not motivated to piss off the US on this issue. Anyway, China doesn't exactly like telling the truth about most things as a matter of routine: we are talking about a totalitarian regime here! Their political system could equally be called: Government by Conspiracy.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 27, 2009, 09:39:36 PM
It's sort of funny how it is readily accepted that China's space program is fake, yet the rest are not, despite the fact that China's fake space program working with the other space programs on billion dollar space projects.

Once we have a fake space program working with other nations in space it sort of implicates the rest now, doesn't it?

http://www.asianewsnet.net/news.php?id=9234&sec=1

http://www.marsdaily.com/reports/China-Russia_Mars_mission_set_for_takeoff_999.html
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Tristan on December 28, 2009, 06:36:56 AM
It's sort of funny how it is readily accepted that China's space program is fake.

That is kinda funny - given that it is completely untrue.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: toothyp1cks on December 28, 2009, 02:50:26 PM
It's sort of funny how it is readily accepted that China's space program is fake, yet the rest are not, despite the fact that China's fake space program working with the other space programs on billion dollar space projects.

Once we have a fake space program working with other nations in space it sort of implicates the rest now, doesn't it?

http://www.asianewsnet.net/news.php?id=9234&sec=1

http://www.marsdaily.com/reports/China-Russia_Mars_mission_set_for_takeoff_999.html

China's space program has not been proven to be an entire fake. So far the spacewalk was probably fake, but mission still hasn't been proved so and neither has the whole space program.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: toothyp1cks on December 28, 2009, 02:52:10 PM
Alright then. This has grown in my absence (I seem to have been IP banned from my laptop for some reason. Lucky I've got a desktop CPU as well). Since photography isn't my strong point (or indeed, any of my points at all) I'll just stick to summarising what's happened so far and draw myself a conclusion.

Bishop said that the sun in that photo was a stage light. Everyone jumped on that with teeth gnashing and so whether that's right is still up in the air. Even if it is right it only proves that that photo is faked. We have no motive (which we need because otherwise we are just speculating as to whether it was faked because the world is flat) and I don't even know which Apollo mission that is from so it could just be an attempt to frighten the Russians or likewise.
About the sun being a stagelight, it is probably just something to do with the camera/film/storage. Cameras are never great at taking photos of bright things and so I'd like a control image of the sun (from anyone; at least 1 RE and 1 FE) to be tested by them and me to see what results we get. Preferably an original image saved as a .jpg and hopefully (but not likely) from the same camera line. Use photoshop for the test just like Bishop did.

So in summary:
Still want motives for the Chinese, want NASA links depending on motives for the Chinese and we need control images of sun to be tested in photoshop like Bishop did.

Motives for the Chinese: the elite running the world have achieved political unification, as evidenced by lack of major wars for the past 60 years. What is good for the ruling elite in the US or Russia also goes for China. To the extent that there may be any real international tensions (as opposed to those made up by the press) the US has so much leverage over china due to the massive amount of US debt they hold -- which the US could default on if it chose -- so chinese officials, to the extent that they are aware the world is flat, are not motivated to piss off the US on this issue. Anyway, China doesn't exactly like telling the truth about most things as a matter of routine: we are talking about a totalitarian regime here! Their political system could equally be called: Government by Conspiracy.
Sounds plausible to me but just because it could exists doesn't mean it does. Need some evidence.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: onetwothreefour on December 28, 2009, 03:20:45 PM
It's sort of funny how it is readily accepted that China's space program is fake, yet the rest are not, despite the fact that China's fake space program working with the other space programs on billion dollar space projects.

Once we have a fake space program working with other nations in space it sort of implicates the rest now, doesn't it?

http://www.asianewsnet.net/news.php?id=9234&sec=1

http://www.marsdaily.com/reports/China-Russia_Mars_mission_set_for_takeoff_999.html
You mean the space walk that is disproved with footage from real space walks? Oh no, that means there has to be a real one!

As has already been said, the spacewalk itself is incriminating. It doesn't mean the whole program has been a complete sham. By your logic, any part of FE theory that has been disproven defeats the entire theory.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 28, 2009, 03:27:58 PM
It's sort of funny how it is readily accepted that China's space program is fake, yet the rest are not, despite the fact that China's fake space program working with the other space programs on billion dollar space projects.

Once we have a fake space program working with other nations in space it sort of implicates the rest now, doesn't it?

http://www.asianewsnet.net/news.php?id=9234&sec=1

http://www.marsdaily.com/reports/China-Russia_Mars_mission_set_for_takeoff_999.html

China's space program has not been proven to be an entire fake. So far the spacewalk was probably fake, but mission still hasn't been proved so and neither has the whole space program.

So if China really has men in space, why did they go through the trouble of creating fake space walks?  ???
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: markjo on December 28, 2009, 04:07:28 PM
It's sort of funny how it is readily accepted that China's space program is fake, yet the rest are not, despite the fact that China's fake space program working with the other space programs on billion dollar space projects.

Once we have a fake space program working with other nations in space it sort of implicates the rest now, doesn't it?

http://www.asianewsnet.net/news.php?id=9234&sec=1

http://www.marsdaily.com/reports/China-Russia_Mars_mission_set_for_takeoff_999.html

China's space program has not been proven to be an entire fake. So far the spacewalk was probably fake, but mission still hasn't been proved so and neither has the whole space program.

So if China really has men in space, why did they go through the trouble to show us fake space walks?  ???

Not everyone agrees that the Chinese space walk was faked.
http://www.astroengine.com/?p=1531
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/10/08/did-the-chinese-fake-their-space-walk/
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 28, 2009, 04:15:29 PM
Not everyone agrees that the Chinese space walk was faked.
http://www.astroengine.com/?p=1531
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/10/08/did-the-chinese-fake-their-space-walk/

It has already been admitted and agreed on in this thread that the Chinese spacewalk is likely fake.

Discover's/Bad Astronomy's rebuttals consist solely of "That's really silly" and "Yeeeeeah."
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: markjo on December 28, 2009, 04:23:46 PM
Not everyone agrees that the Chinese space walk was faked.
http://www.astroengine.com/?p=1531
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/10/08/did-the-chinese-fake-their-space-walk/

It has already been admitted and agreed on in this thread that the Chinese spacewalk is likely fake.

Discover's/Bad Astronomy's rebuttals consist solely of "That's really silly" and "Yeeeeeah."

Likely != certainly.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Thermal Detonator on December 28, 2009, 04:45:52 PM
I don't think the spacewalk video is fake at all.
Firstly, if there were visible bubbles in a water tank, the first thing the Chinese VFX artists would do is rub them out. They certainly wouldn't leave them in as a clue.
Secondly, said particles are not behaving like bubbles. They are moving in different directions and faster and more smoothly than bubbles.
Thirdly, there is no indication of any water resistance on the suit or its accessories. The taikonaut moves back and forth in such a way that some of the straps and cords on his suit would sway with water resistance. This does not happen. When he waves to the camera, moving his arm at reasonable speed, there is no sign of swishing resistance on the soft material of his suit such as one sees underwater. The sleeve does not indent at all.
Fourthly, the movement of the straps and cords around the suit and the other accessories indicate that the effect could not have been accomplished simply by hanging the taikonaut on wires in a gravitational environment.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Canadark on January 02, 2010, 09:16:01 AM
It's sort of funny how it is readily accepted that China's space program is fake, yet the rest are not, despite the fact that China's fake space program working with the other space programs on billion dollar space projects.

Once we have a fake space program working with other nations in space it sort of implicates the rest now, doesn't it?

http://www.asianewsnet.net/news.php?id=9234&sec=1

http://www.marsdaily.com/reports/China-Russia_Mars_mission_set_for_takeoff_999.html

But you've only addressed one video.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 02, 2010, 05:06:38 PM
It's sort of funny how it is readily accepted that China's space program is fake, yet the rest are not, despite the fact that China's fake space program working with the other space programs on billion dollar space projects.

Once we have a fake space program working with other nations in space it sort of implicates the rest now, doesn't it?

http://www.asianewsnet.net/news.php?id=9234&sec=1

http://www.marsdaily.com/reports/China-Russia_Mars_mission_set_for_takeoff_999.html

But you've only addressed one video.

They've only had one manned space walk.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Canadark on January 03, 2010, 03:58:49 PM
It's sort of funny how it is readily accepted that China's space program is fake, yet the rest are not, despite the fact that China's fake space program working with the other space programs on billion dollar space projects.

Once we have a fake space program working with other nations in space it sort of implicates the rest now, doesn't it?

http://www.asianewsnet.net/news.php?id=9234&sec=1

http://www.marsdaily.com/reports/China-Russia_Mars_mission_set_for_takeoff_999.html

But you've only addressed one video.

They've only had one manned space walk.

I assume by "they" you mean the Chinese given that there are videos of astronauts and cosmonauts doing spacewalks as well, not to mention that this was not China's first mission in outer space.

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

You've got a lot of work to do.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 03, 2010, 04:17:35 PM
You've got a lot of work to do.

Actually, you do.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Burden+of+Proof
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: markjo on January 03, 2010, 04:59:44 PM
You've got a lot of work to do.

Actually, you do.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Burden+of+Proof

Tom, why do you keep dragging up a burden of proof wiki entry that you wrote as if it's supposed to be authoritative?  Why don't you try this wiki entry instead?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Canadark on January 03, 2010, 06:07:36 PM
You've got a lot of work to do.

Actually, you do.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Burden+of+Proof

Did you just reference your own wiki entry?
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 03, 2010, 06:56:19 PM
Tom, why do you keep dragging up a burden of proof wiki entry that you wrote as if it's supposed to be authoritative?  Why don't you try this wiki entry instead?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof

The article agrees with me. The burden of proof is always on the claimant and never on the skeptic.

During a court case the burden of proof isn't on the defendant to prove that he didn't commit the crime. It's on the prosecutor to prove their claim that he did.

When two people have a debate on the existence of ghosts the burden of proof isn't on the person to prove that ghosts don't exist. The burden of proof is on the person who claims that they do.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Canadark on January 03, 2010, 07:03:53 PM
Tom, why do you keep dragging up a burden of proof wiki entry that you wrote as if it's supposed to be authoritative?  Why don't you try this wiki entry instead?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof

The article agrees with me. The burden of proof is always on the claimant and never on the skeptic.

During a court case the burden of proof isn't on the defendant to prove that he didn't commit the crime. It's on the prosecutor to prove their claim that he did.

When two people have a debate on the existence of ghosts the burden of proof isn't on the person to prove that ghosts don't exist. It's on the person who claims that they do.

You're absolutely right.

This discussion is on the conspiracy theory which you claims exists. You are accusing space organizations from around the world of being part of this, now you must provide proof.

Provide us with indisputable evidence that every space mission has been part of an elaborate conspiracy to convince the world that the Earth is round, and we will agree that you are correct.

You addressed one space walk that the taikonauts did, but you have a lot more to do.  ;)
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Mookie89 on January 03, 2010, 07:10:45 PM
Tom, why do you keep dragging up a burden of proof wiki entry that you wrote as if it's supposed to be authoritative?  Why don't you try this wiki entry instead?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof

The article agrees with me. The burden of proof is always on the claimant and never on the skeptic.

During a court case the burden of proof isn't on the defendant to prove that he didn't commit the crime. It's on the prosecutor to prove their claim that he did.

When two people have a debate on the existence of ghosts the burden of proof isn't on the person to prove that ghosts don't exist. The burden of proof is on the person who claims that they do.

You skepticize if NASA actually has satellites in orbit, with which we provide video evidence to prove this, then you claim that the videos are faked. In this case, you are the claimant, so the burden of proof is on you.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 03, 2010, 07:13:41 PM
Quote
You're absolutely right.

This discussion is on the conspiracy theory which you claims exists. You are accusing space organizations from around the world of being part of this, now you must provide proof.

Provide us with indisputable evidence that every space mission has been part of an elaborate conspiracy to convince the world that the Earth is round, and we will agree that you are correct.

You addressed one space walk that the taikonauts did, but you have a lot more to do.  ;)

Nope. See the ghosts example. One person claims that ghosts exist. Another person claims that they do not. The burden of proof is on the person who claims that they exist.

Ergo, the burden of proof is on you to prove that manned space travel is possible.

The burden of proof isn't on me to prove that space travel hasn't happened. I'm the skeptic here. You're the claimant. The burden of proof is always on the claimant and never on the skeptic. The burden of proof is squarely on your shoulders.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Mookie89 on January 03, 2010, 07:15:14 PM

Nope. Se the ghosts example. One person claims that ghosts exist. Another person claims that they do not. The burden of proof is on the person who claims that they exist.

Ergo, the burden of proof is on you to prove that manned space travel is possible.


You skepticize if NASA actually has satellites in orbit, with which we provide video evidence to prove this, then you claim that the videos are faked. In this case, you are the claimant, so the burden of proof is on you.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 03, 2010, 07:17:17 PM
Quote
You skepticize if NASA actually has satellites in orbit, with which we provide video evidence to prove this, then you claim that the videos are faked. In this case, you are the claimant, so the burden of proof is on you.

Wrong. I can say that space travel hasn't happened all I want with impunity. Doubt is not a claim. Doubt and skepticism against the fantastic and unobservable are not claims.

The claim is that space travel has happened. The burden is on the claimants to prove their claims. The burden of proof is on you and no one else.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Mookie89 on January 03, 2010, 07:19:36 PM
You skepticize if NASA actually has satellites in orbit, with which we provide video evidence to prove this, then you claim that the videos are faked. In this case, you are the claimant, so the burden of proof is on you.

Wrong. I can say that space travel hasn't happened all I want without impunity. Doubt is not a claim. Doubt and skepticism against the fantastic and unobservable are not claims.

The claim is that space travel has happened. The burden is on the claimants to prove their claims. The burden of proof is on you.

So what you're saying is that since you don't "claim" that space travel is not possible, then you're not sure if it is possible or not? I'm glad we cleared that up.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: markjo on January 03, 2010, 07:21:54 PM
You skepticize if NASA actually has satellites in orbit, with which we provide video evidence to prove this, then you claim that the videos are faked. In this case, you are the claimant, so the burden of proof is on you.

Wrong. I can say that space travel hasn't happened all I want without impunity. Doubt is not a claim. Doubt and skepticism against the fantastic and unobservable are not claims.

The claim is that space travel has happened. The burden is on the claimants to prove their claims. The burden of proof is on you and no one else.

If the burden of proof of space travel is upon us, then you need to tell us what sort of evidence you require to satisfy your skepticism.  Personal testimony, video and photographs don't seem to be enough.  So, what will it take to convince you that manned space flight is real?
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Canadark on January 03, 2010, 07:29:45 PM
Quote
You skepticize if NASA actually has satellites in orbit, with which we provide video evidence to prove this, then you claim that the videos are faked. In this case, you are the claimant, so the burden of proof is on you.

Wrong. I can say that space travel hasn't happened all I want without impunity. Doubt is not a claim. Doubt and skepticism against the fantastic and unobservable are not claims.

The claim is that space travel has happened. The burden is on the claimants to prove their claims. The burden of proof is on you and no one else.

This isn't about space flight, this is about the conspiracy. You need to provide proof that there is a conspiracy.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Mookie89 on January 03, 2010, 07:30:56 PM
Quote
You skepticize if NASA actually has satellites in orbit, with which we provide video evidence to prove this, then you claim that the videos are faked. In this case, you are the claimant, so the burden of proof is on you.

Wrong. I can say that space travel hasn't happened all I want without impunity. Doubt is not a claim. Doubt and skepticism against the fantastic and unobservable are not claims.

The claim is that space travel has happened. The burden is on the claimants to prove their claims. The burden of proof is on you and no one else.

This isn't about space flight, this is about the conspiracy. You need to provide proof that there is a conspiracy.

Aaaahhh, exactly. Tom claims that there is a conspiracy, we are skeptical that there is a conspiracy, so the burden of proof lies on him, not us, since we are the skeptics of the conspiracy.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: flyingmonkey on January 03, 2010, 11:56:54 PM
Using their own crappy trolling against them ftw.


They are claiming the Earth is flat, being a skeptic to RE, burden of proof is on them there too.


You can turn the BoP thing round so easily.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 04, 2010, 01:15:06 AM
Quote
If the burden of proof of space travel is upon us, then you need to tell us what sort of evidence you require to satisfy your skepticism.  Personal testimony, video and photographs don't seem to be enough.  So, what will it take to convince you that manned space flight is real?

Falsifiable evidence you've collected your own self.

Quote
This isn't about space flight, this is about the conspiracy. You need to provide proof that there is a conspiracy.

Actually, I don't. In matters of debate the burden of proof is always on the claimant. When a skeptic doubts the claims, the burden of proof does not move to the skeptic. It remains on the claimant.

I could call NASA a fake, liar, or sham all I want with impunity. I'm the skeptic.

It's your burden to prove that NASA can do the amazing things that you say they can do. You're the one making the fantastic claims here. You're the claimant. The burden of proof is on you.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: flyingmonkey on January 04, 2010, 05:12:02 AM
I could call you a fake, liar, or sham all I want with impunity. I'm the skeptic.

It's your burden to prove that NASA cannot do the amazing things that they say they can do. You're the one making the fantastic claims here. You're the claimant. The burden of proof is on you.


See how easy I changed that with 2 edits.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Thermal Detonator on January 04, 2010, 05:28:18 AM
Bishop, this just proves how you rely completely on semantics to dodge answering questions. I think this thread is a pretty good example of how the ridiculous "burden of proof" argument can be spun around to its exact opposite depending on the wording.
Couple that with the fact that when anyone presents any sort of evidence or proof to you you just blankly go "that isn't proof" like an automaton, regardless of what it is, it just highlights that you use witch trial logic to ensure that whatever the RE'ers do, they will always be wrong.
And you know what? It doesn't make the RE'ers look wrong to everyone else. It makes you look petty and dimwitted.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Tristan on January 04, 2010, 07:27:05 AM
There's a common theme to a lot of Tom's posts. As his theories get disproven and his evidence debunked, he always retreats behind the semantics of whose job it is to prove/disprove whatever is in question. This is basically the "You can't fire me, I quit" tactic of arguing, and it frustrates people because it's an entirely separate and irrelevant issue. The point of debate is to examine facts and opinions on both sides, and weigh them against each other - NOT for one side to simply present evidence to the other for approval.

In a nutshell, Tom, You are not the Keeper of the Truth - The world isn't flat by default until such time as you choose to declare it spherical. We are not here to dethrone you, and likewise, you cannot remain King by simply refusing to participate. You can argue the burden of proof all you like, but neither you nor I nor anyone on this site is the Grand High Terrestrial Geometry Master. This is not a court. There is no judge or jury. You cannot win or lose to anyone but yourself, so if you're afraid of coming out and arguing for something, rather than against the opposite, maybe you need to think less about what you believe and think more about why.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Mookie89 on January 04, 2010, 09:28:04 AM
Quote
If the burden of proof of space travel is upon us, then you need to tell us what sort of evidence you require to satisfy your skepticism.  Personal testimony, video and photographs don't seem to be enough.  So, what will it take to convince you that manned space flight is real?

Falsifiable evidence you've collected your own self.

Quote
This isn't about space flight, this is about the conspiracy. You need to provide proof that there is a conspiracy.

Actually, I don't. In matters of debate the burden of proof is always on the claimant. When a skeptic doubts the claims, the burden of proof does not move to the skeptic. It remains on the claimant.

I could call NASA a fake, liar, or sham all I want with impunity. I'm the skeptic.

It's your burden to prove that NASA can do the amazing things that you say they can do. You're the one making the fantastic claims here. You're the claimant. The burden of proof is on you.


You are the one that is claiming that there is a conspiracy, with which we are skeptical of this conspiracy. You are the claimant not us. NASA is the claimant that they are able to achieve space flight, not us. We just rely on what they say to get our point across.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Canadark on January 04, 2010, 11:42:37 AM
Quote
If the burden of proof of space travel is upon us, then you need to tell us what sort of evidence you require to satisfy your skepticism.  Personal testimony, video and photographs don't seem to be enough.  So, what will it take to convince you that manned space flight is real?

Falsifiable evidence you've collected your own self.

Quote
This isn't about space flight, this is about the conspiracy. You need to provide proof that there is a conspiracy.

Actually, I don't. In matters of debate the burden of proof is always on the claimant. When a skeptic doubts the claims, the burden of proof does not move to the skeptic. It remains on the claimant.

I could call NASA a fake, liar, or sham all I want with impunity. I'm the skeptic.

It's your burden to prove that NASA can do the amazing things that you say they can do. You're the one making the fantastic claims here. You're the claimant. The burden of proof is on you.

Hypocrite.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: markjo on January 04, 2010, 04:17:49 PM
Wrong. I can say that space travel hasn't happened all I want without impunity. Doubt is not a claim. Doubt and skepticism against the fantastic and unobservable are not claims.

Tom, there is a huge difference between being skeptical of someone's claim and outright calling them liars.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Thermal Detonator on January 04, 2010, 04:46:50 PM
Anyway there is no need for the conspiracy any more, as satellites have been proved to exist now (see thread about proof of geostationary satellites).
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: flyingmonkey on January 04, 2010, 05:20:22 PM
NASA is the claimant that they are able to achieve space flight, not us.


And they provide quite a lot of proof, don't forget that.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 04, 2010, 07:06:33 PM
Quote
You are the one that is claiming that there is a conspiracy, with which we are skeptical of this conspiracy. You are the claimant not us. NASA is the claimant that they are able to achieve space flight, not us. We just rely on what they say to get our point across.

Nope. The stance of NASA being a conspiracy, a fake, or a sham is a stance of skepticism.

The burden is on you to prove your positive claims of space travel.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: ugaboga313 on January 04, 2010, 07:08:54 PM
Nope, that is a claim. NASA is about launching stuff into space which they have done. You claim it is all a lie and is a conspiracy. You can be skeptical about NASA but we can be skeptical about the conspiracy.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 04, 2010, 07:09:21 PM
Wrong. I can say that space travel hasn't happened all I want without impunity. Doubt is not a claim. Doubt and skepticism against the fantastic and unobservable are not claims.

Tom, there is a huge difference between being skeptical of someone's claim and outright calling them liars.

No there isn't.

Why should I believe a man who claims that his uncle tunneled into the center of the earth in the 1980's?

The burden of proof is on him, just as it is on you.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: flyingmonkey on January 04, 2010, 07:12:25 PM
No there isn't.

Why should I believe a man who claims that his uncle tunneled into the center of the earth in the 1980's?

The burden of proof is on him, just as it is on you.


The only difference here, is NASA provides significant amounts of proof, you just choose not to accept it.


You have no proof that it's all a conspiracy, just what you say.

Where's your proof?
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 04, 2010, 07:13:03 PM
Nope, that is a claim. NASA is about launching stuff into space which they have done. You claim it is all a lie and is a conspiracy. You can be skeptical about NASA but we can be skeptical about the conspiracy.

It doesn't matter if I say it's a lie. You're the one saying it happened. In a debate where we have two opposing sides, such as in the conversation on the existence of ghosts, the burden of proof is on the person claiming that ghosts do exist.

The burden of proof is not on the person saying that ghost don't exist, or that they are make-believe. That's the skeptic. The burden of proof is never on the skeptic.  The skeptic can doubt all he wants with impunity.

The burden of proof is on the person making the extraordinary claim.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: markjo on January 04, 2010, 07:13:11 PM
Wrong. I can say that space travel hasn't happened all I want without impunity. Doubt is not a claim. Doubt and skepticism against the fantastic and unobservable are not claims.

Tom, there is a huge difference between being skeptical of someone's claim and outright calling them liars.

No there isn't.

Why should I believe a man who claims that his uncle tunneled into the center of the earth in the 1980's?

The burden of proof is on him, just as it is on you.

Yes, there is a difference, Tom.  With enough evidence, a skeptic can be convinced that a fantastic claim is indeed true.  You can't (or won't).
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: flyingmonkey on January 04, 2010, 07:17:09 PM


It doesn't matter if I say it's a lie. You're the one saying it happened. In a debate where we have two opposing sides, such as in the conversation on the existence of ghosts, the burden of proof is on the person claiming that ghosts do exist.

The burden of proof is not on the person saying that ghost don't exist, or that they are make believe. That's the skeptic. The burden of proof is never on the skeptic.  The skeptic can doubt all he wants with impunity.

The burden of proof is on the person making the extraordinary claim.

I'm actually glad you brought that up again about the Ghosts.

The BoP is on the person who is making claims that are far from the realm of accepted facts.

Ghosts are not real as far as accepted facts go, so therefore, the BoP must rely on those who claim they exist.


NASA doing things in space is accepted fact, the BoP relies on you to disprove this.

The entire Earths government is part of a giant conspiracy is not accepted facts, the BoP is still on you to prove this.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: ugaboga313 on January 04, 2010, 07:35:19 PM
Fine then, we will prove NASA does stuff while you prove the conspiracy. Happy now?
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: flyingmonkey on January 04, 2010, 07:39:29 PM
Fine then, we will prove NASA does stuff while you prove the conspiracy. Happy now?

We don't need to, NASA and non-NASA affiliated people provide enough proof.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Dino on January 04, 2010, 07:40:26 PM
You don't need to prove a conspiracy in order to believe a conspiracy exists. A conspiracy theory usually consists in "connecting the dots". There exists a powerful narrative for a conspiracy here, whether you believe in that narrative or not.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: flyingmonkey on January 04, 2010, 07:41:37 PM
You don't need to prove a conspiracy in order to believe a conspiracy exists. A conspiracy theory usually consists in "connecting the dots". There exists a powerful narrative for a conspiracy here, whether you believe in that narrative or not.

What dots exactly?

Other than, "omg nowai that must be part of the conspiracy too!" I see none.


Your 'conspiracy' is only there to try back up your theory, that, itself, is just various theories stacked atop of one another.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Dino on January 04, 2010, 08:01:49 PM
You don't need to prove a conspiracy in order to believe a conspiracy exists. A conspiracy theory usually consists in "connecting the dots". There exists a powerful narrative for a conspiracy here, whether you believe in that narrative or not.

What dots exactly?

Other than, "omg nowai that must be part of the conspiracy too!" I see none.


Your 'conspiracy' is only there to try back up your theory, that, itself, is just various theories stacked atop of one another.

Here's the first dot: explain what Wall Street does.

EDIT; Another: What was the POINT of the space race during the cold war?
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: flyingmonkey on January 04, 2010, 08:08:06 PM
Here's the first dot: explain what Wall Street does.


Wall Street doesn't do anything, it's asphalt after all, what you're looking for is what's on it. (http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/amike/2009/02/what-does-wall-street-do.php)


It's your conspiracy, anything I say will not help you explain your conspiracy, because I am not apart of it.

If you want pointers on how to conduct a conspiracy theory, head to the 911 ones.

EDIT; Another: What was the POINT of the space race during the cold war?

Quote
The Space Race became an important part of the cultural, technological, and ideological rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Space technology became a particularly important arena in this conflict, because of both its potential military applications and the morale-boosting social benefits.

As I said, anything I say will not help your cause.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Dino on January 04, 2010, 08:12:47 PM
Here's the first dot: explain what Wall Street does.


Wall Street doesn't do anything, it's asphalt after all, what you're looking for is what's on it. (http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/amike/2009/02/what-does-wall-street-do.php)


It's your conspiracy, anything I say will not help you explain your conspiracy, because I am not apart of it.

If you want pointers on how to conduct a conspiracy theory, head to the 911 ones.

EDIT; Another: What was the POINT of the space race during the cold war?

Quote
The Space Race became an important part of the cultural, technological, and ideological rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Space technology became a particularly important arena in this conflict, because of both its potential military applications and the morale-boosting social benefits.

As I said, anything I say will not help your cause.

"As I said, anything I say will not help your cause."

I beg to differ: "because of... morale-boosting social benefits."
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: onetwothreefour on January 04, 2010, 08:13:53 PM
Nope, that is a claim. NASA is about launching stuff into space which they have done. You claim it is all a lie and is a conspiracy. You can be skeptical about NASA but we can be skeptical about the conspiracy.

It doesn't matter if I say it's a lie. You're the one saying it happened. In a debate where we have two opposing sides, such as in the conversation on the existence of ghosts, the burden of proof is on the person claiming that ghosts do exist.

The burden of proof is not on the person saying that ghost don't exist, or that they are make believe. That's the skeptic. The burden of proof is never on the skeptic.  The skeptic can doubt all he wants with impunity.

The burden of proof is on the person making the extraordinary claim.

Thanks for ignoring me when I said this the first time Tom:
Quote
This is THE FLAT EARTH SOCIETY. You are the ones making the claim. The burden of proof lies squarely on your shoulders.

Tom. Read very carefully. It is not called the "Oh yeah? Prove The Earth is a Globe Society!" You are literally calling the Earth flat. You have to support your claim.

You are the claimant. I know I can't argue with insanity (read: you) but you are the one making the claim against very conventional wisdom that sustained space travel is very real.

You are the freaking ghost claimant in your analogy. There is a lack of evidence for ghosts, just like there is a HUGE lack of evidence for a Flat Earth. You are the claimant. I'm skeptical of your absurdity. The burden of proof is on you to prove to me that you aren't a huge steaming pile of absurdity.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: flyingmonkey on January 04, 2010, 08:20:26 PM
"As I said, anything I say will not help your cause."

I beg to differ: "because of... morale-boosting social benefits."


Nice conspiracy.

Where ever it is.


If you are going to pull a conspiracy card, do it properly.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Dino on January 04, 2010, 08:23:44 PM
"As I said, anything I say will not help your cause."

I beg to differ: "because of... morale-boosting social benefits."


Nice conspiracy.

Where ever it is.


If you are going to pull a conspiracy card, do it properly.

Which seems more likely? 100s of billions of dollars spent by the government to:

1) go directly into the pockets of Wall Street firms; or
2) go toward sending people into "space" for "morale boosting social benefits"?


Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: flyingmonkey on January 04, 2010, 08:27:20 PM
2) go toward sending people into "space" for "morale boosting social benefits"?


Nice to see you totally missed the other points of what space exploration can do.

Good job.

Again:

If you are going to pull a conspiracy card, do it properly.



ED: Also, ofcourse it's 2

Evidence is everywhere (http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=space+shuttle+takeoff&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=N8BCS-zSOYGOkQX9nM3vAg&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CA4QqwQwAA#)
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Dino on January 04, 2010, 08:36:46 PM
2) go toward sending people into "space" for "morale boosting social benefits"?


Nice to see you totally missed the other points of what space exploration can do.

Good job.

Again:

If you are going to pull a conspiracy card, do it properly.



ED: Also, ofcourse it's 2

Evidence is everywhere (http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=space+shuttle+takeoff&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=N8BCS-zSOYGOkQX9nM3vAg&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CA4QqwQwAA#)

Well those pictures boosted my morale. Anyone else?   

(What font is sarcasm in again? I forgot.) 
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: flyingmonkey on January 04, 2010, 08:43:21 PM
Well those pictures boosted my morale. Anyone else?   

(What font is sarcasm in again? I forgot.) 


Ofcourse they didn't

You choose to believe we live of a piece of paper and anything astonishing must be made up from CGI.


If you're not taking back a bit by a rocket the size of a building going into space, you aren't paying much attention - and why should you if you believe it's all fiction.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Dino on January 04, 2010, 08:44:58 PM
Well those pictures boosted my morale. Anyone else?   

(What font is sarcasm in again? I forgot.) 


Ofcourse they didn't

You choose to believe we live of a piece of paper and anything astonishing must be made up from CGI.


If you're not taking back a bit by a rocket the size of a building going into space, you aren't paying much attention - and why should you if you believe it's all fiction.

So why are the US and Sovie.. I mean, Russians now working jointly on space projects?
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: ugaboga313 on January 04, 2010, 08:45:47 PM
Maybe because the USSR is gone? You do know we are allies with Britain now as well? After 2 wars? (GASP).
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: flyingmonkey on January 04, 2010, 08:48:47 PM
So why are the US and Sovie.. I mean, Russians now working jointly on space projects?


Maybe because we all want to get away from people like you.

Maybe because if they work together, they can achieve more?

Pretty easy question, if you couldn't think of the answer you're pretty blinded.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Dino on January 04, 2010, 08:49:18 PM
Maybe because the USSR is gone? You do know we are allies with Britain now as well? After 2 wars? (GASP).

But who WON the cold war? Why none of those "warheads" launched? You mean the Soviet Empire just GAVE UP? When else in history has an empire just GIVEN UP WITHOUT A FIGHT?
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: flyingmonkey on January 04, 2010, 08:51:35 PM
Maybe because the USSR is gone? You do know we are allies with Britain now as well? After 2 wars? (GASP).

But who WON the cold war? Why none of those "warheads" launched? You mean the Soviet Empire just GAVE UP? When else in history has an empire just GIVEN UP WITHOUT A FIGHT?


Nobody 'WON' the cold war, it was a stalemate.

If they had of launched those warheads, we wouldn't be here right now.
Be thankful they are smarter than that.

USSR died because all the nations with it abandoned it to form their own countries, it had nothing to do with the Cold War.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Dino on January 04, 2010, 08:57:23 PM
Maybe because the USSR is gone? You do know we are allies with Britain now as well? After 2 wars? (GASP).

But who WON the cold war? Why none of those "warheads" launched? You mean the Soviet Empire just GAVE UP? When else in history has an empire just GIVEN UP WITHOUT A FIGHT?


Nobody 'WON' the cold war, it was a stalemate.

If they had of launched those warheads, we wouldn't be here right now.
Be thankful they are smarter than that.

USSR died because all the nations with it abandoned it to form their own countries, it had nothing to do with the Cold War.

A stalemate? The USA is willing to admit it was a stalemate?
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: flyingmonkey on January 04, 2010, 08:59:12 PM
We all know the USA is full of it, nothing new there.

Doesn't mean it wasn't.

Both sides backed down
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Dino on January 04, 2010, 09:03:13 PM
We all know the USA is full of it, nothing new there.


So you agree the USA was full of it about the cold war, but not about the space program?

 
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: ugaboga313 on January 04, 2010, 09:14:11 PM
Wait what was the full of it part? US won the cold war, USSR collapsed economically. Don't see whats so hard to understand there.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Moon squirter on January 05, 2010, 01:02:26 AM
The burden of proof is never on the skeptic.  The skeptic can doubt all he wants with impunity.

The burden of proof is on the person making the extraordinary claim.

Being sceptical is claiming that something is not true. 

In science, the burden of proof is on anyone who makes a claim, be it a making a hypothesis or disproving an established theory.

With scepticism comes responsibility, I'm afraid.  To say that a sceptic requires no proof is pseudo-science piffle.  Please don't be taken in by Tom's misguided philosophical rantings.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 05, 2010, 02:55:55 AM
Quote
Being sceptical is claiming that something is not true.

It doesn't matter if I claim something is not true. In the ghosts example the skeptic is claiming that ghosts are not true. Yet the burden of proof is on the person who claims that ghosts exist.

The skeptic doubts with impunity.

Quote
In science, the burden of proof is on anyone who makes a claim, be it a making a hypothesis or disproving an established theory.

Nope. The skeptics are the ones saying that it's not true. The claimants are the ones saying that it is true.

You can say "hurr hurr, saying is something is not true is a claim" all you like, but the burden of proof remains on you. You're the one claiming that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis, explore the solar system, land men on the moon, and send robot geologists to mars. All of these extraordinary claims are yours.

The burden of proof is on you.

Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: toothyp1cks on January 05, 2010, 03:13:38 AM
In the Australian legal system the burden of proof is with the prosecuter. The prosecuter must prove the defendant murdered the victim. It is not the defendant's jobto prove he didn't.
By extension, the flat earth therory supporters are the prosecuters because you are accusing NASA (mainly) of a conspiracy. Therefore, you have the burden of proof. You must prove that the conspiracy is real. If you do not prove it and simply say 'well, it could exist', you have failed the burden of proof, just as saying 'well, he could have stabbed her' is not sufficent to jail a man for life.
TA DA!!!
Dispute settled. You have accepted these terms because you didn't complain in your first post. They aren't going to change, and if you don't like it back out now and tell us. I'm going to copy-and-past this post until you all stop arguing about this because I HAVE ALREADY DEALT WITH IT!
Back to the debate please.

I believe we were trying to find Chinese-NASA conspiracy links, the motives behind the faked spacewalk (RE lets just go with it this time and accpet it was faked), whether the stage-light photo was actually a stage light or lens flare (see my summary post in page 3-5).
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: toothyp1cks on January 05, 2010, 03:20:24 AM
Wait what was the full of it part? US won the cold war, USSR collapsed economically. Don't see whats so hard to understand there.
Dino, please read this.
Warheads weren't launched because of MAD doctrine (mutually assured destruction) which says if you launch nukes at someone you had better hope to God they don't have any to launch back. The USA knew the USSR did and the USSR knew the USA did. Neither side wanted a nuclear war, so neither launched. Wall Street is a strip of asphalt used by vehicles to accelerate travel.
The thing you are reffering to is doubtlessly some giant complicated economics thing but i THINK it lets people invest in companies. The government pours money in to keep companies afloat and stabilize the economy.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Moon squirter on January 05, 2010, 04:52:08 AM
Quote
Being sceptical is claiming that something is not true.

It doesn't matter if I claim something is not true. In the ghosts example the skeptic is claiming that ghosts are not true. Yet the burden of proof is on the person who claims that ghosts exist.


The ghost example is misleading, because if ghosts *don't* exist then there are no ramifications (apart from people being branded "mistaken").  However there is still a buren on the sceptic to explain peoples' experiences using conversational science.

However, in order for NASA to fabricate space flights, there would have to be an enormous conspiracy.  That is why your claim has to be backed up.  I am convinced things are sent into space because I have seen satellites with my own eyes, and pictures by amateurs of the ISS and space-shuttle.

You cannot say "it didn't happen" without setting out how it could not happen (e.g. proving the conspiracy).  Unfortunately you have failed to do this.


Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 05, 2010, 06:02:22 AM
In the Australian legal system the burden of proof is with the prosecuter. The prosecuter must prove the defendant murdered the victim. It is not the defendant's jobto prove he didn't.
By extension, the flat earth therory supporters are the prosecuters because you are accusing NASA (mainly) of a conspiracy. Therefore, you have the burden of proof. You must prove that the conspiracy is real. If you do not prove it and simply say 'well, it could exist', you have failed the burden of proof, just as saying 'well, he could have stabbed her' is not sufficent to jail a man for life.
TA DA!!!
Dispute settled. You have accepted these terms because you didn't complain in your first post. They aren't going to change, and if you don't like it back out now and tell us. I'm going to copy-and-past this post until you all stop arguing about this because I HAVE ALREADY DEALT WITH IT!
Back to the debate please.

I believe we were trying to find Chinese-NASA conspiracy links, the motives behind the faked spacewalk (RE lets just go with it this time and accpet it was faked), whether the stage-light photo was actually a stage light or lens flare (see my summary post in page 3-5).

You have the prosecutor-defendant analogy backwards.

You're the prosecutor. You're the one claiming to the court that man has gone into space. You're the one who needs to provide POSITIVE EVIDENCE that your claim is correct.

The defendant is the skeptic who demands that facts be presented and evidence given. By pretense the judge and jury are on the defendant's side. Any claim given in a court is doubted by pretense. You must provide your own falsifiable evidence for your case.

You're the claimant. You're the one making the fantastic sci-fi claims of manned space travel. If you cannot prove your extraordinary claims, they are false by pretense and the court rules in the skeptic's favor.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 05, 2010, 06:12:12 AM
Quote
The ghost example is misleading, because if ghosts *don't* exist then there are no ramifications (apart from people being branded "mistaken").  However there is still a buren on the sceptic to explain peoples' experiences using conversational science.

Uh, no it's not. The burden of proof is on the Ghost Believer to prove that the creek he heard in his house was a ghost.

It's no one's job to search his house up and down with a microscope for something which cannot be seen.

If you believe in ghosts you must provide POSITIVE EVIDENCE for your claim.

Quote
However, in order for NASA to fabricate space flights, there would have to be an enormous conspiracy.  That is why your claim has to be backed up.  I am convinced things are sent into space because I have seen satellites with my own eyes, and pictures by amateurs of the ISS and space-shuttle.

No. You have not seen communication satellites. That's a bold faced lie. If you think you can see something the size of a car in orbit you're sadly deluded.

You can't see a car in orbit any more than you could see a grizzly bear from the Concorde, no matter how illuminated its fur might be. It's simply too small and far away.

Quote
You cannot say "it didn't happen" without setting out how it could not happen (e.g. proving the conspiracy).  Unfortunately you have failed to do this.

I don't need to prove that NASA has not done the impossible by sending men to the moon, robots to mars, and space ships to explore the solar system.

You need to prove that they have.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: onetwothreefour on January 05, 2010, 07:00:22 AM
 ??? :-[ ???

YOU are the one putting NASA on trial Tom. It's crystal clear. You are claiming that the mountains upon mountains of data/evidence they have for/from their space travels is completely made up.

Conventional wisdom is that ghosts don't exist. Conventional wisdom is that sustained space travel exists. There is no way you can deny that.

Man, I have never in my life come in contact with someone who so completely misunderstands the most basic tenants of logic.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Moon squirter on January 05, 2010, 07:09:18 AM
Quote
The ghost example is misleading, because if ghosts *don't* exist then there are no ramifications (apart from people being branded "mistaken").  However there is still a buren on the sceptic to explain peoples' experiences using conversational science.

Uh, no it's not. The burden of proof is on the Ghost Believer to prove that the creek he heard in his house was a ghost.

It's no one's job to search his house up and down with a microscope for something which cannot be seen.

If you believe in ghosts you must provide POSITIVE EVIDENCE for your claim.

Quote
However, in order for NASA to fabricate space flights, there would have to be an enormous conspiracy.  That is why your claim has to be backed up.  I am convinced things are sent into space because I have seen satellites with my own eyes, and pictures by amateurs of the ISS and space-shuttle.


No. You have not seen communication satellites. That's a bold faced lie. If you think you can see something the size of a car in orbit you're sadly deluded.

You can't see a car in orbit any more than you could see a grizzly bear from the Concorde, no matter how illuminated its fur might be. It's simply too small and far away.

Quote
You cannot say "it didn't happen" without setting out how it could not happen (e.g. proving the conspiracy).  Unfortunately you have failed to do this.

I don't need to prove that NASA has not done the impossible by sending men to the moon, robots to mars, and space ships to explore the solar system.

You need to prove that they have.

It's not a lie: You're in denial.

Of course I could see a gristly bear from Concorde if the bear was made of shiny metal and lit by the sun, in front of a dark background in pitch blackness.   You couldn't make out the shape of it, it would just see a dim point of light.  A candle is visible from may miles away for the same reason.

You need to prove there is a conspiracy in order to disprove NASA and all space flight.  There is no substance to your sceptical POV, it's just lazy misguided arrogance. 

We're still waiting for that proof (in our millions)...
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: markjo on January 05, 2010, 08:20:13 AM
No. You have not seen communication satellites. That's a bold faced lie. If you think you can see something the size of a car in orbit you're sadly deluded.

http://www.astronet.ru/db/varstars/msg/1162489
(http://images.astronet.ru/pubd/2006/11/05/0001217325/iridium_teus.jpg)
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Canadark on January 05, 2010, 08:29:44 AM
Quote
Being sceptical is claiming that something is not true.

It doesn't matter if I claim something is not true. In the ghosts example the skeptic is claiming that ghosts are not true. Yet the burden of proof is on the person who claims that ghosts exist.


The ghost example is misleading, because if ghosts *don't* exist then there are no ramifications (apart from people being branded "mistaken").  However there is still a buren on the sceptic to explain peoples' experiences using conversational science.

However, in order for NASA to fabricate space flights, there would have to be an enormous conspiracy.  That is why your claim has to be backed up.  I am convinced things are sent into space because I have seen satellites with my own eyes, and pictures by amateurs of the ISS and space-shuttle.

You cannot say "it didn't happen" without setting out how it could not happen (e.g. proving the conspiracy).  Unfortunately you have failed to do this.




A better analogy would be "Is HIV/AIDS real" (as opposed to ghosts) because the overwhelming scientific consensus is that it does exist, just like the consensus is that the Earth is round. If somebody says that HIV/AIDS is not real but that it is manufactured by the government and pharmaceutical companies in an elaborate money-making conspiracy, the burden of proof rests with those who are suggesting the conspiracy is real:

Person 1: "AIDS is a terrible disease that has killed millions around the world"
Person 2: "AIDS is not real"
Person 1: "The scientific consensus is that HIV/AIDS is real"
Person 2: "Yeah, the scientists are part of the conspiracy"
Person 1: "..."
Person 2: "What?"
Person 1: "Prove it; that the conspiracy is real""
Person 2: "No. I am the skeptic, therefore I don't have to prove anything"
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Tristan on January 05, 2010, 09:37:25 AM
I posted this earlier, but everyone seemed to fly straight past it, so here it is again (abridged)

The Burden of Proof Argument is an entirely separate and irrelevant issue.

This is basically the "You can't fire me, I quit" tactic of arguing, and it frustrates people. The point of debate is to examine facts and opinions on both sides, and weigh them against each other - NOT for one side to simply present evidence to the other for approval.

In a nutshell, You are not the Keeper of the Truth - The world isn't flat by default until such time as you choose to declare it spherical.

You can argue the burden of proof all you like, but neither you nor I nor anyone on this site is the Grand High Terrestrial Geometry Master.

This is not a court. There is no judge or jury. You cannot win or lose to anyone.

So can we now stop arguing about the philosophy of debate (or at least start a new thread for it) and get back to the OP?
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Canadark on January 05, 2010, 03:35:06 PM
I posted this earlier, but everyone seemed to fly straight past it, so here it is again (abridged)

The Burden of Proof Argument is an entirely separate and irrelevant issue.

This is basically the "You can't fire me, I quit" tactic of arguing, and it frustrates people. The point of debate is to examine facts and opinions on both sides, and weigh them against each other - NOT for one side to simply present evidence to the other for approval.

In a nutshell, You are not the Keeper of the Truth - The world isn't flat by default until such time as you choose to declare it spherical.

You can argue the burden of proof all you like, but neither you nor I nor anyone on this site is the Grand High Terrestrial Geometry Master.

This is not a court. There is no judge or jury. You cannot win or lose to anyone.

So can we now stop arguing about the philosophy of debate (or at least start a new thread for it) and get back to the OP?

That's asking WAAAAY too much
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: toothyp1cks on January 06, 2010, 09:53:54 AM
You have the prosecutor-defendant analogy backwards.

You're the prosecutor. You're the one claiming to the court that man has gone into space. You're the one who needs to provide POSITIVE EVIDENCE that your claim is correct.

The defendant is the skeptic who demands that facts be presented and evidence given. By pretense the judge and jury are on the defendant's side. Any claim given in a court is doubted by pretense. You must provide your own falsifiable evidence for your case.

You're the claimant. You're the one making the fantastic sci-fi claims of manned space travel. If you cannot prove your extraordinary claims, they are false by pretense and the court rules in the skeptic's favor.

Hurr semantics durr. (Sorry, I'm in a 4chan mood tonight...)

See my opening post, in which I clearly state the purpose of this thread.
For the FET proponents to prove the conspiracy exists and for the RET proponents to disprove that. In my understanding, the defendant is the person being accused of something (in this case, NASA; of a conspiracy) and the prosecutor is the accuser (i.e. the FE Society).
YOU are accusing NASA of a conspiracy. Claims have nothing to do with this. You cannot deny it, you are making accusations. Defy me, prove me wrong.

You canít, and thatís an end to it, I hope. If you would like to continue this, tell me and Iíll create another thread for this argument so the derailment can end.

Still need those Chinese motives/NASA conspiracy evidence/stage light stuff/dirt on every other space company. GOGOGOGOGO!

Also, hooray for proxies. YOU CAN'T KEEP ME AWAY WITH YOUR PETTY IP BANS! HURRAH!
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: flyingmonkey on January 06, 2010, 09:11:23 PM
I'm actually glad you brought that up again about the Ghosts.

The BoP is on the person who is making claims that are far from the realm of accepted facts.

Ghosts are not real as far as accepted facts go, so therefore, the BoP must rely on those who claim they exist.


NASA doing things in space is accepted fact, the BoP relies on you to disprove this.

The entire Earths government is part of a giant conspiracy is not accepted facts, the BoP is still on you to prove this.


Keep ignoring this and bring up ghosts again Tom, I'll just keep making you look like a fool.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Tristan on January 07, 2010, 06:10:36 AM
So can we now stop arguing about the philosophy of debate (or at least start a new thread for it) and get back to the OP?
That's asking WAAAAY too much

I suppose, when you don't actually have a valid point to argue, the best you can do is argue that you don't have to argue it.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: toothyp1cks on January 09, 2010, 06:26:15 PM
No one at all?
This thread has been abandoned for a few days now.
Is the FES coming back?
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: jtelroy on January 10, 2010, 11:25:33 PM
I'm sitll blaming the Hand of Omega for planting false evidence of the conspiracies to prolong scientific debates.

Try and disprove THAT FE'ers.

And I read through the whole thing, and it really frustrated me.

Here's how I interpret it:
1.Toothyp1cks proposes valid debate over conspiracy
2. Tom puts forth valid evidence.
3.RE'ers generally disprove (or discredit) Tom's evidence and asks for more.
4. Tom sits, crosses his arms, and says "I DON"T WANNA!"
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: toothyp1cks on January 11, 2010, 02:02:53 AM
Here's how I interpret it:
1.Toothyp1cks proposes valid debate over conspiracy
2. Tom puts forth valid evidence.
3.RE'ers generally disprove (or discredit) Tom's evidence and asks for more.
4. Tom sits, crosses his arms, and says "I DON"T WANNA!"

Quoted for truth.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: jtelroy on January 11, 2010, 10:54:26 AM
Also to Tom Bishop:

my father works for NORAD.  You are claiming that NORAD is a lie because they use satellite surveillance.

Prove to me that my father is a liar.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: SupahLovah on January 11, 2010, 11:19:14 AM
Also to Tom Bishop:

my father works for NORAD.  You are claiming that NORAD is a lie because they use satellite surveillance.

Prove to me that my father is a liar.
Your mother is a dingo.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: jtelroy on January 11, 2010, 11:22:42 AM
Also to Tom Bishop:

my father works for NORAD.  You are claiming that NORAD is a lie because they use satellite surveillance.

Prove to me that my father is a liar.
Your mother is a dingo.

And you work for the Hand of Omega.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: toothyp1cks on January 11, 2010, 02:14:45 PM
Also to Tom Bishop:

my father works for NORAD.  You are claiming that NORAD is a lie because they use satellite surveillance.

Prove to me that my father is a liar.

Let's not do that okay.
They could prove your father is a liar (if your father actually is) but then they'd need to stalk him and do things like that, which we all know isn't happening so they just gets another thing to comlain about (unreasonable/unfulfillable demands). But good point about NORAD.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: jtelroy on January 11, 2010, 05:12:49 PM
Also to Tom Bishop:

my father works for NORAD.  You are claiming that NORAD is a lie because they use satellite surveillance.

Prove to me that my father is a liar.

Let's not do that okay.
They could prove your father is a liar (if your father actually is) but then they'd need to stalk him and do things like that, which we all know isn't happening so they just gets another thing to comlain about (unreasonable/unfulfillable demands). But good point about NORAD.

True enough, so I'll just stick to the NORAD point.d
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Lord Wilmore on January 12, 2010, 05:51:43 AM
It doesn't make NORAD wrong just because they're duped liked the rest of us into thinking their info comes from satellites.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: onetwothreefour on January 12, 2010, 06:10:05 AM
It doesn't make NORAD wrong just because they're duped liked the rest of us into thinking their info comes from satellites.
You are completely out of your mind.

There is photographic and video evidence of Satellites. Where are all the high altitude plane pictures??!?!?!
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: Lord Wilmore on January 12, 2010, 06:17:40 AM
There are many images of high-altitude planes. Probably more than there are of satellites.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: onetwothreefour on January 12, 2010, 07:42:23 AM
There are many images of high-altitude planes. Probably more than there are of satellites.

How many dummy planes would there have to be??? All of those pilots are in on the conspiracy. Keep expanding it. Keep expanding it.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: jtelroy on January 12, 2010, 08:52:07 AM
Sorry I think I've derailed the debate.

Forget the NORAD point, go back to providing concrete evidence that the conspiracy exists.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: markjo on January 12, 2010, 11:17:18 AM
There are many images of high-altitude planes. Probably more than there are of satellites.

Irrelevant.
Title: Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
Post by: toothyp1cks on January 13, 2010, 12:42:49 AM
There are many images of high-altitude planes. Probably more than there are of satellites.

How many dummy planes would there have to be??? All of those pilots are in on the conspiracy. Keep expanding it. Keep expanding it.
Good point. The cost of this conspiracy would be ridiculous so the chances of making a profit are poor. Think about it; bridge-builders, most of NASA, pilots etc.
Sorry I think I've derailed the debate.

Forget the NORAD point, go back to providing concrete evidence that the conspiracy exists.
No problem. It helped bring up a valid point, the cost.