The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: Chablar on August 28, 2012, 07:02:37 AM

Title: Conspiracy Theor yquestions
Post by: Chablar on August 28, 2012, 07:02:37 AM
Q: "What is the motive behind this Conspiracy?"

A: Although their main objective can only be speculated upon, the most favored theory is that of financial gain.  In a nutshell, it would logically cost much less to fake a space program than to actually have one, so those in on the Conspiracy profit from the funding NASA and other space agencies receive from the government.

Q: "If you're not sure about the motive, why do you say there is a conspiracy?"

A: Well it's quite simple really; if the Earth is in fact flat, then the space agencies must be lying when they say it isn't.

 This is a quote from the FAQ. What I dont understand, is IF the earth was so obviously flat, and we RE'ers only believe the earth is round because of all the lies we have been fed by the people we look to for these answers since we were born, why would the government not lie about the earth being flat? As you all say, there is so much more sensorial evidence in our every day lives to suggest that it is flat rather than a speroid, so surely -if they were lying for the sake of financial gain, rather than solely to tell us a lie- then they would tell us something that you all claim is so obvious, and would therefore clearly be more believable. I find the FAQ to be inadequate, it really needs some work
Title: Re: Conspiracy Theor yquestions
Post by: Rushy on August 28, 2012, 07:43:14 AM
They can't come out that the Earth is flat, as that would disprove the Moon landing and a great deal of what NASA is built on. When you're neck deep in a lie you're not going to tell the truth.
Title: Re: Conspiracy Theor yquestions
Post by: Chablar on August 28, 2012, 07:54:09 AM
But why lie from the beginning? When (to you anyway) the truth is so much more obvious and believable
Title: Re: Conspiracy Theor yquestions
Post by: Rushy on August 28, 2012, 07:55:57 AM
But why lie from the beginning? When (to you anyway) the truth is so much more obvious and believable

FE'ers vary on the conspiracy and its motives. Personally I think they honestly thought the Earth was round at the moment and made it look that way when they faked the Moon landing. Now they have to keep the lie up.
Title: Re: Conspiracy Theor yquestions
Post by: iwanttobelieve on August 28, 2012, 09:47:35 AM
there is no motive because there is no conspiracy.
The real conspiracy lies in those who blindly follow the FAQ without Zetetic research.
Title: Re: Conspiracy Theor yquestions
Post by: EmperorZhark on August 28, 2012, 10:03:41 AM
To work, FET needs space travel to be impossible, that's why they stick on the ludicrous idea of a conspiracy, totally forgetting that a conspiracy this big is simply impossible.
Title: Re: Conspiracy Theor yquestions
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 28, 2012, 10:54:22 AM
To work, FET needs space travel to be impossible, that's why they stick on the ludicrous idea of a conspiracy, totally forgetting that a conspiracy this big is simply impossible.

The military doesn't seem to have a hard time keeping Top Secret documents and information a secret.

How many Top Secret documents can you find on the internet?

(Wikileaks only leaks confidential/unclassified documents)
Title: Re: Conspiracy Theor yquestions
Post by: EmperorZhark on August 28, 2012, 11:03:30 AM
To work, FET needs space travel to be impossible, that's why they stick on the ludicrous idea of a conspiracy, totally forgetting that a conspiracy this big is simply impossible.

The military doesn't seem to have a hard time keeping Top Secret documents and information a secret.

How many Top Secret documents can you find on the internet?

(Wikileaks only leaks confidential/unlassified documents)

Conspiracy: for a too long time, too many people, too much money, too complicated.

At least some top secret documents leak sometimes.
Title: Re: Conspiracy Theor yquestions
Post by: garygreen on August 28, 2012, 11:30:55 AM
To work, FET needs space travel to be impossible, that's why they stick on the ludicrous idea of a conspiracy, totally forgetting that a conspiracy this big is simply impossible.

The military doesn't seem to have a hard time keeping Top Secret documents and information a secret.

How many Top Secret documents can you find on the internet?

(Wikileaks only leaks confidential/unlassified documents)

Um, The Pentagon Papers come to mind fairly immediately.

Title: Re: Conspiracy Theor yquestions
Post by: The Knowledge on August 28, 2012, 11:57:50 AM
To work, FET needs space travel to be impossible, that's why they stick on the ludicrous idea of a conspiracy, totally forgetting that a conspiracy this big is simply impossible.

The military doesn't seem to have a hard time keeping Top Secret documents and information a secret.

How many Top Secret documents can you find on the internet?

(Wikileaks only leaks confidential/unlassified documents)

Equivalent argument:

Tom: "That park over there is full of invisible kangaroos"
Person: "I can't see any..."
Tom: "That proves I'm right."
 :P

Since you don't know how many Top Secret documents there are (and I fully accept there are some), you can't possibly draw conclusions about how many get leaked or how easy it is to keep them secret.
Title: Re: Conspiracy Theor yquestions
Post by: Moon squirter on August 28, 2012, 01:52:48 PM
(Wikileaks only leaks confidential/unlassified documents)

Tom, you're no more a zetetist than Terry Fuckwitt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Fuckwitt).

Every post for the last few weeks/months has been wrong in some way.  Do you really need to keep doing this to yourself?

Check your answers.  Posting less is posting more.
Title: Re: Conspiracy Theor yquestions
Post by: garygreen on August 28, 2012, 03:17:03 PM
(Wikileaks only leaks confidential/unlassified documents)

It's also worth noting that this comment only proves how difficult it would be to maintain the kind of elaborate conspiracy that a fake NASA would require.  If Bradley Manning was willing to risk treason and espionage charges over some war logs and diplomatic cables, image how far someone like him might be willing to go to blow the whistle on a fake NASA.  That no one in 50+ years ever has is...well, it's unbelievable.

People like Bradley Manning prove that it's exceedingly difficult to hide even banal secrets.

There are also shit-boats of other examples, like Thomas Drake, Mark Felt, and Joe Darby just to name a few.
Title: Re: Conspiracy Theor yquestions
Post by: garygreen on August 28, 2012, 03:36:06 PM
How many Top Secret documents can you find on the internet?

http://today.duke.edu/2012/03/classified (http://today.duke.edu/2012/03/classified)
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB381/ (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB381/)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2112226/Top-secret-terror-documents-left-on-train.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2112226/Top-secret-terror-documents-left-on-train.html)

Peruse the GWU National Security Archives for a while.  There are literally thousands.
Title: Re: Conspiracy Theor yquestions
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 28, 2012, 03:53:20 PM
How many Top Secret documents can you find on the internet?

http://today.duke.edu/2012/03/classified (http://today.duke.edu/2012/03/classified)
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB381/ (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB381/)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2112226/Top-secret-terror-documents-left-on-train.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2112226/Top-secret-terror-documents-left-on-train.html)

Peruse the GWU National Security Archives for a while.  There are literally thousands.

Those are documents the government voluntarily declassified. They are no longer Top Secret.

The third link is just a news article about someone misplacing a document. The document itself was not published.

Please find a Top Secret document on the internet, not ones which were formally Top Secret.
Title: Re: Conspiracy Theor yquestions
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 28, 2012, 03:59:15 PM
People like Bradley Manning prove that it's exceedingly difficult to hide even banal secrets.

Bradley Manning leaked confidential/unclassified material and got held in a military prison for years without a trial. Imagine what would have happened to him if he had leaked actual secrets.
Title: Re: Conspiracy Theor yquestions
Post by: garygreen on August 28, 2012, 04:27:15 PM
The third link is just a news article about someone misplacing a document. The document itself was not published.
Not just 'a document.'  A Top Secret document.  Thank goodness for the conspirators that none of the thousands of people involved have ever made a careless mistake like that in the last 50+ years.

Please find a Top Secret document on the internet, not ones which were formally Top Secret.
The Pentagon Papers.

There are also Thomas Drake, Mark Felt, and Joe Darby, all of whom leaked state secrets that were, if not explicitly "Top Secret," definitely in the hide-this-from-everyone category.

Bradley Manning leaked confidential/unclassified material and got held in a military prison for years without a trial. Imagine what would have happened to him if he had leaked actual secrets.
They might have executed him.  Manning already knew he could be executed for leaking the cables.  And those cables were, by your own admission, relatively trivial.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/07/manning-lamo-logs/ (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/07/manning-lamo-logs/)

Quote
(1:13:10 PM) bradass87: i just… dont wish to be a part of it… at least not now… im not ready… i wouldn’t mind going to prison for the rest of my life, or being executed so much, if it wasn’t for the possibility of having pictures of me… plastered all over the world press… as boy…

That not a single person with knowledge/direct evidence of the conspiracy has done the same in the last 50+ years is literally unbelievable. 
Title: Re: Conspiracy Theor yquestions
Post by: Saddam Hussein on August 28, 2012, 05:24:52 PM
Does anyone here really think that a guy claiming that the Earth was flat and that the government was covering it all up would be taken seriously by anyone important?
Title: Re: Conspiracy Theor yquestions
Post by: Cat Earth Theory on August 28, 2012, 05:32:55 PM
If he had actual evidence to back up his claims, yes.
Title: Re: Conspiracy Theor yquestions
Post by: markjo on August 28, 2012, 05:47:41 PM
To work, FET needs space travel to be impossible, that's why they stick on the ludicrous idea of a conspiracy, totally forgetting that a conspiracy this big is simply impossible.

The military doesn't seem to have a hard time keeping Top Secret documents and information a secret.

That's nice, but there is a growing number of civilian based, commercial space launch and satellite service companies that would need to be "let in on the secret".
Title: Re: Conspiracy Theor yquestions
Post by: Pongo on August 29, 2012, 12:19:47 AM
(Wikileaks only leaks confidential/unlassified documents)

It's also worth noting that this comment only proves how difficult it would be to maintain the kind of elaborate conspiracy that a fake NASA would require.  If Bradley Manning was willing to risk treason and espionage charges over some war logs and diplomatic cables, image how far someone like him might be willing to go to blow the whistle on a fake NASA.  That no one in 50+ years ever has is...well, it's unbelievable.


So, because it's never happened means that it can't happen?  There is no fathomable way in which a secret could be held for 50+ years?
Title: Re: Conspiracy Theor yquestions
Post by: EmperorZhark on August 29, 2012, 02:46:12 AM
(Wikileaks only leaks confidential/unlassified documents)

It's also worth noting that this comment only proves how difficult it would be to maintain the kind of elaborate conspiracy that a fake NASA would require.  If Bradley Manning was willing to risk treason and espionage charges over some war logs and diplomatic cables, image how far someone like him might be willing to go to blow the whistle on a fake NASA.  That no one in 50+ years ever has is...well, it's unbelievable.


So, because it's never happened means that it can't happen?  There is no fathomable way in which a secret could be held for 50+ years?

Like the one of the ture shape of Earth and space travel?

No way. Start with: too much data would have to be faked.
Title: Re: Conspiracy Theor yquestions
Post by: New Earth on August 29, 2012, 04:41:27 AM
When I was in Washington DC the tour guide said that Pentagon building goes some 30 floors underground, and there thousands of top secret documents there. Anyone who thinks that government tell us everything there is to know is either naive or extremely retarded.
Title: Re: Conspiracy Theor yquestions
Post by: The Knowledge on August 29, 2012, 04:49:38 AM
When I was in Washington DC the tour guide said that Pentagon building goes some 30 floors underground, and there thousands of top secret documents there. Anyone who thinks that government tell us everything there is to know is either naive or extremely retarded.

Government can't function properly without some things being kept secret, especially in the areas of military intelligence and espionage. Some of what is kept secret keeps us safe.
Title: Re: Conspiracy Theor yquestions
Post by: garygreen on August 29, 2012, 12:34:21 PM
(Wikileaks only leaks confidential/unlassified documents)

It's also worth noting that this comment only proves how difficult it would be to maintain the kind of elaborate conspiracy that a fake NASA would require.  If Bradley Manning was willing to risk treason and espionage charges over some war logs and diplomatic cables, image how far someone like him might be willing to go to blow the whistle on a fake NASA.  That no one in 50+ years ever has is...well, it's unbelievable.


So, because it's never happened means that it can't happen?  There is no fathomable way in which a secret could be held for 50+ years?

That's obviously not what I said or meant, and you know that.  I'm talking about probability, incentives, and deterrents.  The probability of revelation is at least somewhat proportional to both the number of people who know the secret (like accidentally leaving a Top Secret document on a train), and to the incentive an individual has to reveal the secret (like winning the Pulitzer prize, or general wealth/fame).

Conspirators avoid this by saying that there is an ultimate deterrent to revelation: death.  Bradley Manning (and every other whistle-blower ever) proves otherwise.

e: and, as EZ points out, the probability of revelation is also partially proportional to the number of people who have to be fooled.  Personally, I find it amusing that conspirators believe that NASA is unable to convincingly fake photographic evidence, but they are able to fake much more sophisticated data sets that fool every scientist who relies on them. 

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,54547.msg1345065.html#msg1345065 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,54547.msg1345065.html#msg1345065)

When I was in Washington DC the tour guide said that Pentagon building goes some 30 floors underground, and there thousands of top secret documents there. Anyone who thinks that government tell us everything there is to know is either naive or extremely retarded.

You're making the same flawed assumption as Pongo, that all secrets are equally likely to be concealed/revealed.  That's false.  The government obviously keeps secrets.  No one is denying that.  However, not every secret is nefarious in nature.
Title: Re: Conspiracy Theor yquestions
Post by: New Earth on August 29, 2012, 02:48:44 PM
When I was in Washington DC the tour guide said that Pentagon building goes some 30 floors underground, and there thousands of top secret documents there. Anyone who thinks that government tell us everything there is to know is either naive or extremely retarded.

Government can't function properly without some things being kept secret, especially in the areas of military intelligence and espionage. Some of what is kept secret keeps us safe.


To be honest with you most of the secrets have leaked through various whistle blowers, problem is people are too stubborn to accept it. People have been conditioned to distrust the information coming from a fellow citizen, but yet blindly accept everything government says as the gospel truth.
Title: Re: Conspiracy Theor yquestions
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 29, 2012, 09:26:44 PM
To work, FET needs space travel to be impossible, that's why they stick on the ludicrous idea of a conspiracy, totally forgetting that a conspiracy this big is simply impossible.

The military doesn't seem to have a hard time keeping Top Secret documents and information a secret.

That's nice, but there is a growing number of civilian based, commercial space launch and satellite service companies that would need to be "let in on the secret".

Companies like SpaceX are not civilian. They're public-private government contractors like Lockheed Martin. The employees in those companies still need secret or top secret clearances to work on sensitive government projects and technologies.
Title: Re: Conspiracy Theor yquestions
Post by: markjo on August 29, 2012, 09:35:08 PM
To work, FET needs space travel to be impossible, that's why they stick on the ludicrous idea of a conspiracy, totally forgetting that a conspiracy this big is simply impossible.

The military doesn't seem to have a hard time keeping Top Secret documents and information a secret.

That's nice, but there is a growing number of civilian based, commercial space launch and satellite service companies that would need to be "let in on the secret".

Companies like SpaceX are not civilian. They're public-private government contractors like Lockheed Martin. The employees in those companies still need secret or top secret clearances to work on sensitive government projects and technologies.

???  I'm sorry but when did I say anything about government projects?  There are plenty of civilian/commercial satellites that need launching.  Not to mention the rather large number of commercial satellites that are already (allegedly) in orbit and providing a variety of services.
Title: Re: Conspiracy Theor yquestions
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 29, 2012, 09:44:09 PM
???  I'm sorry but when did I say anything about government projects?  There are plenty of civilian/commercial satellites that need launching.

All satellites are government projects. Civilians can't build rockets that can reach earth orbit. The government doesn't allow such things to be built privately, or the knowledge to build one out in the public domain. The government doesn't want give foreign powers the ability to create ballistic missiles or ICBMs.

The alleged "satellites" which exist were put up by government-affiliated space organizations.
Title: Re: Conspiracy Theor yquestions
Post by: markjo on August 29, 2012, 10:10:17 PM
???  I'm sorry but when did I say anything about government projects?  There are plenty of civilian/commercial satellites that need launching.

All satellites are government projects.

Umm...  No, they aren't.

Quote
Civilians can't build rockets that can reach earth orbit.

Irrelevant.  The government has launched plenty of civilian/commercial satellites.

Quote
The government doesn't allow such things to be built privately, or the knowledge to build one out in the public domain.

Then how can universities train the next generation of rocket scientists?  I'll let you in on a little secret, Tom.  The theory behind ICBMs really isn't that tough.  It's the engineering part that's the bugger.

Quote
The government doesn't want give foreign powers the ability to create ballistic missiles or ICBMs.

What the government doesn't want foreign powers to have and what those foreign powers get anyways are often two different stories.  Just ask the Russkies how they got their H-bomb. 

Quote
The alleged "satellites" which exist were put up by government-affiliated space organizations.

So what?
Title: Re: Conspiracy Theor yquestions
Post by: garygreen on August 29, 2012, 10:31:22 PM
The government doesn't allow such things to be built privately, or the knowledge to build one out in the public domain. The government doesn't want give foreign powers the ability to create ballistic missiles or ICBMs.

Wait, don't you think ICBMs are fake?