The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: justaguy on April 24, 2017, 11:56:16 AM

Title: Conspiracy
Post by: justaguy on April 24, 2017, 11:56:16 AM
Ok, the whole flat earth theory rests on one simple "theory".  That is that NASA and everybody else who say the world is a round, has to be lying to all of us.  If they are in fact not lying, then the earth is round, as NASA and every scientist in the world claims.  So FE believers, do you have any real evidence that NASA, other space agencies, and every country on earth is lying to us about the shape of the earth? Or will you just actually admit that you are all a bunch of trolls pulling our legs?
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: Junker on April 24, 2017, 12:04:09 PM
Ok, the whole flat earth theory rests on one simple "theory".  That is that NASA and everybody else who say the world is a round, has to be lying to all of us. 
False. Also, if you can't follow simple directions such as posting in the correct forum for a particular topic, there is not reason to take you seriously at all. Flat Earth General's description literally says to put conspiracy topics there.
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: justaguy on April 24, 2017, 12:09:21 PM
Ok, the whole flat earth theory rests on one simple "theory".  That is that NASA and everybody else who say the world is a round, has to be lying to all of us. 
False. Also, if you can't follow simple directions such as posting in the correct forum for a particular topic, there is not reason to take you seriously at all. Flat Earth General's description literally says to put conspiracy topics there.

I asked a question in flat earth debate, and I wanted to see a debate on the conspiracy.  If you don't want to play, go away.  I don't care.  I could care less if you take me seriously, from what I have read from you posts, I don't take you seriously either.  But I wouldn't expect anything else from a flat earth believer.  A snide response to a honest question, and actually, no worth-while response at all...
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: Junker on April 24, 2017, 12:17:03 PM
I asked a question in flat earth debate, and I wanted to see a debate on the conspiracy. 
Alternatively, you could try following simple directions.

If you don't want to play, go away.
No.

I don't care.  I could care less...

So you say you don't care, but then you say you could care less, implying that you obviously must care.

But I wouldn't expect anything else from a flat earth believer.
Where did I state my belief on earth's shape?


Anyway, in relation to your very lazy question in the OP, a simple answer would be that it wouldn't be a very good conspiracy if there was evidence of it. Also, your premise is flawed from the beginning. I can't help you with that. 
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: Piesigma on April 24, 2017, 12:23:27 PM
I asked a question in flat earth debate, and I wanted to see a debate on the conspiracy. 
Alternatively, you could try following simple directions.

If you don't want to play, go away.
No.

I don't care.  I could care less...

So you say you don't care, but then you say you could care less, implying that you obviously must care.

But I wouldn't expect anything else from a flat earth believer.
Where did I state my belief on earth's shape?


Anyway, in relation to your very lazy question in the OP, a simple answer would be that it wouldn't be a very good conspiracy if there was evidence of it. Also, your premise is flawed from the beginning. I can't help you with that.

It appears you're taking this pretty seriously?
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: justaguy on April 24, 2017, 12:30:07 PM
Anyway, in relation to your very lazy question in the OP, a simple answer would be that it wouldn't be a very good conspiracy if there was evidence of it. Also, your premise is flawed from the beginning. I can't help you with that.
[/quote]

How is it flawed?  Either the earth is flat or it isn't.  If it is flat, then there is a giant conspiracy.  If it is round, than there is not.  Actually pretty simple. I am asking for some evidence of a conspiracy.  If there is no evidence, why do you believe that we are being lied to?  You claim my question is lazy, but you seem too lazy to actually put any thought into it.  Smart ass comments and brush offs.  Grow up! 
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: Junker on April 24, 2017, 12:41:46 PM
How is it flawed? 
I would suggest maybe reading your own post again. It should come to you, but if you continue to struggle, I will do my best to help.

Either the earth is flat or it isn't. 
Yes.

If it is flat, then there is a giant conspiracy. 
Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim?

If it is round, than there is not. 
Irrelevant.

I am asking for some evidence of a conspiracy.
See above.
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: Piesigma on April 24, 2017, 12:49:56 PM
How is it flawed? 
I would suggest maybe reading your own post again. It should come to you, but if you continue to struggle, I will do my best to help.

Either the earth is flat or it isn't. 
Yes.

If it is flat, then there is a giant conspiracy. 
Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim?

If it is round, than there is not. 
Irrelevant.

I am asking for some evidence of a conspiracy.
See above.

I would suggest lurking moar.
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: Junker on April 24, 2017, 12:56:37 PM
How is it flawed? 
I would suggest maybe reading your own post again. It should come to you, but if you continue to struggle, I will do my best to help.

Either the earth is flat or it isn't. 
Yes.

If it is flat, then there is a giant conspiracy. 
Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim?

If it is round, than there is not. 
Irrelevant.

I am asking for some evidence of a conspiracy.
See above.

I would suggest lurking moar.

That is excellent advice for the OP, especially given that they are a newer member. Well done!
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: Aviation enthusiast on April 24, 2017, 01:01:36 PM
Sounds kinda simple what was said. For earth to be flat then the photos from NASA and other agencies are fake.

They have presented "proof" in the past by showing the video of a NASA rep saying " It's Photoshopped. It has to be"
They do not understand what exactly he is trying to say.

They also look at cloud formations and see duplicates.  I think that it has to do with how they piece photos together from a closer orbit.

The other claim is the photos changing from year to year.

I have not seen any good arguments with the Russian and Japanese photos.

Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: Jonny B Smart on April 24, 2017, 01:12:23 PM
NASA has developed giant lenses to distort the "setting" Sun so it appears to stay the same size and dip down as it recedes. (Haven't quite worked out how they keep the lenses up there and in line with every observer on Earth, but I will let you know!)

I do know that every time a ship is about to sell over the "horizon," NASA sails a submarine right up in front of it and deploys a huge mirror to hide the bottom of the ship and make it look like water. (They have a lot of submarines!)
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: justaguy on April 24, 2017, 01:19:24 PM
NASA has developed giant lenses to distort the "setting" Sun so it appears to stay the same size and dip down as it recedes. (Haven't quite worked out how they keep the lenses up there and in line with every observer on Earth, but I will let you know!)

Ok, keep me posted.  I will wait anxiously!

I do know that every time a ship is about to sell over the "horizon," NASA sails a submarine right up in front of it and deploys a huge mirror to hide the bottom of the ship and make it look like water. (They have a lot of submarines!)

Great, finally an explanation.  I knew it. 
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: Junker on April 24, 2017, 01:29:05 PM
Sounds kinda simple what was said. For earth to be flat then the photos from NASA and other agencies are fake.

Yes, what was said was simple. It was also a non-sequitur.
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: justaguy on April 24, 2017, 01:37:42 PM
Sounds kinda simple what was said. For earth to be flat then the photos from NASA and other agencies are fake.

Yes, what was said was simple. It was also a non-sequitur.

First, you didn't like the question because apparently it is in the wrong forum.  Now you claim it is non-sequitur.  What other excuses do you want to give to avoid giving an answer?  And please explain how the question is non-sequitur?  Either the earth is flat or round.  If it is flat, NASA is lying about the shape.  If it it round, they are not. 
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: Junker on April 24, 2017, 01:45:12 PM
First, you didn't like the question because apparently it is in the wrong forum.
Incorrect, the question is fine. I was just pointing out to you that you should follow simple instructions.

Now you claim it is non-sequitur. 
It was always a non-sequitur. I was hoping you would go back and realize that for yourself, as I suggested you do. Alas, you either failed or refused to do so.

What other excuses do you want to give to avoid giving an answer?  +
I already gave an answer, friend.

And please explain how the question is non-sequitur? 
The conclusion does not follow from the premise.

Either the earth is flat or round.
Those are two possibilities. Also, that isn't what you stated previously.

If it is flat, NASA is lying about the shape.
Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim?

If it it round, they are not.
You are saying there are literally no other possibilities. Nice critical thinking, friend...
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: JackSchitt on April 24, 2017, 01:49:23 PM
As a new poster, the best advice I can give is:
FEers will dodge dive and weave around any question they can't answer with a telescope, a toy boat and some water. And if that fails that simply claim cgi, so all lurking will give you is repeated occurrences of the above.

Oh and his post is perfectly fine here as it is a debate topic, so that should take priority over subject matter when choosing what board to post it on
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: rabinoz on April 24, 2017, 01:55:07 PM
Sounds kinda simple what was said. For earth to be flat then the photos from NASA and other agencies are fake.

Yes, what was said was simple. It was also a non-sequitur.
Looks kinda like a sphere to me.
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Earth%20from%20Space/20160726%20-%20DSCOVR%20EPIC%20187_1003703_africa_zpsduxzmo1m.png)
DSCOVR EPIC 187_1003703_africa
   
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Earth%20from%20Space/20160727%20-%20Russian%20Satellite%20Photo%20around%20midday%20-%20December%202015_zpsuep9wrte.png)
Russian Satellite Photo (around midday) - December 2015
   
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Earth%20from%20Space/20160726%20-%20Himawari-8%2020160705120000fd_zpsbdu5jlnj.png)
Himawari-8 20160705120000fd
Conspiracy? Are USA, Russia and Japan all in it - along with China and numerous other countries.
Quote from: the Wiki
Place of the Conspiracy in FET

The existence of 'The Conspiracy' is a consequence of the FET. Virtually no one begins with 'The Conspiracy' and develops a belief in the Flat Earth Theory. Flat Earthers starts with the knowledge that the earth is flat, as they believe that all the evidence which they are personally able to collect and verify confirms this fact. As a consequence all the evidence to the contrary, much of which they are unable to personally test/verify is viewed as being false. The existence of such a huge quantity of false information indicates the existence of the conspiracy.

Essentially the reasoning boils down to -
P1) If personally unverifiable evidence contradicts an obvious truth then the evidence is fabricated
P2) The FET (Flat Earth Theory) is an obvious truth
P3) There is personally unverifiable evidence that contradicts the FET
C1) The unverifiable evidence that contradicts the FET is fabricated evidence

P4) If there is large amounts of fabricated evidence then there must be a conspiracy to fabricate it
P5) There is a large amount of fabricated evidence (see C1)
C2) There must be a conspiracy to fabricate it.

Look at
"    P1) If personally unverifiable evidence contradicts an obvious truth then the evidence is fabricated
     P2) The FET (Flat Earth Theory) is an obvious truth"

Any "personally unverifiable evidence" that "contradicts an obvious truth then the evidence is fabricated" followed by
        "The FET (Flat Earth Theory) is an obvious truth"!

One simply comment, it is absolutely impossible for any one person or even a small group of (not very dedicated) investigators to determine the shape of the earth, the motion of the sun, moon planets and the stars and all other aspects of the earth.
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: dutchy on April 24, 2017, 01:57:55 PM
Ok, the whole flat earth theory rests on one simple "theory".  That is that NASA and everybody else who say the world is a round, has to be lying to all of us.  If they are in fact not lying, then the earth is round, as NASA and every scientist in the world claims.  So FE believers, do you have any real evidence that NASA, other space agencies, and every country on earth is lying to us about the shape of the earth? Or will you just actually admit that you are all a bunch of trolls pulling our legs?
''Every scientist in the world'' ? It seems to be a very homogeneous group that smells after an evil cult.
It doesn't matter where you go, who you talk to, but ''every scientist in the world'' gives the same answers about our world. Like Jehova witinesses who claim the same doctrines in every corner of the world.

Money, career, family is what matters most to 95% of all scientists....so there you have your answer.
With those things at stake at any given moment, humans are proven to be extremely flexible.
All those NAZI ''scientists'' spreading propaganda about how the Jewish scull and other specific characterizations proof their wickness says it all......
Put a litlle pressure on an induvidual and he makes up his/her mind in the ''right'' direction sooner than you think.
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: dutchy on April 24, 2017, 02:01:23 PM
Sounds kinda simple what was said. For earth to be flat then the photos from NASA and other agencies are fake.

Yes, what was said was simple. It was also a non-sequitur.
Looks kinda like a sphere to me.
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Earth%20from%20Space/20160726%20-%20DSCOVR%20EPIC%20187_1003703_africa_zpsduxzmo1m.png)
DSCOVR EPIC 187_1003703_africa
   
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Earth%20from%20Space/20160727%20-%20Russian%20Satellite%20Photo%20around%20midday%20-%20December%202015_zpsuep9wrte.png)
Russian Satellite Photo (around midday) - December 2015
   
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Earth%20from%20Space/20160726%20-%20Himawari-8%2020160705120000fd_zpsbdu5jlnj.png)
Himawari-8 20160705120000fd
Hey the Russians forgot to add the rain forest in Africa.....silly Russians.
Or is it a cosmic mirage ?

http://images.spaceref.com/news/2015/oodiamondraeunice.jpg (http://images.spaceref.com/news/2015/oodiamondraeunice.jpg)
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: JackSchitt on April 24, 2017, 02:04:59 PM
No every scientist will say the same thing within reason, as science (mostly) has a definite answer so if you don't say the same thing chances are you are wrong, it's not like the Bible where there are multiple interpretations
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: RocksEverywhere on April 24, 2017, 02:18:44 PM
Sounds kinda simple what was said. For earth to be flat then the photos from NASA and other agencies are fake.

Yes, what was said was simple. It was also a non-sequitur.
Looks kinda like a sphere to me.
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Earth%20from%20Space/20160726%20-%20DSCOVR%20EPIC%20187_1003703_africa_zpsduxzmo1m.png)
DSCOVR EPIC 187_1003703_africa
   
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Earth%20from%20Space/20160727%20-%20Russian%20Satellite%20Photo%20around%20midday%20-%20December%202015_zpsuep9wrte.png)
Russian Satellite Photo (around midday) - December 2015
   
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Earth%20from%20Space/20160726%20-%20Himawari-8%2020160705120000fd_zpsbdu5jlnj.png)
Himawari-8 20160705120000fd
Hey the Russians forgot to add the rain forest in Africa.....silly Russians.
Or is it a cosmic mirage ?

http://images.spaceref.com/news/2015/oodiamondraeunice.jpg (http://images.spaceref.com/news/2015/oodiamondraeunice.jpg)
That has to do with the way the picture was taken. When we usually take, and look at, pictures - it's made of red, blue and green light. There are of course other wavelengths of light, but we can't see them. If you take a picture using ultraviolet or infrared, you're going to want to have it show up on your screen. How this is done, is that one of the regular colours - red, blue or green - is replaced with the intensity measured for ultraviolet or infrared, resulting in these odd looking pictures. For the russian picture, it looks like red has been replaced with presumably near infrared, in which vegetation shows up. That's why the African rain forest as well as india, china, thailand etcetera have a very red-orangish tint.
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: dutchy on April 24, 2017, 02:19:06 PM
No every scientist will say the same thing within reason, as science (mostly) has a definite answer so if you don't say the same thing chances are you are wrong, it's not like the Bible where there are multiple interpretations
reason ..... a statement offered in explanation or justification
How many scientist went to space to examine, test and conclude and confirm for themselves ?
How can their opinion on secondary info justify their supposed ''definite answers''  about the cosmos ?

Most of them interpret light and waves and mathematical wild theories from space on a daily job at the office somewhere.........
When did the meaning of ''reason'' and ''justification'' became so meaningless ?
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: rabinoz on April 24, 2017, 02:19:19 PM
Hey the Russians forgot to add the rain forest in Africa.....silly Russians.
Or is it a cosmic mirage ?

http://images.spaceref.com/news/2015/oodiamondraeunice.jpg (http://images.spaceref.com/news/2015/oodiamondraeunice.jpg)
Wonderful evidence! You use a drawing in a weak effort to debunk an actual photograph!

Try again.

And when I find so weak in arguments like yours is that if the Russians or anyone else were trying to fool us they would make their drawings look like what we expect.

Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: dutchy on April 24, 2017, 02:28:25 PM
That has to do with the way the picture was taken. When we usually take, and look at, pictures - it's made of red, blue and green light. There are of course other wavelengths of light, but we can't see them. If you take a picture using ultraviolet or infrared, you're going to want to have it show up on your screen. How this is done, is that one of the regular colours - red, blue or green - is replaced with the intensity measured for ultraviolet or infrared, resulting in these odd looking pictures. For the russian picture, it looks like red has been replaced with presumably near infrared, in which vegetation shows up. That's why the African rain forest as well as india, china, thailand etcetera have a very red-orangish tint.
Thank you for your efforts !!, but i hope you see the problem with these kind of pictures.
If the real footage had to be translated into odd looking pictures for the sake of visuality, then how can we determine anyhing at all ?
I am sure that a photoshop expert can make an equall quality rendering without relying on supposed ''space'' data....i think i've allready seen them and they look equally valid.
I am also sure that NASA can make a cube earth rendering that looks as valid as the globe earth renderings.

I truly cannot believe that globers can't see this obvious problem. Photos from space don't cut it as undeniable proof for a globe earth.
But thanks again. I alway appreciate these kind of responses !
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: dutchy on April 24, 2017, 02:36:04 PM
Hey the Russians forgot to add the rain forest in Africa.....silly Russians.
Or is it a cosmic mirage ?

http://images.spaceref.com/news/2015/oodiamondraeunice.jpg (http://images.spaceref.com/news/2015/oodiamondraeunice.jpg)
Wonderful evidence! You use a drawing in a weak effort to debunk an actual photograph!

Try again.

And when I find so weak in arguments like yours is that if the Russians or anyone else were trying to fool us they would make their drawings look like what we expect.
Hahaha rabbi, why are you so bad at recognising satire ?
NASA can create a cube earth from space that looks as real as your ''photo's''.
Don't you see that ? In the aftermath everything from NASA is as it should be....that is the default setting.
Duplicated clouds,....NASA has the real answer
Different continents.....that is how optics work
Citylights in Western Australia were no cities are in the nightsky timelaps from ISS........uhhhh it must have been the forest fires during that period.

Even when they somehow would forget a continent there will be a perfect explanation. Because that is the default setting...everything that NASA presents is real !
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: Piesigma on April 24, 2017, 03:18:37 PM
How is it flawed? 
I would suggest maybe reading your own post again. It should come to you, but if you continue to struggle, I will do my best to help.

Either the earth is flat or it isn't. 
Yes.

If it is flat, then there is a giant conspiracy. 
Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim?

If it is round, than there is not. 
Irrelevant.

I am asking for some evidence of a conspiracy.
See above.

I would suggest lurking moar.

That is excellent advice for the OP, especially given that they are a newer member. Well done!

Thank you for correctly assuming my useless and obfuscating advice was directed at the OP.  Further, I acknowledge and appreciate your exclaimed approval of my use of such lazy, ambiguous, low content advice. I learned this behavior from someone recently lurking around and posting similar junk on this forum.
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: rabinoz on April 24, 2017, 03:21:00 PM
And when I find so weak in arguments like yours is that if the Russians or anyone else were trying to fool us they would make their drawings look like what we expect.
Hahaha rabbi, why are you so bad at recognising satire ?
NASA can create a cube earth from space that looks as real as your ''photo's''.
Don't you see that ? In the aftermath everything from NASA is as it should be....that is the default setting.
Duplicated clouds,....NASA has the real answer
Please post evidence of photos that NASA claims are actual single photos with "Duplicated clouds".

Quote from: dutchy
Different continents.....that is how optics work
Don't you mean perspective and orientation. Continents looking different can be caused by distance (perspective) and the orientation.

The "perspective point" to cause that is simply distance!

This is a simulation using a desktop globe:
(https://www.metabunk.org/sk/globe_comparison_with_distance.jpg)
From Debunked: "Blue Marble" Photos show a Changing Earth (https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-blue-marble-photos-show-a-changing-earth.t6616/)

Quote from: dutchy
Citylights in Western Australia were no cities are in the nightsky timelaps from ISS........uhhhh it must have been the forest fires during that period.
Please post these photos references to their source.

Quote from: dutchy
Even when they somehow would forget a continent there will be a perfect explanation. Because that is the default setting...everything that NASA presents is real !
Please post these photos references to their source.

You, like so many flat earthers, simply claim rubbish and when we look into it all we find is a flat earth YouTube video!

When you make accusations, back them up.

But then, the topic is Conspiracy and you are
proving that without a doubt you believe that is a conspiracy to hide the true shape of the earth.
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: RocksEverywhere on April 24, 2017, 03:27:35 PM
That has to do with the way the picture was taken. When we usually take, and look at, pictures - it's made of red, blue and green light. There are of course other wavelengths of light, but we can't see them. If you take a picture using ultraviolet or infrared, you're going to want to have it show up on your screen. How this is done, is that one of the regular colours - red, blue or green - is replaced with the intensity measured for ultraviolet or infrared, resulting in these odd looking pictures. For the russian picture, it looks like red has been replaced with presumably near infrared, in which vegetation shows up. That's why the African rain forest as well as india, china, thailand etcetera have a very red-orangish tint.
Thank you for your efforts !!, but i hope you see the problem with these kind of pictures.
If the real footage had to be translated into odd looking pictures for the sake of visuality, then how can we determine anyhing at all ?
I am sure that a photoshop expert can make an equall quality rendering without relying on supposed ''space'' data....i think i've allready seen them and they look equally valid.
I am also sure that NASA can make a cube earth rendering that looks as valid as the globe earth renderings.

I truly cannot believe that globers can't see this obvious problem. Photos from space don't cut it as undeniable proof for a globe earth.
But thanks again. I alway appreciate these kind of responses !
How else would you suggest visualizing UV or IR in pictures?
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: JackBlack on April 24, 2017, 04:00:45 PM
I am also sure that NASA can make a cube earth rendering that looks as valid as the globe earth renderings.
No. They can't.
To produce it as a cube it would result in serious distortion of the continents which would not match actual measurements (just like what happens on a flat Earth map).

I truly cannot believe that globers can't see this obvious problem. Photos from space don't cut it as undeniable proof for a globe earth.
But thanks again. I alway appreciate these kind of responses !
It isn't undeniable proof. It is just very strong evidence.

NASA can create a cube earth from space that looks as real as your ''photo's''.
Nope. It wouldn't match the size and shape of continents.

Duplicated clouds,....NASA has the real answer
Yes, duplicated clouds in a computer model of Earth, using data from low altitude satellites with observations spanning quite some time, which were then stitched together.
No problem there.
NASA never pretended that was a single image of Earth. They indicated it was a composite.

Different continents.....that is how optics work
No. The same continents, just different views of them.
If you would like another, look down. In that view, the continent more than fills the entire circular FOV that Earth resides in (assuming you aren't near the beach).
Does that mean its size has changed? No.

Is that all FEers have? Ignorance of reality?

Citylights in Western Australia were no cities are in the nightsky timelaps from ISS........uhhhh it must have been the forest fires during that period.
Care to provide an example?

Even when they somehow would forget a continent there will be a perfect explanation. Because that is the default setting...everything that NASA presents is real !
Nope.
The default for FEers is that NASA is lying and thus they try and find some excuse to claim it is fake.
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: dutchy on April 24, 2017, 04:13:48 PM
Please post evidence of photos that NASA claims are actual single photos with "Duplicated clouds".
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/klP6Z1Ahqos/hqdefault.jpg (https://i.ytimg.com/vi/klP6Z1Ahqos/hqdefault.jpg)
Quote
Don't you mean perspective and orientation. Continents looking different can be caused by distance (perspective) and the orientation.

The "perspective point" to cause that is simply distance!
That is what i said....not ? It is almost like NASA did take a children's globe as in your example to figuer out perspective in space and how they would create their CGI image......nah they wouldn't, would they ???
But a REAL non cgi film of a spinning earth is out of the question,....is it ?
Quote
Please post these photos references to their source.
The 2011Ė12 Australian bushfire season was mostly active between September 2011 to March 2012 and caused most damage in the state of Western Australia, particularly in the South West. The state had been prepared and had expected an increased risk of bushfire following heavy spring rains as a result of a La Nina weather
(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/712518main1_EAN-australia-673.jpg)
The extent of the night lights in this area is also a function of composite imaging. These new images were assembled from data acquired over nine days in April 2012 and 13 days in October 2012.[/b]]over nine days in April 2012 and 13 days in October 2012. (http://[b)
Quote
You, like so many flat earthers, simply claim rubbish and when we look into it all we find is a flat earth YouTube video!

When you make accusations, back them up.
Need more ? Or is accurate data of place and time not considered as proof of composite fakery?
In april 2012 most of the fires were calmed down, but NASA pretends the whole Westcoast is on fire still.....because they added some october 2012 data appearently

I really wonder how you will squirm yourself out of this one.....but you will come up with something i guess.....october 2012 i guess ?
All fires were put together that is why we see this burning site......
Boy o boy what has this to do with reality whatsoever ?
You are such a gullible NASA fanboy.....btw the black marble looks extremely fake, what else do you need ?
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: JackBlack on April 24, 2017, 04:19:34 PM
Please post evidence of photos that NASA claims are actual single photos with "Duplicated clouds".
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/klP6Z1Ahqos/hqdefault.jpg (https://i.ytimg.com/vi/klP6Z1Ahqos/hqdefault.jpg)
And the claim from NASA that this is a single photo instead of the computer model/composite image?

That is what i said....not ? It is almost like NASA did take a children's globe as in your example to figuer out perspective in space and how they would create their CGI image......nah they wouldn't, would they ???
No. You were indicating because they look different it mus be fake.

Even if they were faking it they wouldn't use a child's globe. Software already lets you model that.

But a REAL non cgi film of a spinning earth is out of the question,....is it ?
At real speed? No, because you wouldn't notice the incredibly slow rotation.
However, all a film is is a series of images.
We already have the images, so you can make your own film.

Quote
Please post these photos references to their source.
The 2011Ė12 Australian bushfire season was mostly active between September 2011 to March 2012 and caused most damage in the state of Western Australia, particularly in the South West. The state had been prepared and had expected an increased risk of bushfire following heavy spring rains as a result of a La Nina weather
The extent of the night lights in this area is also a function of composite imaging. These new images were assembled from data acquired over nine days in April 2012 and 13 days in October 2012.[/b]]over nine days in April 2012 and 13 days in October 2012. (http://[b)
So yes, it is taking pictures of bush fires, not just city lights.

If they were faking it, do you think they would have made that mistake?

Need more ? Or is accurate data of place and time not considered as proof ?
In april 2012 most of the fires were calmed down, but NASA pretends the whole Westcoast is on fire still.....
While reality says it was during september 2011 till march 2012 in the South West of Australia
And what about the section in October? Or do you think 2011-2012 was the only bush-fire season there was?

And no, that wasn't the hole west coast still on fire.
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: Jonny B Smart on April 24, 2017, 04:46:42 PM
There are two proofs of a spherical Earth (orbited by the Moon and orbiting the Sun) that are free and available to the entire world:

1) We see circumpolar stars all year long, but other stars come and go annually. People who have the advantage of traveling between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres will notice different circumpolar stars rotating daily, but the annual change in some stars (constellations) but not others tells us that we are orbiting the Sun.
2) Eclipses are perfectly predictable using RE math and science, but FE models can't even explain them. Lunar eclipses ALWAYS happen during a full Moon, and solar eclipses ALWAYS happen during a new Moon. FE can't even come up with a decent explanation of he phases of the Moon. Those nonsense models show people being able to see different phases of the Moon on different places on the same night. Nope! Never happens.
Bonus evidence (I said two, but here's a third!):
The "spotlight sun" model means that the Sun would come into view (not rise) at a twenty-something degree angle, yet everyone can see it disappear below zero degrees (horizontal).

No need for NASA to know the sphere Earth. That's why people have known it to be a sphere for over 2,000 years.

Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: rabinoz on April 24, 2017, 04:53:11 PM
Please post evidence of photos that NASA claims are actual single photos with "Duplicated clouds".
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/klP6Z1Ahqos/hqdefault.jpg (https://i.ytimg.com/vi/klP6Z1Ahqos/hqdefault.jpg)
And what "Blue Marble" photo is that from?
The one that NASA stated on their website was a "composite" built up from data obtained from satellites in orbit too low to take the whole earth in one frame?
So what, there is nothing dishonest or questionable about that!
See more detail in Flat Earth Debate / Re: A scientific manor that Proves that the Earth has no Curvature ę Message by rabinoz on April 20, 2017, 10:45:22 PM Ľ (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70273.msg1899215;topicseen#msg1899215)

Quote from: dutchy
Quote
Don't you mean perspective and orientation. Continents looking different can be caused by distance (perspective) and the orientation.

The "perspective point" to cause that is simply distance!
That is what i said....not ? It is almost like NASA did take a children's globe as in your example to figuer out perspective in space and how they would create their CGI image......nah they wouldn't, would they ???
But a REAL non cgi film of a spinning earth is out of the question,....is it ?

Quote from: dutchy
Quote
Please post these photos references to their source.
The 2011Ė12 Australian bushfire season was mostly active between September 2011 to March 2012 and caused most damage in the state of Western Australia, particularly in the South West. The state had been prepared and had expected an increased risk of bushfire following heavy spring rains as a result of a La Nina weather
(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/712518main1_EAN-australia-673.jpg)
The extent of the night lights in this area is also a function of composite imaging. These new images were assembled from data acquired over nine days in April 2012 and 13 days in October 2012.[/b]]over nine days in April 2012 and 13 days in October 2012. (http://[b)
So what proves that it is fake?
It is claimed that "extent of the night lights in this area is also a function of composite imaging"
Yes, I know the magic, all knowing eye of that totally unbiased critic dutchy thinks so!
::) ::) I have plenty of grains of salt to take with anything you say!  ::) ::)

Quote from: dutchy
Quote
You, like so many flat earthers, simply claim rubbish and when we look into it all we find is a flat earth YouTube video!

When you make accusations, back them up.
Need more ? Or is accurate data of place and time not considered as proof ?
In april 2012 most of the fires were calmed down, but NASA pretends the whole Westcoast is on fire still.....
You are such a gullible NASA fanboy.....btw the balck marble looks extremely fake, what else do you need ?
What on earth is a "balck marble" that "looks extremely fake"?

No, I'm not "a gullible NASA fanboy".
I simply fail to understand why ignorant NASAphobic conspiratards (Is that an apt description?) like yourself blame NASA for the belief in the Heliocentric Globe earth!

You are about 2300 years too late on the Globe part!
See Flat Earth General / Re: What really happpened to make the people think earth was round? ę on: April 23, 2017, 07:26:17 PM Ľ (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70338.msg1900514#msg1900514)
and even a few hundred years BC some thought the sun was the centre of the solar system.
Quote
Aristarchus of Samos (310-230 B.C.). Proposed that the sun is at the center of the universe with Earth along with the other planets circulating around it. He estimated the distance of the sun from the Earth by observing the angle between the sun and the moon when it is exactly half full.

And the Indian mathematician Aryabhata (AD 476Ė550) proposed the heliocentric globe well before even Copernicus (1473 AD-1543 AD).

So go and learn a bit about the subject and forget blaming NASA, they had nothing at all to do with it.
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: Junker on April 24, 2017, 05:44:43 PM
Thank you for correctly assuming my useless and obfuscating advice was directed at the OP. 
On the contrary, it is the most useful thing you have posted.

Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: rabinoz on April 24, 2017, 06:03:49 PM
Thank you for correctly assuming my useless and obfuscating advice was directed at the OP. 
On the contrary, it is the most useful thing you have posted.
Do you ever post anything useful? All you ever try to is denigrate other people.

Still, since you don't have a workable Flat Earth hypothesis you have to keep people sidetracked as long as possible.
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: Junker on April 24, 2017, 06:09:34 PM
Do you ever post anything useful?
Yes.

Still, since you don't have a workable Flat Earth hypothesis you have to keep people sidetracked as long as possible.
False.
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: Piesigma on April 24, 2017, 07:27:28 PM
Thank you for correctly assuming my useless and obfuscating advice was directed at the OP. 
On the contrary, it is the most useful thing you have posted.

Thanks for recognizing the unfortunate utility of my posts.  As you have tacitly acknowledged my comment is of far more utility and significance than anything you have posted recently.  Thanks for helping me understand that although I was haphazardly trying to create the semblance of your uselessness, you have helped me to demonstrate my comments come nowhere near as useless and insignificant as yours.  I couldnít have done it without you, my friend.
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: rabinoz on April 24, 2017, 07:49:50 PM
Do you ever post anything useful?
Yes.
Please refer me to something useful that you have posted!
You not in that "sheltered workshop" of the TFES.org now.

Quote from: Junker
Still, since you don't have a workable Flat Earth hypothesis you have to keep people sidetracked as long as possible.
False.
Well justify your claim by posting a link to "a workable Flat Earth hypothesis" that explains at least the easily visible observations.
I'd list a few, but you'd complain that there were too many questions in the one post.

There is no "workable Flat Earth hypothesis" in "the FAQ", "the Wiki" or "Rowbotham".
There are numerous things there that simply don't match reality, I'd mention Lunar Eclipses but you'd say "off topic".
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: Junker on April 24, 2017, 09:50:28 PM
Thanks for recognizing the unfortunate utility of my posts. 
You are welcome. Don't worry, round earth logicians never know when they are right or wrong anyway. Even a blind dog finds a bone occasionally.

As you have tacitly acknowledged my comment is of far more utility and significance than anything you have posted recently.
False. See above

Thanks for helping me understand that
No worries, I do it for roundies all the time.

I couldnít have done it without you, my friend.
Maybe not today, but if you worked extra hard for a very long time, you may just get there on your own. Take care, friend! :)


Please refer me to something useful that you have posted!
You are already in the thread, friend.


You not in that "sheltered workshop" of the TFES.org now.
What? I am not what you are trying to say, but I was a member here long before anywhere else, so your comment is literally irrelevant. Maybe you should take your own advice about posting something helpful, because you certainly don't seem to.

Well justify your claim by posting a link to "a workable Flat Earth hypothesis"
I would suggest reading the wiki, FAQ, and doing a bit of lurking on the forum. It isn't perfect, but it is plenty workable.


There is no "workable Flat Earth hypothesis" in "the FAQ", "the Wiki" or "Rowbotham".
Objectively false.

There are numerous things there that simply don't match reality, I'd mention Lunar Eclipses but you'd say "off topic".
It isn't like you ever stay on topic anyway. It is the round earth method. When you can't engage someone on the actual topic, you try to deflect to something else. Unfortunately that seems to happen in most threads. Oh well, it is not anything new.
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: JackBlack on April 24, 2017, 10:12:36 PM
There is no "workable Flat Earth hypothesis" in "the FAQ", "the Wiki" or "Rowbotham".
Objectively false.
Then provide this workable flat Earth hypothesis you claim exists.
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: Jonny B Smart on April 25, 2017, 04:59:11 AM
There is no "workable Flat Earth hypothesis" in "the FAQ", "the Wiki" or "Rowbotham".
Objectively false.
Then provide this workable flat Earth hypothesis you claim exists.

By "workable," we mean "accounts for as many or more observations than those that can be explained/predicted by RE math and science."

This includes (sorry if I'm wandering off topic, but "workable" is broad):
--eclipses including how their exact time of arrival and location can be predicted decades in advance
--flight distances
--ships, buildings, mountains, and the Sun disappearing from the bottom up
--northern circumpolar stars being different than southern circumpolar stars
--equatorial constellations change on an annual cycle while circumpolar constellations are there all year
--the time of sunset varies with altitude
--the "altitude" of the Sun and the angle of sunset
--phases of the Moon
--tides
--the fact that stars have a composition and temperature similar to the Sun
--motion of the planets, including the easily visible orbiting moons of Jupiter and how it was a mathematician who found Neptune using RE math and physics
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: ScintillaOfStars on April 25, 2017, 05:04:10 AM
There is no "workable Flat Earth hypothesis" in "the FAQ", "the Wiki" or "Rowbotham".
Objectively false.
Then provide this workable flat Earth hypothesis you claim exists.

By "workable," we mean "accounts for as many or more observations than those that can be explained/predicted by RE math and science."

This includes (sorry if I'm wandering off topic, but "workable" is broad):
--eclipses including how their exact time of arrival and location can be predicted decades in advance
--flight distances
--ships, buildings, mountains, and the Sun disappearing from the bottom up
--northern circumpolar stars being different than southern circumpolar stars
--equatorial constellations change on an annual cycle while circumpolar constellations are there all year
--the time of sunset varies with altitude
--the "altitude" of the Sun and the angle of sunset
--phases of the Moon
--tides
--the fact that stars have a composition and temperature similar to the Sun
--motion of the planets, including the easily visible orbiting moons of Jupiter and how it was a mathematician who found Neptune using RE math and physics

Wait, but I can find RE explanation for those with a Google search... I was under the impression there is no one single workable hypothesis as of yet, merely a series of theories which defend different contentions.
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: Piesigma on April 25, 2017, 06:15:03 AM
Quote
You are welcome. Don't worry, round earth logicians never know when they are right or wrong anyway. Even a blind dog finds a bone occasionally.


Yes Junker that's true. Good boy. Keep trying, perhaps one day you'll become as intelligent as a blind dog and find yourself a bone too. That is a quite optimistic goal you have given yourself. See your content is improving.


Quote
False. See above

Now you are already doubting yourself?  Don't give up yet just take small steps if you have to. I believe in you, my friend.


Quote
No worries, I do it for roundies all the time.

Once again, thank you.  Note that you don't always have to look foolish for us flat earthers and roundies on this forum ;)

Quote
Maybe not today, but if you worked extra hard for a very long time, you may just get there on your own. Take care, friend! :)

See my thank you above.  Good luck and keep aiming high.


Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: Jonny B Smart on April 25, 2017, 07:03:09 AM
There is no "workable Flat Earth hypothesis" in "the FAQ", "the Wiki" or "Rowbotham".
Objectively false.
Then provide this workable flat Earth hypothesis you claim exists.

By "workable," we mean "accounts for as many or more observations than those that can be explained/predicted by RE math and science."

This includes (sorry if I'm wandering off topic, but "workable" is broad):
--eclipses including how their exact time of arrival and location can be predicted decades in advance
--flight distances
--ships, buildings, mountains, and the Sun disappearing from the bottom up
--northern circumpolar stars being different than southern circumpolar stars
--equatorial constellations change on an annual cycle while circumpolar constellations are there all year
--the time of sunset varies with altitude
--the "altitude" of the Sun and the angle of sunset
--phases of the Moon
--tides
--the fact that stars have a composition and temperature similar to the Sun
--motion of the planets, including the easily visible orbiting moons of Jupiter and how it was a mathematician who found Neptune using RE math and physics

Wait, but I can find RE explanation for those with a Google search... I was under the impression there is no one single workable hypothesis as of yet, merely a series of theories which defend different contentions.

Yes. My point is that RE explains all of that coherently and concisely. All of those things are easy to understand with RE, but FE has to come up with half-guesses for most things and confusing, contradictory nonsense to explain two observations at the same time. "Coherence" is not in their vocabulary, science is against their religion, and they don't care about math.
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: ScintillaOfStars on April 25, 2017, 07:05:14 AM
There is no "workable Flat Earth hypothesis" in "the FAQ", "the Wiki" or "Rowbotham".
Objectively false.
Then provide this workable flat Earth hypothesis you claim exists.

By "workable," we mean "accounts for as many or more observations than those that can be explained/predicted by RE math and science."

This includes (sorry if I'm wandering off topic, but "workable" is broad):
--eclipses including how their exact time of arrival and location can be predicted decades in advance
--flight distances
--ships, buildings, mountains, and the Sun disappearing from the bottom up
--northern circumpolar stars being different than southern circumpolar stars
--equatorial constellations change on an annual cycle while circumpolar constellations are there all year
--the time of sunset varies with altitude
--the "altitude" of the Sun and the angle of sunset
--phases of the Moon
--tides
--the fact that stars have a composition and temperature similar to the Sun
--motion of the planets, including the easily visible orbiting moons of Jupiter and how it was a mathematician who found Neptune using RE math and physics

Wait, but I can find RE explanation for those with a Google search... I was under the impression there is no one single workable hypothesis as of yet, merely a series of theories which defend different contentions.

Yes. My point is that RE explains all of that coherently and concisely. All of those things are easy to understand with RE, but FE has to come up with half-guesses for most things and confusing, contradictory nonsense to explain two observations at the same time. "Coherence" is not in their vocabulary, science is against their religion, and they don't care about math.

Sorry, I completely missed the sarcasm. Totally my fault. Carry on.
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: justaguy on April 25, 2017, 07:55:03 AM
So let me see if I got this right: Physical Observer=InFlatEarth=Dutchy....Am I missing anybody?
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: Junker on April 25, 2017, 08:28:51 AM
Then provide this workable flat Earth hypothesis you claim exists.
Already done, friend.

Yes Junker that's true.
I am glad you agree with me. Seems you might actually be making progress.

Now you are already doubting yourself?  Don't give up yet just take small steps if you have to. I believe in you, my friend.
I am quite sorry if you are struggling with basic reading comprehension. I would suggest you browse over to rif.org and use some of their resources. Once you have worked on your issues, feel free to come back. If you need any help overcoming your challenges, just ask, friend! :)

Once again, thank you.
You are welcome. If you follow my advice, you may just overcome all of these issues of yours.

See my thank you above.
While you keep struggling with the very basics, you are at least polite. That will at least get you somewhere in the event the struggle to overcome your issues proves to be too great. Anyway, it has been fun. Do take care and report back on your progress, friend.


Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: Canadabear on April 25, 2017, 08:37:06 AM
Then provide this workable flat Earth hypothesis you claim exists.
Already done, friend.
where
because there is no workable Flat Earth Idea, all explanations are wrong and debunked
Quote

Yes Junker that's true.
I am glad you agree with me. Seems you might actually be making progress.

Now you are already doubting yourself?  Don't give up yet just take small steps if you have to. I believe in you, my friend.
I am quite sorry if you are struggling with basic reading comprehension. I would suggest you browse over to rif.org and use some of their resources. Once you have worked on your issues, feel free to come back. If you need any help overcoming your challenges, just ask, friend! :)

Once again, thank you.
You are welcome. If you follow my advice, you may just overcome all of these issues of yours.

See my thank you above.
While you keep struggling with the very basics, you are at least polite. That will at least get you somewhere in the event the struggle to overcome your issues proves to be too great. Anyway, it has been fun. Do take care and report back on your progress, friend.
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: Junker on April 25, 2017, 08:44:53 AM
where
In multiple threads on these fora, as a simple search will show.

because there is no workable Flat Earth Idea, all explanations are wrong and debunked
Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim?

Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: Canadabear on April 25, 2017, 09:02:10 AM
where
In multiple threads on these fora, as a simple search will show.

because there is no workable Flat Earth Idea, all explanations are wrong and debunked
Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim?

how about the effect of the curvature that you can see if you look across Lake Ontario to Toronto and you are not able to see the lower level buildings.

also what is with the thousand of videos and pictures from space.

Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: Jonny B Smart on April 25, 2017, 09:29:39 AM
The wiki says nothing about why constellations change throughout the seasons.
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: justaguy on April 25, 2017, 09:36:03 AM
where
In multiple threads on these fora, as a simple search will show.

because there is no workable Flat Earth Idea, all explanations are wrong and debunked
Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim?

Instead of asking where the evidence is for his outlandish claim, how about you provide some evidence of the outlandish claim that the earth is flat?  Oh, I forgot, you don't like to provide answers, you just like to talk down to everybody.
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: Junker on April 25, 2017, 10:05:11 AM
how about the effect of the curvature that you can see if you look across Lake Ontario to Toronto and you are not able to see the lower level buildings.
Have you read ENaG? This is pretty basic.

also what is with the thousand of videos and pictures from space.
What about them?

The wiki says nothing about why constellations change throughout the seasons.
What does that have to do with an alleged conspiracy? Do you know what thread you are in?

how about you provide some evidence of the outlandish claim that the earth is flat? 
If I made that claim, I would be sure to provide evidence for it. Did you actually read the thread?

Oh, I forgot, you don't like to provide answers, you just like to talk down to everybody.
False.
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: Canadabear on April 25, 2017, 10:23:45 AM
how about the effect of the curvature that you can see if you look across Lake Ontario to Toronto and you are not able to see the lower level buildings.
Have you read ENaG? This is pretty basic.

no i have not, what does that stand for?
ENaG?

i choose this example because i could observe it myself
Quote

also what is with the thousand of videos and pictures from space.
What about them?
they prove the earth is a globe
[globe]

The wiki says nothing about why constellations change throughout the seasons.
What does that have to do with an alleged conspiracy? Do you know what thread you are in?

how about you provide some evidence of the outlandish claim that the earth is flat? 
If I made that claim, I would be sure to provide evidence for it. Did you actually read the thread?

Oh, I forgot, you don't like to provide answers, you just like to talk down to everybody.
False.
[/quote]

i have read this thread again completely and you have not given one explanation about anything.
everyone can check that and see that you are lying.
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: Junker on April 25, 2017, 10:30:26 AM
Can you make an attempt to properly use the quote feature? It would making reading your nonsense much easier.

no i have not, what does that stand for?
ENaG?
Earth Not a Globe. It is available in the Library right here on this very website.

they prove the earth is a globe
[globe]
False.
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: Canadabear on April 25, 2017, 10:41:41 AM
Can you make an attempt to properly use the quote feature? It would making reading your nonsense much easier.

i use it the same way you also use it
its not my problem if you problem with reading

Quote
no i have not, what does that stand for?
ENaG?
Earth Not a Globe. It is available in the Library right here on this very website.

they prove the earth is a globe
[globe]
False.

please explain why all videos and pictures from space are wrong.
and also show us the evidence for that claim/explanation
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: Junker on April 25, 2017, 11:10:31 AM
please explain why all videos and pictures from space are wrong.

Given that I never said that, why would I attempt to explain it?
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: Canadabear on April 25, 2017, 11:17:16 AM
please explain why all videos and pictures from space are wrong.

Given that I never said that, why would I attempt to explain it?

look a little up on your post.
i said that the videos and pictures prove that the earth is a globe, and you said that i am wrong.
now explain to me why i am wrong.
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: Junker on April 25, 2017, 11:28:39 AM
i said that the videos and pictures prove that the earth is a globe, and you said that i am wrong.
Yes, I know.

now explain to me why i am wrong.
That isn't how the burden of proof works, friend. It isn't up to me to prove you wrong, it is up to you to prove your claims.
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: Canadabear on April 25, 2017, 11:30:10 AM
i said that the videos and pictures prove that the earth is a globe, and you said that i am wrong.
Yes, I know.

now explain to me why i am wrong.
That isn't how the burden of proof works, friend. It isn't up to me to prove you wrong, it is up to you to prove your claims.

as i said the pictures clearly show a global earth.
now you would have to disprove that, can you show us pictures of a flat earth?
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: Junker on April 25, 2017, 11:33:08 AM
as i said the pictures clearly show a global earth.
You certainly did claim that. However, you have not proven your claim. I feel like we are going in circles here because of your inability to understand a fairly simple concept.

now you would have to disprove that
No, I don't have to disprove a claim you made without supporting evidence.
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: justaguy on April 25, 2017, 11:38:25 AM
as i said the pictures clearly show a global earth.
You certainly did claim that. However, you have not proven your claim. I feel like we are going in circles here because of your inability to understand a fairly simple concept.

now you would have to disprove that
No, I don't have to disprove a claim you made without supporting evidence.

Junker, the burden of proof is on you.  You made the claim that his pictures do not prove a flat earth. 
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: Junker on April 25, 2017, 11:44:21 AM
Junker, the burden of proof is on you.  You made the claim that his pictures do not prove a flat earth.
I would suggest you look up how the burden of proof works, friend. He made an unsubstantiated claim. It is not on me to prove him wrong. It is up to him to prove his claim. I am not sure how to explain this in a more simple manner so you actually understand it.
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: Canadabear on April 25, 2017, 11:48:41 AM
as i said the pictures clearly show a global earth.
You certainly did claim that. However, you have not proven your claim. I feel like we are going in circles here because of your inability to understand a fairly simple concept.

now you would have to disprove that
No, I don't have to disprove a claim you made without supporting evidence.

and your claim is that the earth is flat, where is your evidence for that?
i at least can show you all the pictures that are taken from space, and the source say that they are correct.
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: Junker on April 25, 2017, 11:50:20 AM
and your claim is that the earth is flat...

Where did I make that claim?
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: Canadabear on April 25, 2017, 11:51:54 AM
Junker, the burden of proof is on you.  You made the claim that his pictures do not prove a flat earth.
I would suggest you look up how the burden of proof works, friend. He made an unsubstantiated claim. It is not on me to prove him wrong. It is up to him to prove his claim. I am not sure how to explain this in a more simple manner so you actually understand it.

you make the unsubstantiated claim that the earth is flat. against all scientists that show evidence that the earth is a globe.
this claim is proven a lot of time and it is backed up with lots of experiments.
now its up to you to prove your claim.
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: justaguy on April 25, 2017, 11:51:59 AM
Junker, the burden of proof is on you.  You made the claim that his pictures do not prove a flat earth.
I would suggest you look up how the burden of proof works, friend. He made an unsubstantiated claim. It is not on me to prove him wrong. It is up to him to prove his claim. I am not sure how to explain this in a more simple manner so you actually understand it.

He didn't make an unsubstantiated claim.  He makes a claim that the earth is round, and showed evidence of that claim by showing pictures of the earth from space, showing it to be a sphere.  Therefore, it is a substantiated claim.   Your claim, so far, is unsubstantiated. 
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: justaguy on April 25, 2017, 11:53:33 AM
and your claim is that the earth is flat...

Where did I make that claim?

Fine, put your money where you mouth is.  What do you believe?  Is the earth a sphere or flat?
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: Jonny B Smart on April 25, 2017, 12:05:38 PM
I can tell using simple observations from my home and from my visits to the ocean that the Earth is a sphere.  Given that I know what is a sphere, and I know that NASA can launch rockets, and I know that my GPS works, and I see satellite photographs of weather phenomenon that can be observed in the ground,  and given that I have a Google earth which is extremely accurate, and it is not difficult for me to surmise that Rockets go to space and produce those images.

 Evidence of a spherical earth is compatible with evidence from NASA. Now if someone is all confused and thinks that the earth is flat, then I can imagine why they might think that  NASA is fake. And I still, I can never quite figure out how the conspiracy nuts believe that tens of thousands  or hundreds of thousands or even millions of people from different countries all over the world would cooperate in this massive conspiracy.
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: Junker on April 25, 2017, 12:06:58 PM
you make the unsubstantiated claim that the earth is flat.
Can you point out where I made that claim?

He didn't make an unsubstantiated claim. 
False.

He makes a claim that the earth is round
Yes, he did.

and showed evidence of that claim by showing pictures of the earth from space
No, he didn't.

I really don't understand why you are having such a hard time with this.

Is the earth a sphere or flat?
Yes.
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: justaguy on April 25, 2017, 12:11:28 PM
you make the unsubstantiated claim that the earth is flat.
Can you point out where I made that claim?

He didn't make an unsubstantiated claim. 
False.

He makes a claim that the earth is round
Yes, he did.

and showed evidence of that claim by showing pictures of the earth from space
No, he didn't.

I really don't understand why you are having such a hard time with this.

Is the earth a sphere or flat?
Yes.

As i figured, you are a coward and a bully.  You think that you are so much smarter than everyone else on this site, and who knows, you may be.  But you have shown to have the maturity of a 6 year old.  You are nothing but a troll, you offer no evidence, no intelligence insight.  I ask a simple question at the beginning of this forum, and you nit-pick the question to avoid it.  Congratulations, you are a troll.  Now come out of your parents basement and join the rest of the world.
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: Canadabear on April 25, 2017, 12:21:40 PM
you make the unsubstantiated claim that the earth is flat.
Can you point out where I made that claim?

He didn't make an unsubstantiated claim. 
False.

He makes a claim that the earth is round
Yes, he did.

and showed evidence of that claim by showing pictures of the earth from space
No, he didn't.

I really don't understand why you are having such a hard time with this.

Is the earth a sphere or flat?
Yes.

As i figured, you are a coward and a bully.  You think that you are so much smarter than everyone else on this site, and who knows, you may be.  But you have shown to have the maturity of a 6 year old.  You are nothing but a troll, you offer no evidence, no intelligence insight.  I ask a simple question at the beginning of this forum, and you nit-pick the question to avoid it.  Congratulations, you are a troll.  Now come out of your parents basement and join the rest of the world.

we will see how long he keeps up to avoiding to show evidence for anything.

i like trolls they are funny to play with  ;D
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: Junker on April 25, 2017, 12:28:37 PM
As i figured, you are a coward and a bully. 
:(

You think that you are so much smarter than everyone else on this site
When did I ever say that?

...and who knows, you may be.
Aww, thanks.

*more childish ranting...
Do you feel better now?

we will see how long he keeps up to avoiding to show evidence for anything.
Evidence for what? You are the one with an outstanding claim that requires evidence to support it.
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: inquisitive on April 25, 2017, 12:47:00 PM

we will see how long he keeps up to avoiding to show evidence for anything.
Evidence for what? You are the one with an outstanding claim that requires evidence to support it.
If you do not accept the evidence of a round earth then that is your decision.  End of story.
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: Junker on April 25, 2017, 12:50:16 PM
If you do not accept the evidence of a round earth then that is your decision.  End of story.

Where did I say I wouldn't accept evidence of a round earth?
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: justaguy on April 25, 2017, 12:55:28 PM
As i figured, you are a coward and a bully. 
:(

You think that you are so much smarter than everyone else on this site
When did I ever say that?

...and who knows, you may be.
Aww, thanks.

*more childish ranting...
Do you feel better now?

we will see how long he keeps up to avoiding to show evidence for anything.
Evidence for what? You are the one with an outstanding claim that requires evidence to support it.

Really?  That is all you have.  That is why you are here, isn't it?  To troll and wait for somebody to say something?  That is all you do here, is bait people.  Of course, you could go to one of you alter-egos and at least try to make an argument.  Because from what I have seen, I believe there is actually only 3 or 4 people who claim (probably just as a joke) that the earth is flat, and use different sign-ins to do so.  And since you don't have the balls to actually say what you believe in, I guess we all know what kind of person you are...
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: inquisitive on April 25, 2017, 01:00:09 PM
If you do not accept the evidence of a round earth then that is your decision.  End of story.

Where did I say I wouldn't accept evidence of a round earth?
I did not say you did.   What about understanding satellite operation, distance measurements, angle of sun etc.  Try doing them.
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: Junker on April 25, 2017, 01:06:31 PM
Really?  That is all you have.
What is all I have  ???

That is why you are here, isn't it?  To troll and wait for somebody to say something?
Yeah, that is why I have had an account here for nine years, to do just that...  ::)

That is all you do here, is bait people. 
False. You make it sound like I am forcing people to respond to me.

Of course, you could go to one of you alter-egos
What?

Because from what I have seen, I believe there is actually only 3 or 4 people who claim (probably just as a joke) that the earth is flat, and use different sign-ins to do so.
I would love to see your evidence for this belief.

And since you don't have the balls to actually say what you believe in, I guess we all know what kind of person you are...
Non-sequitur.
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: FEskeptic on April 25, 2017, 01:18:16 PM
Is the earth a sphere or flat?

Yes.

This is not a yes or no question. I don't know if you just don't understand what questions are, or if you get confused on how to answer them properly, but I bet it's because you're just being a dick.

When given a choice between two options the answer is never "yes" or "no" unless the two options are "yes" or "no".which they are not in this case. The answer can only be one of the options provided. By giving the answer you did, you show that you are either to stupid to understand a question and the proper way to answer it, or are purposefully trolling to get a ride out of people. In both of those cases, continuing a conversation/debate with you is a lesson in futility. You bring nothing to the debate or conversation.

Hopefully I have helped others realize this and they no longer give you the time of day.
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: justaguy on April 25, 2017, 01:21:55 PM
That is why you are here, isn't it?  To troll and wait for somebody to say something?
Yeah, that is why I have had an account here for nine years, to do just that...  ::)

With the evidence I have seen from your posts, that is exactly what you do, apparently for nine years.  Good for you!!
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: Canadabear on April 25, 2017, 01:27:22 PM
That is why you are here, isn't it?  To troll and wait for somebody to say something?
Yeah, that is why I have had an account here for nine years, to do just that...  ::)

With the evidence I have seen from your posts, that is exactly what you do, apparently for nine years.  Good for you!!

and he is not good in math
he joined at 23 March 2009
till now that is just over 8 years and not 9.
or he had multiple accounts, but than the question why?

Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: Junker on April 25, 2017, 01:29:09 PM
he joined at 23 March 2009
till now that is just over 8 years and not 9.

Ah, you got me. If only I knew not going and checking my profile or remembering my exact join date was going to get me found out, I would have never mentioned it...  ::)
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: Canadabear on April 25, 2017, 01:40:31 PM
he joined at 23 March 2009
till now that is just over 8 years and not 9.

Ah, you got me. If only I knew not going and checking my profile or remembering my exact join date was going to get me found out, I would have never mentioned it...  ::)

i am not good in english, but should you not say: i have my account sinse x years and not i have had my account since x year?
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: dutchy on April 25, 2017, 03:14:09 PM
And the claim from NASA that this is a single photo instead of the computer model/composite image?
If the original 1972 photo of the ''blue marble'' is shot by a conventional Hasselblad, then that is what is capable in outerspace.
The moment photoshop and cgi made it to the next level, NASA relies on this technique solely......
We simply ask to use modern ''Hasselblads'' to take pictures from outerspace, even if this means we get grainy pictures that won't be flashy enough to be presented in the next edition of Vogue.
All the crap that the public wants ''good looking'' pictures is beyond me.
If a photoshop artist can make equally ''real'' looking pictures from space without data from infrared and other specialised cosmic camera's says it all !
Quote
No. You were indicating because they look different it mus be fake.
Even if they were faking it they wouldn't use a child's globe. Software already lets you model that.
First thing i would do (did it a lot over the years !!!!!) take the globe we have in the house and see what happens when looking at it from different angles.
To assume that would be the same result for a satelite in outerspace is hogwash.
Simply because we only know what the result is when looking at a chidren's globe.
We don't know what a satelite sees from a distance looking towards earth, we only know what looking at a small globe ''looks like''.
It is a brainwashing technigue.........''look the photo's from outerspace look the same as when i use my cheap camera to photograph my small globe (minus the clouds)''
Quote
At real speed? No, because you wouldn't notice the incredibly slow rotation.
I will watch the whole 24 hours and will decide after that if it was to slow......
Quote
So yes, it is taking pictures of bush fires, not just city lights.

If they were faking it, do you think they would have made that mistake?
So bush fires from outerspace look the same as citylights....the fire explanations came after people complained about ''city lights'' in places without cities.
No black clouds, just the same result as what you see looking towards Sydney and Perth.

It is fake as can be, composites that tell us nothing about a timelapse recording from ISS.
But that's the way it was sold.
We are not seeing real fires and cloud activity, we see cartoons that a photoshop artist can make in a week.
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: JackBlack on April 25, 2017, 03:23:16 PM
Then provide this workable flat Earth hypothesis you claim exists.
Already done, friend.
BULLSHIT!!!
So far all you have provided is a bunch of baseless claims and directing us to go look elsewhere.
So how about you provide it?

where
In multiple threads on these fora, as a simple search will show.
No. It won't.
How about instead of repeatedly telling us to search, you provide a link to one of these magic threads?

because there is no workable Flat Earth Idea, all explanations are wrong and debunked
Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim?
Yes, and it has been provided to you before.
The FE model cannot account for many things.
One of the really big issues is the southern polar stars (including the sun during the southern summer).
This all appear to circle a point due south of the observer, regardless of time of observation (as long as they can be seen).
This point is know as the south celestial pole.
This pole is always located due south, 180 degrees away from the north celestial pole, and this is true regardless of where you are on Earth (although in some locations you can't easily see both).
The only way for this to happen is if Earth is a sphere (or some other shape akin to a sphere). It cannot happen on a flat Earth. On a flat Earth you can't have 2 points such that regardless of where you are, they are 180 degrees apart.
Only for points along the line connecting the 2 points will that be possible. For ever other point you will form a triangle, where the internal angles will add to 180 degrees, making it impossible for the angle between the 2 poles (at your location) to be 180 degrees.
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: Junker on April 25, 2017, 03:26:27 PM
BULLSHIT!!!
I would really recommend you try to be less emotional, friend.

So far all you have provided is a bunch of baseless claims and directing us to go look elsewhere.
What claims?

How about instead of repeatedly telling us to search, you provide a link to one of these magic threads?
Sure thing, as long as you admit that you are incapable or unwilling to do the research yourself.

Yes, and it has been provided to you before.
False.
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: JackBlack on April 25, 2017, 03:43:21 PM
And the claim from NASA that this is a single photo instead of the computer model/composite image?
If the original 1972 photo of the ''blue marble'' is shot by a conventional Hasselblad, then that is what is capable in outerspace.
And that doesn't mean that all pictures they provide are claimed to be single images rather than composites.

The moment photoshop and cgi made it to the next level, NASA relies on this technique solely......
No. They don't. They have many different satellites in space (some which they just launched and others use, like GEOS and DSCOVR), some of these are far enough away from Earth to take what is known as a full disc image. This is because Earth no longer takes up more than the entire FOV in either the x or y direction.
There are plenty of these pictures available.
However, most these days just take a picture of a section of the UV-Vis-IR spectrum, or multiple sections of it as separate pictures, which can then be combined into a single true colour, or false colour image.

We simply ask to use modern ''Hasselblads'' to take pictures from outerspace, even if this means we get grainy pictures that won't be flashy enough to be presented in the next edition of Vogue.
Then go and pay for it. Don't expect NASA to do it just so some conspiracy nuts can just dismiss it anyway. There is really no point at all for them to do that.

If a photoshop artist can make equally ''real'' looking pictures from space without data from infrared and other specialised cosmic camera's says it all !
Why would they need IR when they were making a colour image in the visible region?
They used satellite photos which were stitched together.

First thing i would do (did it a lot over the years !!!!!) take the globe we have in the house and see what happens when looking at it from different angles.
And did you look at it from different distances as well?

To assume that would be the same result for a satelite in outerspace is hogwash.
Why assume it would be different for a satellite in space?
Do you think there is some magic pixie dust in space which will make them all look the same instead of acting just like cameras do on Earth?
Do you think there is some magic that will allow it to act like it is much further away?

Simply because we only know what the result is when looking at a chidren's globe.
We don't know what a satelite sees from a distance looking towards earth, we only know what looking at a small globe ''looks like''.
Except we have photos from them, so we do.

It is a brainwashing technigue.........''look the photo's from outerspace look the same as when i use my cheap camera to photograph my small globe (minus the clouds)''
And why would you expect anything different?
It isn't brainwashing at all.

Quote
At real speed? No, because you wouldn't notice the incredibly slow rotation.
I will watch the whole 24 hours and will decide after that if it was to slow......
Then all you need to do is go set up the camera in space.
Also, how will you tell if it is Earth rotating, the camera orbiting or a combination of both?

Quote
So yes, it is taking pictures of bush fires, not just city lights.

If they were faking it, do you think they would have made that mistake?
So bush fires from outerspace look the same as citylights....the fire explanations came after people complained about ''city lights'' in places without cities.
No black clouds, just the same result as what you see looking towards Sydney and Perth.
Why wouldn't they look the same? Do you understand how long exposure pictures which are then composited and integrated into 1 work?
The lights are effectively saturated pixels. That is why they all appear pretty much the same.
The black clouds don't show up, because while the clouds where there at some points, at other points they weren't and instead the light from the fire went through.
What you are seeing is not a single picture, it is effectively the sum of all the lights.

It is fake as can be, composites that tell us nothing about a timelapse recording from ISS.
And you are yet to show that. There is not a single reason to think it is fake other than paranoia.

But that's the way it was sold.
We are not seeing real fires and cloud activity, we see cartoons that a photoshop artist can make in a week.
PROVE IT.
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: JackBlack on April 25, 2017, 03:46:22 PM
BULLSHIT!!!
I would really recommend you try to be less emotional, friend.
Calling bullshit on your bullshit isn't being emotional.

So far all you have provided is a bunch of baseless claims and directing us to go look elsewhere.
What claims?
Claims that there is a workable FE model.
I know, you try and avoid making claims, but you fail and have made them.

How about instead of repeatedly telling us to search, you provide a link to one of these magic threads?
Sure thing, as long as you admit that you are incapable or unwilling to do the research yourself.
The issue is not that I am incapable of doing so, the issue is that in my searching there isn't any.
I am incapable of finding something that doesn't exist, and I am unwilling to go seaching through every single thread on these forums to find a working model.
Happy now?
Going to provide the magic thread?

Yes, and it has been provided to you before.
False.
Nope. Completely true, I even provided you another here, but of course, no response to that.
Are all the southern stars in on the conspiracy as well, or everyone that can observe them?
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: Junker on April 25, 2017, 03:48:51 PM
I am incapable of finding something...

It sure does seem that way...
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: JackBlack on April 25, 2017, 03:51:38 PM
I am incapable of finding something...

It sure does seem that way...
And of course, you typical dishonest quote mining.

Yes, finding things which don't exist is quite difficult for an honest rational person.

Now are you going to link to the magic thread with a working FE model?
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: Junker on April 25, 2017, 05:09:34 PM
Yes, finding things which don't exist is quite difficult for an honest rational person.
What doesn't exist?

Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: Jonny B Smart on April 25, 2017, 09:58:28 PM
Yes, finding things which don't exist is quite difficult for an honest rational person.
What doesn't exist?

A FE model that accounts for all observations does not exist.
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: Aviation enthusiast on April 25, 2017, 10:19:54 PM
Do you ever post anything useful?
Yes.

Still, since you don't have a workable Flat Earth hypothesis you have to keep people sidetracked as long as possible.
False.

HAHA. I think he just confirmed the previous claim.
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: Aviation enthusiast on April 25, 2017, 10:51:47 PM
This is what you sound like:
you make the unsubstantiated claim that the earth is flat.
Can you point out where I made that claim?

He didn't make an unsubstantiated claim. 
False.

He makes a claim that the earth is round
Yes, he did.

and showed evidence of that claim by showing pictures of the earth from space
No, he didn't.

I really don't understand why you are having such a hard time with this.

Is the earth a sphere or flat?
Yes.

Yes
False
He did
Insert insult
Vague answer.

Maybe we should just answer all his posts with "False" unless he submits something useful.
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: Lonegranger on April 26, 2017, 12:06:54 AM
Yes, finding things which don't exist is quite difficult for an honest rational person.
What doesn't exist?

Your intelligence
Your power of logic
Your ability to structure an argument
Perpetual motion devices
The flat earth
Denpressure

.......how's that for starters?
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: JackBlack on April 26, 2017, 01:25:05 AM
Yes, finding things which don't exist is quite difficult for an honest rational person.
What doesn't exist?
The threads containing workable FE models, the ones you claimed exist, the ones you are yet to show exist.
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: Cartog on June 09, 2017, 11:43:05 PM
Some images of satellite pictures of earth have been Photoshopped or artistically worked on, but not to make them spherical if they started flat -- that would demand too much from Photoshop.
The Photoshopping is limited to this:  A very considerable portion of the earth is covered by clouds at any one time, and also by the dark of night.  A picture showing the earth mostly concealed by clouds and darkness wouldn't satisfy most people, so one photo is combined with others taken from the same perspective to show the entire surface of the hemisphere of the earth, without clouds or darkness.

The photos shown in this thread appear not to have been 'processed' this way.
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: MicroBeta on June 15, 2017, 04:44:47 PM
A short list of some of the more famous intelligence failures. 

-   The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo
-   The Rosenbergs
-   The Bay of Pigs
-   The Pentagon Papers
-   Watergate
-   Iran-Contra
-   ABSCAM
-   White Water
-   Mail Gate 
-   Valerie Plame
-   Abu Ghraib 
-   Bush era warrentless wiretaps
-   Eric Snoden
-   Chelsea Manning
-   Wiki Leaks

This country has never been able to keep a secret for long.  In this day and age, itís near impossible to keep a secret very long even without whistle blowers. 

One of the premises on which FET is based is a conspiracy to hide the fact that the earth is flat.  The problem Iím has is such a conspiracy canít be limited to only NASA and a few other space agencies.  This is a conspiracy that would necessarily require the cooperation of nearly every nation on the planet (certainly those that have been to Antarctica), every prestigious university, and countless scientists involved in any related area of study.  A conspiracy that has existed, at the very least, since world exploration began and probably since the Renaissance.   

This would be a conspiracy spanning centuries and involving enough people over that time span to number in the millions.  Yet, not one person has blown the whistle.  The sheer scale of what it would take to get that many countries and that many people over that much time to perpetuate any lie boggles the mine. 

Yet, in all that time there hasnít been one person who has accidentally come across some document or picture that proves or hints that there might be some conspiracy.  Not even a death bed confession.  Nothing!  Has such a leak been covered up or a could a person not have known what they were looking at? Sure, itís possible but IMHO not very likely.  Heck, during the cold war the former USSR would have loved nothing more than to prove we didnít go to the moon; that we couldnít have gone to the moon.  The implications could have potentially been huge affecting us to this very day.

I work for a defense contractor and one of my collateral duties is in information security.  I know the difficulties in protecting information.  Thatís why I canít rap my head around this conspiracy idea.  Of all the information Iíve read here this is by far the most incredulous idea of all.

I know it may not sound like it but Iím really trying to keep an open mind here.  However, I just canít get past how such a wide spread conspiracy could exist and nobody have leaked it.

Mike
Title: Re: Conspiracy
Post by: Mikey T. on June 15, 2017, 08:36:33 PM
Thing is all FE models absolutely rely on the conspiracy.  That is no straw man, it absolutely relies on everything that could not work anywhere but a spherical Earth being a lie concocted to further the conspiracy, it absolutely relies on every space agency being part of the conspiracy.  I have heard the FE hoaxers say the conspiracy is compartmentalized, I do not think they understand how that would be possible, just something they heard in relation to hiding a small conspiracy. 
This is a pretty big problem, among hundreds of big problems with all those alternative Earth shape ideas.  Being that the conspiracy is so large and far reaching, followers of at least this particular conspiracy theory must close their minds off to the possibility that they are mistaken.  They have to ignore anything that remotely raises any small questions about their idea.  They love to project their own closed mindedness onto anyone who raises questions, it has become a broken record of stupidity.  In all of recorded history, whenever actual verifiable evidence that brings already held theories or ideas into question, science has reexamined and in many instances changed the theory to match the evidence. 
Now take the many instances of that happening, compare it to the FE hoaxers that will give you every stupid excuse they can possibly think of to either twist or ignore anything that disagrees with their ideas.  Whenever they bluster and fan out those peacock feathers, they never can answer how, and refuse to explain that the few explanations they will try to give never works with other explanations.  This is where they normally disappear, deflect, or if they haven't already, start insulting. 
FE, DE, and all other alternative Earth shape theories all must have this conspiracy.  The conspiracy has to be very very vast.  The size of the conspiracy is one huge problem with it, also among many many problems with the conspiracy.

There are just too many things wrong with the basic initial steps into thinking about FE ideas that it so quickly becomes very hard to continue to give energy to trying to give the ideas serious consideration.