Satellites/Conspiracy

RE'ers believe that satellites orbit the Earth, and I agree. If you look at pictures taken from space, they are all above the equator, because thats the height it needs to be to orbit correctly. How does FE explain why the pictures taken are at that angle every time? Just part of the conspiracy or what?

About the conspiracy, what really is the motive behind it? What do they get out of tricking people into thinking the Earth is a globe? Many people say money, but how are they getting all this "conspiracy money" anyways? Also, why hasn't anyone "spilled the beans" yet. They'd be killed if they talked, but some people wouldn't care. Many people in the past have spoken the truth and be killed. With all the governments in on it, why hasn't someone spilled the beans? And, are the conspirators really willing to go to war and kill people to make a convincing conspiracy?

Many people say money, but how are they getting all this "conspiracy money" anyways?

NASA's budget is $16 700 000 000 this year, so, the government.

RE'ers believe that satellites orbit the Earth, and I agree. If you look at pictures taken from space, they are all above the equator, because thats the height it needs to be to orbit correctly. How does FE explain why the pictures taken are at that angle every time? Just part of the conspiracy or what?

You're actually wrong. According to RE quack science, there are various different possible orbits, not all of which require the satellite to be above the equator.

About the conspiracy, what really is the motive behind it? What do they get out of tricking people into thinking the Earth is a globe? Many people say money, but how are they getting all this "conspiracy money" anyways?

The modern conspiracy earns its money through the space programs of the world, which never actually send anything to space.

Also, why hasn't anyone "spilled the beans" yet.

Stop and think. You're posting on the FLAT EARTH SOCIETY forums. We are the ones spilling the beans.

They'd be killed if they talked, but some people wouldn't care.

Evidently not.

Many people in the past have spoken the truth and be killed. With all the governments in on it, why hasn't someone spilled the beans?

Besides my previous points, there have actually been cases of assassination by the conspiracy, where the stakes were high. Use the search function to dig up some of my writings on the assassinations of Scott of the Antarctic, Charles K Johnson, and various other Flat Earth bean-spillers and would-be bean-spillers.

And, are the conspirators really willing to go to war and kill people to make a convincing conspiracy?

Many wars are fought by nations who don't even have space programs, and are not necessarily in on the conspiracy. The only major exception is the Cold War, in which yes, the conspiracy was willing to go to "war" to make a convincing conspiracy. Notice that not that many people actually died in the Cold War considering how long it went on for.

You're actually wrong. According to RE quack science, there are various different possible orbits, not all of which require the satellite to be above the equator.

Little kid, don't call the RE a quack science when it has no HOLES and has an answer for everything.  The FE has uncountable HOLES and many unanswerable topics. 

it has no HOLES and has an answer for everything.

I know you didn't just put that...

Little kid, don't call the RE a quack science when it has no HOLES and has an answer for everything.  The FE has uncountable HOLES and many unanswerable topics. 

Your religious praise of your theory proves nothing. "RE HAS AN ANSWER TO EVERYTHING", "FE SUCKS"... it's not legitimate debate. And why little kid?

Your religious praise of your theory proves nothing. "RE HAS AN ANSWER TO EVERYTHING", "FE SUCKS"... it's not legitimate debate. And why little kid?

Don't expect much from him in the form of debate.

Quote from: sokarul on June 10, 2007, 08:44:38 AM

Little kid, don't call the RE a quack science when it has no HOLES and has an answer for everything.  The FE has uncountable HOLES and many unanswerable topics. 

Your religious praise of your theory proves nothing. "RE HAS AN ANSWER TO EVERYTHING", "FE SUCKS"... it's not legitimate debate. And why little kid?

Because you are.  No one with even Middle school degree would call round earth science a quack science. 
You cant talk about legitimate debating.

You cant talk about legitimate debating.

False. Anyone can talk about legitimate debating, unless they are a mute.

Quote from: sokarul on June 10, 2007, 09:27:35 AM

You cant talk about legitimate debating.

False. Anyone can talk about legitimate debating, unless they are a mute.

And then they can just sign about legitimate debating

I wish you kids would stop arguing about stupid things

Gayer stop arguing about stopping arguing!!

Quote from: sokarul on June 10, 2007, 08:44:38 AM

it has no HOLES and has an answer for everything.

I know you didn't just put that...

I did. 

Now please graduate high school and then come back.

Now please graduate high school and then come back.

Oh, I see we've moved into insults because I'm showcasing your inaccuracy in communication.

And I have already graduated, thanks though.

And to touch on your clearly inaccurate statement from earlier, it doesn't explain everything. There are a number of things in physics that have yet to be answered in relation to science contained in the RE. But of course, you knew that.

Damn right Dogman! So can we stop telling people to go back to school now everyone?

If I went back to school I'd be arrested.

So why dont you say why re science is quack science. 

Well little kid , it's because I believe RE science was, for the most part, cobbled together by misguided conspiracy dupes and the conspiracy itself. That's why I called it quack science.

I call it quack science because of all the ducks that are involved.

But since you are trying to be smart I will change my statement.

I'm not trying to be smart, I'm trying to get people to communicate more accurately, and more literal, so they can make more effective points in the debate. If I can easily tear apart someone's argument and make them angry at me, then I've done what I wanted to do. It was evidenced by you taking the time to make a more accurate statement, that I can't break apart without a lot of work. Well done.

Damn ducks stealing our water.

Quote from: sokarul on June 10, 2007, 09:42:46 AM

So why dont you say why re science is quack science. 

Well little kid , it's because I believe RE science was, for the most part, cobbled together by misguided conspiracy dupes and the conspiracy itself. That's why I called it quack science.

Thats one old ass conspiracy.  I didn't know NASA was a couple thousand years old.
In other news usually quack science would mean that the science doesn't work, like quack doctors.

Sorry, Divito, but any thread in which you intervene inevitably turns into an insult battle..

Sorry, Divito, but any thread in which you intervene inevitably turns into an insult battle..

Like my Myspace states:

"I'm incredibly blunt and rather emotionally detached from most things. This probably causes me to be much more objective and argumentative than most people so I essentially tell it like it is with little regard for people's poor logic, causing most people to become angry under their irrational thought process."

I can't help it. Actually, that's not accurate, I could if I wanted to but I don't.

Quote from: thesublime514 on June 10, 2007, 10:41:36 AM

Sorry, Divito, but any thread in which you intervene inevitably turns into an insult battle..

Like my Myspace states:

"I'm incredibly blunt and rather emotionally detached from most things. This probably causes me to be much more objective and argumentative than most people so I essentially tell it like it is with little regard for people's poor logic, causing most people to become angry under their irrational thought process."

I can't help it. Actually, that's not accurate, I could if I wanted to but I don't.

Yeah, but either way it's pretty well-stated.

Quote from: thesublime514 on June 10, 2007, 10:41:36 AM

Sorry, Divito, but any thread in which you intervene inevitably turns into an insult battle..

Like my Myspace states:

"I'm incredibly blunt and rather emotionally detached from most things. This probably causes me to be much more objective and argumentative than most people so I essentially tell it like it is with little regard for people's poor logic, causing most people to become angry under their irrational thought process."

I can't help it. Actually, that's not accurate, I could if I wanted to but I don't.

Translation: Psychopath.

I dig it.

Translation: Psychopath.

Sounds accurate.

Although through general definitions and criteria, I'm more in sync with a sociopath if you'd want to make the distinction between the two.

I didn't no NASA was a couple thousand years old.

There's another reason for that remedial English class.

And yes, please correct your inaccurate statements.

Quote from: sokarul on June 10, 2007, 10:07:41 AM

I didn't no NASA was a couple thousand years old.

There's another reason for that remedial English class.

And yes, please correct your inaccurate statements.

fixed
None of my statements are inaccurate. 

This one sure is inaccurate:

Little kid, don't call the RE a quack science when it has no HOLES and has an answer for everything.

I did know that and I was going to add that theoretical science doesn't count.  But since you are trying to be smart I will change my statement.
There are no holes in the RET that the FET doesn't have and there are holes in the FET that the RET doesn't have.  There is also nothing that is explained better in the FET then the RET.

You can almost read.  Almost

Too bad that's not the same post. 

You fail at the interwebs.