Satellites/Conspiracy

Convincing case? Oh, I see... Based on that model where dark matter, is invisible, massless, rigid, moves about, supports planets, comets, stars (which you say are actually just planets), glow-producing, monstrously forceful to accelerate the entire Universe at 1g, monstrously huge to support stars quadrillions of miles away, and never directly detected, you've made a convincing case. Did you forget the 30+ challenges that you fail to answer?

We're talking specifically about Scott of the Antarctic's murder. This babble is exactly my point - so convinced are you of the falseness of FET that you use it as an excuse to completely disregard evidence for something which probably did happen.

Much of your criticism based on my model alone is irrelevant in this context - Scott's assassination points only to a general FE coverup, and is independant of my FE physics model.

Scott's murder or not is totally irrelevant seeing as the only links with FET and the expedition are supposition. So what if he was murdered? Unless there is evidence linking the murder to FET it is completely moot.

Indeed, maybe he just owed someone a LOT of money.

or any other number of reasons people murder each other. Do you have any idea how many people are murdered for less than 'history altering' motives?

or any other number of reasons people murder each other. Do you have any idea how many people are murdered for less than 'history altering' motives?

Ok, so present a viable alternative motive for murdering Scott, from someone with the means to do so.

Robert F Scott was pretty well financially endowed at the time of the expedition, making his owing of money very unlikely (what's more, there's no reason Scott's phantom loan shark wouldn't have killed him at home instead of trekking out to the Antarctic, whereas there is a glaringly obvious reason the Conspiracy would have done just that).

I don't see how anyone was making anything from the Conspiracy prior to the Space-race

Why do we have to present a viable alternative? You're the one saying it was down to the FET.

Why do we have to present a viable alternative? You're the one saying it was down to the FET.

Because that's how reason works. You have to back up your claims with something resembling a plausible argument.

I asked you first.

We're not making any claims. We are simply saying there is no proof he was even murdered (other than the fact he is dead, but murder isn't the only explanation). All the evidence is purely speculation and circumstance. You are asserting that he WAS murdered, and further that this murder was carried out by a giant Flat Earth conspiracy.

We're not making any claims. We are simply saying there is no proof he was even murdered (other than the fact he is dead, but murder isn't the only explanation). All the evidence is purely speculation and circumstance. You are asserting that he WAS murdered, and further that this murder was carried out by a giant Flat Earth conspiracy.

I'm asserting that the evidence suggests he was murdered. I'm not stupid enough to claim that I know it for certain, but I've shown a large amount of compelling evidence which has been utterly ignored.

Murdered != Conspiracy murdered.

Murdered != Conspiracy murdered.

No, but reason (without blind faith in globularism) would suggest that this is the case - he was about to break the news (assuming it exists) of the Ice Wall, and the manner of his death suggests a level of sophistication typical of governments and other large organizations.

Reason suggests nothing about motive. For all we know it could have been a fight about who gets the last food and he was killed by one of his comrades before they ultimately froze to death. A rational mind would not conclude that a conspiracy was behind it. The manner of his death suggests a level of sophistication typical of someone who really wanted him dead, government or otherwise.

Reason suggests nothing about motive. For all we know it could have been a fight about who gets the last food and he was killed by one of his comrades before they ultimately froze to death. A rational mind would not conclude that a conspiracy was behind it. The manner of his death suggests a level of sophistication typical of someone who really wanted him dead, government or otherwise.

Scenarios such as this aren't feasible because he had no fatal wounds or bruising which would suggest a crude fight to the death or anything similar.

And I agree with your final statement. Conspiracy != government alone.