Wrong. They did not need to be in on the conspiracy.
...Because? Or were you just going to assert that they accidentally generated scientifically repeatable experiments that proved the earth's spherical nature?
Could be a number of reasons for why. For one, they could be told anything regarding a detail in Antarctica. They are not required to be in on the conspiracy.
The problem with that is that then they wouldn't kill/sink any approaching ships, because it would be against the rules of engagement. They have to be both in on the conspiracy and nefarious.
Wrong again. Governments are not required to be in on the conspiracy, but it's likely a few would know. Space agencies of governments and "private" ones are obviously needed to be involved however.
Wrong. Forget space travel; far more important to the formation of world history is the simple size and shape of the world's oceans. Many, many, many people have been involved in disputes, shipping routes, and wars and battles that depended upon information about the size and shape of the oceans and major seas of the world being accurate. They would all need to be in on the conspiracy or all blissfully unaware of why their estimates keep turning out wrong.
Not surprised by your stupid assumption.
Those who live in glass houses...
Why would they never claim to see it? It still doesn't prove anything. You're doing a terrible job so far.
Yeah, a mysterious curvature to the Earth that's only visible at very high altitudes doesn't prove anything. It's just an optical illusion that doesn't work at ground level or even small hills because of the magical leprechauns that refract light back to the dark matter acceleration disk conspiracy.
Care to share?
We could start with the existence of an entire Universe expanding in every direction,
every direction, including what should be "downwards" relative to the theoretical flat earth's acceleration, full of spherical bodies and not a single flat planet.
Is the sun not round?
It's both round, and ninety-three million miles away.
As for the stuff I didn't comment on, it was just too stupid to bother.
If you took this attitude towards every bit of every post someone made, we'd all be much happier.
I'm sure some 18-year old high school drop out that enlisted can tell his exact location by looking at the stars. Not to mention, they can easily be told they are guarding something in Antarctica which wouldn't be that far from the truth. You're not exactly brought up to question your orders in the military.
And as extensive and formidable your personal knowledge of the military and the way it is conducted no doubt is, derived directly from such prestigious sources as watching Full Metal Jacket a half dozen times, you seem to have neglected a few key aspects, such as;
- The personnel needed to oversee and assign and manage these numerous antarctic stations, a task which inherently requires knowing the size and shape of the Earth.
- The shipping for all the materials and supplies needed to maintain these way stations, which requires captains and certain staff on board ships also having said information.
- The possibility that maybe not everyone in the military is as blazingly idiotic as, say, you, and might be able to notice things like days being much longer (but still at a regular rhythm, contrary to our current expectations of conditions around the poles), the increased, rather than decreased, rotation of the stars, the unusual distances and times involved in transportation and travel over what would be expected... I mean, I suppose they could just pick out the stupidest soldiers imaginable, but that seems counter-productive to their goal of keeping this massive conspiracy entirely secure, especially given the extremely sensitive and expensive equipment needed for this continued indefinite operation.
- Where the fuck the money for this entire thing is coming from, anyway.
In short, you're an absolutely terrible skeptic. Please save the job for those with at least a semblance of credibility.
If you consider all that plausible, you really must believe that unicorns are plausible.
Partly a straw man, but other than that, are you denying that there isn't a misconception amongst how the idea of a unicorn appeared?[/quote]
Unicorns, a powerful horse with a single horn- gentle around maidens or children, but capable of savage fury.Dragons- Serpentine, lizard-like river dwellers of staggering size, power, and viciousness.Fairies- Mischievious, tiny people that live in trees and can be alternately helpful or malicious.Ogres- Large, hairy humanoid beings that hate and eat human beings (see also giants and nephilim).Flat Earth- A belief that, because the Earth appears to be flat, it is flat.Lots of myths have origins. So what?