Now here's an idea regarding the conspiracy

How about instead of arguing over who's write about the shape of the Earth, we do this first:

Let's discuss whether or not a conspiracy cover up is a legitimate argument for backing up any theory.


If this can be refuted, then that's 99% of FE arguments gone kaput right there. Frankly, I'm sick of rebutting the same old conspiracy arguments over and over again for the same reasons.

when they start losing the bring in the conspiracy theory !! its sad that one of the main things in the theory that holds it all together has no proof what so ever, non, not 1 bit, most conspiracy's like the moon conspiracy has some "proof" but this.

The conspiracy isn't used to 'back' the FE theory, it just trails along with it.

i've said this before, but it bears repeating:
it would be impossible for a conspiracy to take control without being noticed!
and the FE answer? "it was always in control".
...
that makes no sense at all!

i've said this before, but it bears repeating:
it would be impossible for a conspiracy to take control without being noticed!
and the FE answer? "it was always in control".
...
that makes no sense at all!

Actually, if you've always had control, you'd never need to actually 'take' it.  It does make sense.

How about instead of arguing over who's write about the shape of the Earth, we do this first:

Let's discuss whether or not a conspiracy cover up is a legitimate argument for backing up any theory.


If this can be refuted, then that's 99% of FE arguments gone kaput right there. Frankly, I'm sick of rebutting the same old conspiracy arguments over and over again for the same reasons.

It's not about being a "legitimate argument" - if we believe there's a Conspiracy why shouldn't we say so? It's essence as a Conspiracy doesn't automatically make it false. Besides, we don't argue along the line that "there's a Conspiracy so the Earth is flat"; if anything, the causality is the opposite.

that's not it either.  you invoke "conspiracy" as a method of insulating your hypothesis from disproof.  (e.g. thousands of photos from orbit and space).  you also invoke "conspiracy" as a way of insulating yourself from the burden of proof.  (e.g. guards at the icewall preventing you from getting photos.)

a flat earth is purely a matter of dogmatic faith.  in other words, a religion; nothing more, nothing less.  you even have an "ancient", cryptically written bible remarkably light on details that could be debunked at a future date.

that's not it either.  you invoke "conspiracy" as a method of insulating your hypothesis from disproof.  (e.g. thousands of photos from orbit and space).  you also invoke "conspiracy" as a way of insulating yourself from the burden of proof.  (e.g. guards at the icewall preventing you from getting photos.)

I don't "invoke" Conspiracy. I believe there's a Conspiracy, and if I believe they did something then I'll say so. I don't pick and choose where to mention them, it's just sometimes apparent that they've been up to something.

a flat earth is purely a matter of dogmatic faith.  in other words, a religion; nothing more, nothing less.  you even have an "ancient", cryptically written bible remarkably light on details that could be debunked at a future date.

Don't be so ridiculous. Let's take a step back from the heated debate for a second and seriously consider how much thought the average Zeteticist has given theories of the Earth's shape in comparison with your average globularist. The vast majority of the world population believe in globularism purely because "authorities" have told them it's correct - that's a religion if ever I saw one.

And I'd just like to point out that my "bible" is a heck of a lot younger than yours, mister Plato/Newton/Copernicus worshipper.

you even have an "ancient", cryptically written bible remarkably light on details that could be debunked at a future date.

And by the way, just what exactly is so "cryptic" about Earth Not a Globe (I assume it's the book you mean - I wouldn't expect you to have read any of the other ample Zetetic literature which exists)? Rowbotham plainly states exactly what he believes and exactly how he demonstrated it.

But the conspiracy is used as a tool to legitimize FET. If you come up with a new theory then you can assume your theory is true so long as your theory accommodates for all currently existing evidence. The problem with FET is that it accommodates for currently existing evidence simply by saying that it's all faked by the conspiracy! That's why a global, all-powerful conspiracy cannot be a part of any legitimate theory! If a conspiracy were a viable element of a theory, then by your reasoning practically any crackpot theory deserves as much equal consideration as the scientifically tested, widely accepted views.

This discussion doesn't need to involve FET at all (though it concerns it greatly). The point is that conspiracy theories completely break down rational arguments and making it impossible to prove or disprove anything!

That's why a global, all-powerful conspiracy cannot be a part of any legitimate theory! If a conspiracy were a viable element of a theory, then by your reasoning practically any crackpot theory deserves as much equal consideration as the scientifically tested, widely accepted views.

This is problematic because IF THERE IS a worldwide conspiracy then we're not allowed to say that there is. Do you see what I mean? It's all well and good saying "you can't claim there is a Conspiracy", but if there actually is one then of course what we say doesn't make sense.

I'm not intrinsically interested in legitimising any particular theory (I'll leave that to Theoreticists like Newton), rather in scrutinising facts. If the Conspiracys existence is fact, how am I to avoid scrutiny of it?

Well that's where Occam's razor comes into play. A worldwide conspiracy is practically immune to proof or disproof, so what should one believe? Occam thinks that the position that requires the least assumptions is the one that should be adopted under lack of conclusive evidence. Hence the illegitimacy of conspiracy as proof.

I'm an REer, but if there ever pops up telling evidence of a worldwide conspiracy trying to hide the true shape of the Earth, you can bet I'll be seriously reconsidering my opinion.

That's a good point.  The idea of a flat Earth with numerous complex processes moving things around on gears, while the Earth is pushed up by dark matter, seems much less complicated than a series of spheres held in a harmonic orbits by one simple fundamental force.  The flat earth model flies directly in the face of Occam's razor.  This global conspiracy is no different.

here's part of Robotham's "logic": someone showed him that when a surveying telescope was "leveled" to point exactly horizontal, it did not point at the horizon, but slightly above. the surveyors said this showed earth was round.

robotham replied, "no, some quirk in the way telescopes work must be producing a false image. in other words, he assumed that the telescopes were lying!

here's part of Robotham's "logic": someone showed him that when a surveying telescope was "leveled" to point exactly horizontal, it did not point at the horizon, but slightly above. the surveyors said this showed earth was round.

robotham replied, "no, some quirk in the way telescopes work must be producing a false image. in other words, he assumed that the telescopes were lying!

When you hold a magnifying glass over text, the sentence will be broken and misaligned as the letters enter the magnifying glass.



Likewise, a straw in a drinking glass appear broken where it enters the water's surface.



THEREFORE, the image through a telescope would also be broken.

Dr. Rowbotham is correct.

THEREFORE, the image through a telescope would also be broken.

Dr. Rowbotham is correct.

I've asked you this question before, but why do you call him "Dr." when the Phd. degree was not even awarded in England at the time he was arguing his case for a flat earth?

in other words, since your "field of vision" is smaller when looking through a telescope, what you see in the exact center of that field must be wrong?! bullshit!

what you see through a telescope is EXACTLY what you would see with your own eyes if you were closer!
if someone took a picture of, say, a building, then took a second picture through a telescopic lens from farther away, they would look exactly the same!

when exactly did robotham take a telescope underwater? your "logic" is pathetic, you have only proven, AGAIN, that you do not have the faintest idea of how telescopes work!
you probably don't know how cameras work either!

I've asked you this question before, but why do you call him "Dr." when the Phd. degree was not even awarded in England at the time he was arguing his case for a flat earth?

From Page 151 of the historian Christine Garwood's book Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea:

"For some years past Dr. Rowbotham could never under any consideration be induced to travel by rail. Patients or friends wishing to see him had to send their carriage for him and in the last few months he visited Brighton for the good of his health, traveling to and fro in a private carriage. Curiously enough the mode of conveyance in which he placed his faith accelerated his death. On an occasion, in several months past, he slipped and injured his leg when alighting from a cab, and from that time his health gradually failed."

"... Parallax's family and friends were understandably distressed. On New Year's Eve 1884 they laid him to rest as Samuel Birley Rowbotham M.D., Ph.D. in Crystal Palace District Cemetery under a gravestone bearing his Zetetic teachings."

even if that's true, he was NOT any sort of scientist when he was ALIVE! M.D. stands for Medical Doctor! idiot...

what you see through a telescope is EXACTLY what you would see with your own eyes if you were closer!
if someone took a picture of, say, a building, then took a second picture through a telescopic lens from farther away, they would look exactly the same!

Then why, in my first image, are the words in the magnifying glass lens broken and misaligned from the background text?

when exactly did robotham take a telescope underwater? your "logic" is pathetic, you have only proven, AGAIN, that you do not have the faintest idea of how telescopes work!
you probably don't know how cameras work either!

You apparently don't know how lenses work, since glasses filled with water were the very first lenses, invented in 2000 B.C. by the Ancient Greeks.

even if that's true, he was NOT any sort of scientist when he was ALIVE! M.D. stands for Medical Doctor! idiot...

Uh, Medical Doctors are scientists.

Then why, in my first image, are the words in the magnifying glass lens broken and misaligned from the background text?

Because the magnifying glass has magnified the image. The magnified image's axises are still proportioned correctly.

You apparently don't know how lenses work, since glasses filled with water were the very first lenses, invented in 2000 B.C. by the Ancient Greeks.

If you look at at a straw in a glass of water in the position where the straw has no parallax with its image in the water filled part of the glass, then there is no angle of refraction.

what you see through a telescope is EXACTLY what you would see with your own eyes if you were closer!
if someone took a picture of, say, a building, then took a second picture through a telescopic lens from farther away, they would look exactly the same!

Umm.. no. Does some part of your RE beliefs prohibit you from reading basic science books?

There's something called depth of field and foreshortening. In the O. J. Simpson trial, the prosecution wanted the video of investigators kept out, because the video was taken with a telephoto lens and the foreshortening made it look as if the investigators were walking all over the evidence. This was an optical illusion. If the video had been shot closer in, with a larger depth of field, it would have looked different.

I hope you are not thinking that the LA prosecutor's office is part of the FE movement. Foreshortening is quite real. Give me a photo of a tiger you've taken from 300 yards away and another from 10 yards away, where the tiger's head is exactly the same size, and I can easily tell you which is which. According to your argument, there should be no way to tell the photos apart since.

good point, actually.

but tom and roboham claim that if you watched a ship go over the horizon, then looked through a telescope, it would re-appear! that's totally absurd!

unless the telescope was mounted on a tall building, in which case it would make a difference-but because of height, not "refraction"!

basic science: change ONE part of the conditions, then perform the experiment again. changing 2 things would produce false or misleading results!

Alright, I hereby declare this thread back on topic!

My questions are unanswered. I believe that a worldwide conspiracy cannot be a part of any legitimate theory because it violates Occam's razor and is essentially impossible to prove or disprove. FEers out there, do you disagree with me? If so, why?

It is completely unnecessary to discuss FET specifically in this thread. In fact, please do not bring up specific arguments for/against FET as I simply want to discuss the nature of conspiracy theory as proof.

There are several accepted conspiracies in history. There was a group of conspirators behind the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. The 9/11 attacks were the actions of a conspiracy of Islamic terrorists.   

But we're not talking just any conspiracy, we're talking about an age-old all-powerful worldwide conspiracy. A conspiracy so powerful that they can fake any evidence, silence any person, manipulate any government. With that kind of power comes invulnerability to rational debunking. Such a conspiracy theory is not a legitimate theory because it is essentially impossible to prove or disprove.

Little conspiracy theories such as those regarding assassinations aren't a problem because they are not all-powerful and thus possible to verify.

The conspiracy could be less then a century old. They don't need to fake any evidence, only evidence regarding earth. They don't need to silence any person, only those with ways of proving the truth. They don't need to manipulate any government, only those that can reach space. The conspiracy is not all powerful, thus the existence of this forum.

No offense but I trust our Governments alot more than I trust a few people going on the beliefs of a few people.

Back when there was no space travel we still had people who thought the Earth was flat and people who thought it was round, each provided proof of their theories. Now we have space technology and have photographs from outer space. One was proven correct one was proven incorrect. The photos show a round Earth. Get over it.

No offense but I trust our Governments alot more than I trust a few people going on the beliefs of a few people.

Back when there was no space travel we still had people who thought the Earth was flat and people who thought it was round, each provided proof of their theories. Now we have space technology and have photographs from outer space. One was proven correct one was proven incorrect. The photos show a round Earth. Get over it.

You seem to think i believe the earth is flat. If you do you are mistaken. Regarding your trust of government: don't be an idiot. If you were to examine the actions of any government and prescribe it a personality based on its actions it would be a a self-centered, lying, cheating, stealing, murdering ego-maniac 99 times out of 100. Treat every theory, person and organization with skepticism and the shape of the earth is obvious: Spherical with the circumference becoming measurably larger the more it is in parallel equator. 

Why the hell would you trust the government? What have the Bush Administration ever done to gain anybody's trust? And I hope this doesn't spark a political debate.