Now here's an idea regarding the conspiracy

What? Not trust the government just because of the mainstream media? You guys are crazy!

Actually, I have to agree with Althalus and jimztar on this one. Although I know the earth is a spherical body (even if it's not a perfect sphere) I can't include that really any government is completely trustworthy as part of my argument. Between America, Britain, a few of the Middle Eastern Countries and some more prominent areas of Africa - governments are easy to shoot down as far as their credibility is concerned.

I may poke fun at Canada and Britain just for laughs, but in reality we're all just as corrupt as the next, America being most likely at the top of the list - especially in the last decade. Hell, our elections are full of nothing more than naysayers about the other rather than actually providing true services for the people for the most part.

I am truly appalled at where my country (America) is headed, and can only hope I'm not around for the "mutiny" to come. Or, I could hope against hope that we can somehow turn this ship around before it blows up. OF all the candidates in either party for the upcoming election... I really can't say there is a good choice among them, but what can we do but do our best to pick the lesser of the "evils" we have? Until someone takes the stand and stands behind it, we are left with what we've got. A pretty damned corrupt government that is nothing more than a group of puppets for various corporations, action groups, and the like.

Ok, sorry... /soap box

- Optimus
: Hoping that freedom being the right of all sentient beings does not collapse on itself due to the uneven weight of the few.
 

To be fair, very few conspiracy theories seem to make much sense. Like how the government pays aliens to kill senior citizens to save money on social security... Don't trust anybody, especially the government.

To be fair, very few conspiracy theories seem to make much sense. Like how the government pays aliens to kill senior citizens to save money on social security... Don't trust anybody, especially the government.

Agreed. When dealing with outlandish claims such as you suggested. However, overall my interpretation (and that's all it is - my interpretation) I do believe the governments, including - and possibly the most - the United States of America, have pretty hefty problems with their explanations for simple issues.

I believe that the many cover-ups or "oops"es are a fair argument against them also. Such as immigration problems, assistance programs, personal identification, etc. Most topics in debate, or more like in "sling it" at each other right now are pretty shaky at best.

Whether you define them as conspiracies or not... that is certainly debatable true.

Ok, I gotta get outta here sorry. See you all later

- Optimus

There's a guy down the other end of my street who has covered his roof with aluminum foil. I'll get a photo if he lets me.

Conspiracy theories make sense much of the time so long as you don't invoke fallacies.

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.

Oh but the conspiracy is all-powerful. The FEers intentionally keep the specifications of the conspiracy vague so that they can use it as an argument in any situation. I assure you, if the FEers were to say that the conspiracy started in 1867 (or whatever) and then you found some evidence from 1865 that showed that the Earth was round then all of a sudden the FEers would be saying how the conspiracy actually started in 1864. Or, they could even say that the conspiracy created false evidence and dated it as 1865 so that people wouldn't suspect. So the conspiracy can account for any discrepancy from any period in time. And since the conspiracy can silence those "with ways of proving the truth" then you can claim that any person in the past was an ardent FEer who was silenced by the conspiracy. Thus the conspiracy can silence any person.

You see what I mean? The conspiracy isn't technically all-powerful, but the FEers are always stretching their views on how powerful the conspiracy is so that they can continue to use it as a tool for their ridiculous theory! Since one can always find more evidence against FET, the FEers can continue changing their minds about the influence of the conspiracy indefinitely. Hence omnipotence.

Oh but the conspiracy is all-powerful. The FEers intentionally keep the specifications of the conspiracy vague so that they can use it as an argument in any situation. I assure you, if the FEers were to say that the conspiracy started in 1867 (or whatever) and then you found some evidence from 1865 that showed that the Earth was round then all of a sudden the FEers would be saying how the conspiracy actually started in 1864. Or, they could even say that the conspiracy created false evidence and dated it as 1865 so that people wouldn't suspect. So the conspiracy can account for any discrepancy from any period in time. And since the conspiracy can silence those "with ways of proving the truth" then you can claim that any person in the past was an ardent FEer who was silenced by the conspiracy. Thus the conspiracy can silence any person.

You see what I mean? The conspiracy isn't technically all-powerful, but the FEers are always stretching their views on how powerful the conspiracy is so that they can continue to use it as a tool for their ridiculous theory! Since one can always find more evidence against FET, the FEers can continue changing their minds about the influence of the conspiracy indefinitely. Hence omnipotence.

No. Since 2000 B.C. Man has mistakenly in believing the earth to be a globe due to nothing more than a few observations and blind assumptions. The Conspiracy is simply the manifestation of that belief into NASA's hoax. NASA used the globe as the model of the earth since everyone, including the hoaxers themselves, had honestly believed the earth to be a globe for thousands of years. In fact, the Conspirators to this day likely still believe that the earth is a globe.

Since NASA has never been to space, no one knows what shape the earth truly takes.

any commentary on "the conspiracy" from bishop (the troll) is like a priest promising he won't rape midnight.

oh yes, NASA has thousands of pictures, actual vehicles that thousands of people saw fly into space and back, but a handfull of weirdos say it's all fake, so it must be all fake...

bishop is just mindlessly repeating the conspiracy theory again!
just like althalus predicted, now Tom claims the conspiracy took over in 2000bc!
what an idiot!

oh yes, NASA has thousands of pictures, actual vehicles that thousands of people saw fly into space and back, but a handfull of weirdos say it's all fake, so it must be all fake...

bishop is just mindlessly repeating the conspiracy theory again!
just like althalus predicted, now Tom claims the conspiracy took over in 2000bc!
what an idiot!

That's not what Tom said.  Nice ad hominem. 

The FEers intentionally keep the specifications of the conspiracy vague so that they can use it as an argument in any situation.

Or it could be that, you know, conspiracy thing. It helps to know what it means and you can then understand how details would be hard to come by or confirm.

To suggest that the FES should know about a conspiracy is just illogical. Just because through their beliefs, they need to infer and invoke conspiracy does not mean that they know intimate details and other such information.

Oh, and your "it violates Occam's Razor" is silly. Occam's Razor is not a law, but merely a practice in applying probabilities. I doubt that anyone here will argue that an FE and the conspiracy involving space agencies is something that's probable.

Or it could be that, you know, conspiracy thing. It helps to know what it means and you can then understand how details would be hard to come by or confirm.

To suggest that the FES should know about a conspiracy is just illogical. Just because through their beliefs, they need to infer and invoke conspiracy does not mean that they know intimate details and other such information.

Okay, my bad. The FEers don't keep it intentionally vague, as a conspiracy it is highly difficult to know anything specific about it thus one can always attribute any contrary evidence to the conspiracy. Either way, it's still just as all-powerful. And I'm not suggesting that the FES should know specifics about the conspiracy, I'm suggesting that the FES cannot rely on the existence of the conspiracy if they want to get any respect from rational, scientific-minded people or want to actually hold logical, productive debate.

I haven't fully thought about whether or not reliance on the conspiracy is fallacious, but it certainly damages rational debate. The explanation is simple: if one is to logically accept conspiracy theories as bases for other theories then it becomes possible to generate evidence for practically any theory - even those that are obviously flawed. To allow conspiracy in debate is to adopt an entirely un-skeptical view - to believe (or support) everything. I suppose that my point is that when you're trying to debate an issue, you have to establish rational guidelines for what can or cannot be allowed as evidence and that allowing conspiracy to enter into it instantly brings everything to a standstill.

Oh, and your "it violates Occam's Razor" is silly. Occam's Razor is not a law, but merely a practice in applying probabilities. I doubt that anyone here will argue that an FE and the conspiracy involving space agencies is something that's probable.

Occam's razor isn't a law, nor is it a practice in applying probabilities. Though probability could be used as a justification for the principle, the idea is simply to minimize assumption. Logically, as assumption decreases and evidence increases, theories become more accurate to reality. Are you really saying that you don't apply Occam's razor? If so, then I'm afraid that we'll be able to make very little progress in any debate. I must ask you, if nobody here believes that conspiracy or FET are probable then why the hell would you ever go around arguing that they're the truth!?

No. Since 2000 B.C. Man has mistakenly in believing the earth to be a globe due to nothing more than a few observations and blind assumptions. The Conspiracy is simply the manifestation of that belief into NASA's hoax. NASA used the globe as the model of the earth since everyone, including the hoaxers themselves, had honestly believed the earth to be a globe for thousands of years. In fact, the Conspirators to this day likely still believe that the earth is a globe.

Since NASA has never been to space, no one knows what shape the earth truly takes.

If one believes that the Earth is truly a globe, then it really isn't necessary to make a conspiracy is it? If I believed something to be true, rather than spreading the word through secrecy and subterfuge I'd just openly help people to realize what is obviously true. I think that saying there's a conspiracy trying to trick people into thinking the Earth is round sort of implies that the conspirators know the Earth is flat or at least do not presume to know the true shape (in which case, why the hell are they conspiring about it?).

Lastly, I'm pretty sure that the human race has discovered many truths without having to look at them.

Lastly, I'm pretty sure that the human race has discovered many truths without having to look at them.

for example: do you believe that atoms exist? protons, neutrons, and electrons?
how about bacteria and viruses?

we can observe all of those. Except electrons.

you can see protons and neutrons?

yes.

when I turn on my light switch, I see billions of protons.

yes.

when I turn on my light switch, I see billions of protons.

That's funny. My light bulb doesn't emit protons. Care to back up your claim through reference that light bulbs emit protons?

then it's confirmed.  neither bishop nor i see protons coming out of our lights.

Quote

yes.

when I turn on my light switch, I see billions of protons.

That's funny. My light bulb doesn't emit protons. Care to back up your claim through reference that light bulbs emit protons?

Care to back up your claim that they don't?

um...you're confusing protons (atoms) and PHOTONS (light energy)

as far as i know, nobody's managed to directly observe protons or neutrons, but have observed atoms.

BTW, electrons jumping form atom to atom is the modern explanation for electricity!

oh yeah.


What an epic fail.

I typed it 3 times and didn't notice it.

I'm suggesting that the FES cannot rely on the existence of the conspiracy if they want to get any respect from rational, scientific-minded people or want to actually hold logical, productive debate.

Yes, but the logical progression of thought demands conspiracy. That biased and dogmatic people will not take kindly to their ideas is probably of little concern to them.

I haven't fully thought about whether or not reliance on the conspiracy is fallacious

No fallacy that I can think of right now.

The explanation is simple: if one is to logically accept conspiracy theories as bases for other theories then it becomes possible to generate evidence for practically any theory - even those that are obviously flawed.

It is possible.

To allow conspiracy in debate is to adopt an entirely un-skeptical view - to believe (or support) everything. I suppose that my point is that when you're trying to debate an issue, you have to establish rational guidelines for what can or cannot be allowed as evidence and that allowing conspiracy to enter into it instantly brings everything to a standstill.

It doesn't bring things to a standstill; it simply showcases much the point of many FEers and many others on this site. You are forced to rely on the information you are spoon-fed. You cannot choose what you're taught in the beginning and come to accept it as fact. The problem lies in that you cannot know for sure whether or not that's actually the case.

Are you really saying that you don't apply Occam's razor? If so, then I'm afraid that we'll be able to make very little progress in any debate. I must ask you, if nobody here believes that conspiracy or FET are probable then why the hell would you ever go around arguing that they're the truth!?

I live by probabilities.

Um, just because something is probable or not probable doesn't mean that it is or isn't truth.

I think that saying there's a conspiracy trying to trick people into thinking the Earth is round sort of implies that the conspirators know the Earth is flat or at least do not presume to know the true shape (in which case, why the hell are they conspiring about it?).

...exactly...

Lastly, I'm pretty sure that the human race has discovered many truths without having to look at them.

Mm, they can infer things without having to look at them, but sure.

To say that the logical progression of thought demands conspiracy is ridiculous. The existence of a conspiracy is only demanded if the basis of its existence is undeniably true. In our case, that would be FET. So unless you can prove that the Earth is flat (without the conspiracy) then there is absolutely no rational "demand" for the conspiracy in the first place. It's circular logic.

It doesn't bring things to a standstill; it simply showcases much the point of many FEers and many others on this site. You are forced to rely on the information you are spoon-fed. You cannot choose what you're taught in the beginning and come to accept it as fact. The problem lies in that you cannot know for sure whether or not that's actually the case.

Okay, it's sort of fun to think about it hypothetically. But even though you cannot know for sure whether or not the conspiracy is real, I'd say that that's hardly a justification for assuming its existence when it comes to the real world. Are you familiar with Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot? Look it up, the argument is entirely applicable to such a conspiracy theory as we are discussing.

And if you do live by probability as you claim, explain to me what basis you have for assumption when there is a lack of conclusive evidence. I know that I don't going around trying to convince people of things that I think are highly unlikely as that directly translates to a high probability of me lying to them. Probability and truth cannot be equivalent (as one is theoretical and one is absolute), but with no evidence what else does one have?

To say that the logical progression of thought demands conspiracy is ridiculous. The existence of a conspiracy is only demanded if the basis of its existence is undeniably true. In our case, that would be FET. So unless you can prove that the Earth is flat (without the conspiracy) then there is absolutely no rational "demand" for the conspiracy in the first place. It's circular logic.

Absolutely not.  Where is it claimed that the conspiracy is evidence for a flat earth?  The evidence we have in favor of a flat earth has nothing whatsoever to do with the conspiracy; the conspiracy is a necessary assumption based on the evidence we have that the earth is flat.

I get confused over posts like this.  Can you link to a post that claims the conspiracy as actual evidence in favor of a flat earth?

Conspiracy is invoked when all reason has been butt fucked into oblivion.

Thank me later.

well, let's see: any reference to space travel or antarctica immediately produces the "conspiracy" arguement.

FErs claim all photos by NASA are faked by the conspiracy, all pilots who fly south of the equator and the navigators of every ship south of the equator MUST be part of the conspiracy, just to avoid facing the obvious problems in their theory.

To say that the logical progression of thought demands conspiracy is ridiculous. The existence of a conspiracy is only demanded if the basis of its existence is undeniably true. In our case, that would be FET. So unless you can prove that the Earth is flat (without the conspiracy) then there is absolutely no rational "demand" for the conspiracy in the first place. It's circular logic.

That's not what I meant. When you start with the idea of the Earth actually being flat, whether you use Rowbotham as justification or other reasons, conspiracy is a logical piece that becomes added.

Are you familiar with Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot? Look it up, the argument is entirely applicable to such a conspiracy theory as we are discussing.

I wouldn't say entirely. Perhaps to the capabilities of forum members it could apply, but in the grand scheme, it is in no way untestable or unobservable.

And if you do live by probability as you claim, explain to me what basis you have for assumption when there is a lack of conclusive evidence.

Assumption of what? That the Earth is flat? When did I say I assumed such?

That's not what I meant. When you start with the idea of the Earth actually being flat, whether you use Rowbotham as justification or other reasons, conspiracy is a logical piece that becomes added.

Yes, when you start with the idea of the Earth actually being flat. How do you justify starting at that point? By what authority can we assume that FET is true when the predominant theory of the shape of the Earth explains everything just fine?

And to put a finer point on my previous posts, the reason why conspiracy theory must be avoided is due to it being a (non-fallacious case of a) slippery slope. If conspiracy theory is acceptable, then we must also accept even the most obviously unacceptable theories as plausible due to conspiracy theories providing as much evidence as necessary.

I wouldn't say entirely. Perhaps to the capabilities of forum members it could apply, but in the grand scheme, it is in no way untestable or unobservable.

But are we not debating on a forum? Is it not entirely unfair then to use an argument the integrity of which cannot be practically verified by any member of the debate? What if I started off a point with "Well you just take your super collider and..."? My argument may be sound, but no one on these forums has access to a super collider so it makes no sense for me to use it as evidence for my assertions. But with a conspiracy it's even worse because the nature of the conspiracy is assumed to be actively hidden from the public - thus very difficult to research.

Assumption of what? That the Earth is flat? When did I say I assumed such?

Well it seems to me that you are refuting Occam's razor. Also, one must remember that the basis of science is assumption: we can never truly know all of the facts.

I don't think for one minute that the governments of the world are competent enough to keep this conspiracy secret.

Quote from: divito the truthist on January 04, 2008, 08:25:14 PM

That's not what I meant. When you start with the idea of the Earth actually being flat, whether you use Rowbotham as justification or other reasons, conspiracy is a logical piece that becomes added.

Yes, when you start with the idea of the Earth actually being flat. How do you justify starting at that point? By what authority can we assume that FET is true when the predominant theory of the shape of the Earth explains everything just fine?

Answered in the post.  Whether such evidence is to be trusted or not is subjective, but that's true for most RE evidence, too.

The predominant theory of the shape of the earth is contradicted by Rowbotham's results, so it does not explain everything just fine if the results are to be believed.  Again, whether one chooses to believe the results is subjective, and anyone who claims to have duplicated the experiments and gotten similar results (as a couple here claim to have done) would have grounds for believing the earth to be flat, at least from his point of view.

The bottom line is that unless you work for NASA, another space agency, or have otherwise been in space, you can't verify that what they say is true.  I would certainly classify the trustworthiness of NASA (or anyone else, really) as subjective.  And really, isn't using NASA as a crutch a horrible way to debate an alternative theory like this?  Yes, it's well-known that it's not a theory that is accepted by most of the world.  The conspiracy just forces you to come up with other, more easily testable evidence that the earth is round, which many people here have been able to do just fine.  If you can't deal with it, maybe you shouldn't be on a website debating the shape of the earth.