The New Theory

  • 114 Replies
  • 18769 Views
The New Theory
« on: January 30, 2008, 10:38:01 AM »
Who exactly is behind the conspiracy? I've searched through many of the sources the FE'rs have provided.  The FAQ states:

"Q: "Why do the all the world Governments say the Earth is round?"

A: A Conspiracy among world Governments claiming to have space programs has disseminated the lie to the other governments of the world, as well as to the media and the general public.

Q: "What about NASA? Don't they have photos to prove that the Earth is round?"

A: NASA is part of the conspiracy too. The photos are faked."

Likewise yet more specifically, the Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium explains, and quite logically I must admit, that not every one in the government needs to know about the conspiracy.  NASA, public relations people, RASA, and China are the real culprits.

Now I have serious problems with both the FAQ and the CCCC.  First of all, NASA and RASA are government agencies.  This means that they both hire and remove people from office, and that high positions in NASA and RASA and public relations people and GPS manufacturers and people who have "been in space" and (I'll add this one) the developers of Google Earth--change constantly.  Which means that keeping the about forty five conspirators (calculated by the CCCC) organized is extremely difficult.  And what about when they die? Who will take their place and discover their secret? Surely, new people previously unknown to them will be assigned to those positions.  How will they keep the conspiracy going? I am likewise confused about the history of the conspiracy, seeing as the ancient Greeks had no motive for a conspiracy, so in the spirit of debate I will say that they had a reason to tell people such false information.  Now, this "secret" would have to be carried on through centuries.  How would this be possible? These problems lead me to believe that you should revise your conspiracy theory about governments and begin considering a third party being involved.

The circular shadow in a lunar eclipse would only show that the shadow object is circular, since in FE the Earth does not eclipse the moon.
There are equally valid explanations for the other things as well. I'm not a certified FExpert so I don't know them all.
The Greeks must surely be the founders of the conspiracy.

Um....I'm not too familiar with the Greeks' space exploration program, did they ever get to Mars or something?  ::) What kind of motive did they have? And you still havent answered my previous question....

Motive is irrelevant, the conspiracy exists, the reason for it doesn't affect that fact. It's probably money.

Lastly, I took this quote from user Government Agent to further question the conspiracy.  Reason definitely affects the theory (do not forget that the conspiracy is a theory, not a fact) because without motive there is no point, no gain, and therefore no reason for existence.  And I do not consider "the motive is probably money" and "the government is lying when they say the Earth is round (because you do not have sufficient evidence for the FE)" as evidence of the conspiracy.
Don't be  hatin'.  Be appreciatin'.

?

Conspiracy Mastermind

  • 1836
  • +0/-0
  • There is no conspiracy...
Re: The New Theory
« Reply #1 on: January 30, 2008, 10:55:20 AM »
You are right. It is time this part of FET was fleshed out, at least enough to be believable. The thing is, what advantage would the government get from the public thinking the Earth is round, when it is flat. Is it worth the many millions required to ensure the truth is not discovered.
Quote from: Tomcooper84
there is no optical light, there is just light and theres no other type of light unless you start talkling about energy saving lightbulbs compared to other types of light bulbs
ENaG: Evidence Not a Guarantee.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: The New Theory
« Reply #2 on: January 30, 2008, 11:04:34 AM »
It's a Conspiracy. The Government and the Military need the earth to be round because orbit is not possible on a Flat Earth. The Military needs the illusion of earth orbit in order to get its tools of death and destructions space. Without the earth's orbit ICBMs and other such weapons of mass destruction could not exist.

?

Conspiracy Mastermind

  • 1836
  • +0/-0
  • There is no conspiracy...
Re: The New Theory
« Reply #3 on: January 30, 2008, 11:07:10 AM »
It's a Conspiracy. The Government and the Military need the earth to be round because orbit is not possible on a Flat Earth. The Military needs the illusion of earth orbit in order to get its tools of death and destructions space. Without the earth's orbit ICBMs and other such weapons of mass destruction could not exist.
So, how much space would they get and what advantage would it get them?
Quote from: Tomcooper84
there is no optical light, there is just light and theres no other type of light unless you start talkling about energy saving lightbulbs compared to other types of light bulbs
ENaG: Evidence Not a Guarantee.

?

Chase_the_Bass

  • 170
  • +0/-0
  • Musical Master
Re: The New Theory
« Reply #4 on: January 30, 2008, 11:46:42 AM »
It's a Conspiracy. The Government and the Military need the earth to be round because orbit is not possible on a Flat Earth. The Military needs the illusion of earth orbit in order to get its tools of death and destructions space. Without the earth's orbit ICBMs and other such weapons of mass destruction could not exist.

If orbit is needed for these to work, and many countries have them and they do work...then how do they work on FE?
A painter paints pictures on canvas.  But musicians paint their pictures on silence.  ~Leopold Stokowski

Re: The New Theory
« Reply #5 on: January 30, 2008, 12:26:16 PM »
That's kind of what I was wondering...if the Military needs the WMD's and such in space and in orbit...then how do they work on the FE model?  :)
Don't be  hatin'.  Be appreciatin'.

Re: The New Theory
« Reply #6 on: January 30, 2008, 01:11:56 PM »
You see it is because anyone with an IQ above a mentally retarded tree frog doesn't believe in the flat Earth theory.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: The New Theory
« Reply #7 on: January 30, 2008, 01:38:40 PM »
Quote
So, how much space would they get and what advantage would it get them?

What?

Quote
If orbit is needed for these to work, and many countries have them and they do work...then how do they work on FE?

They don't work. ICBMs are an illusion to intimidate foreign nations to do what America wants them to do. The illusion of ICBMs have made America the superpower it is today.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2008, 03:18:50 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

Chase_the_Bass

  • 170
  • +0/-0
  • Musical Master
Re: The New Theory
« Reply #8 on: January 30, 2008, 01:40:33 PM »
Quote
If orbit is needed for these to work, and many countries have them and they do work...then how do they work on FE?

It doesn't work. ICBM's are an illusion to intimidate other countries to do what America wants them to do.

Can I get a link? From what I have read/heard/seen ICBMs do work. And America isn't the only country with ICBMs. India just designed a spiffy new one.
A painter paints pictures on canvas.  But musicians paint their pictures on silence.  ~Leopold Stokowski

Re: The New Theory
« Reply #9 on: January 30, 2008, 02:04:53 PM »
Dude then what was the cold war about? Why didn't the U.S and Russia attack each other if they knew that the other's nukes weren't actually minutes away?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: The New Theory
« Reply #10 on: January 30, 2008, 03:07:46 PM »
Quote
From what I have read/heard/seen ICBMs do work.

Actually, they don't. ICBMs are a scare tactic.

Quote
India just designed a spiffy new one.

India is a US Allie. Of course they'd be in on it.

Quote
Why didn't the U.S and Russia attack each other if they knew that the other's nukes weren't actually minutes away?

How are they going to attack each other if ICBMs don't exist?

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
  • +1/-0
Re: The New Theory
« Reply #11 on: January 30, 2008, 03:23:16 PM »
The Conspiracy has manifested itself in a few ways over the years. While, as Tom has pointed out, the modern "Space" Conspiracy is a convergence of military interests and fanatical globularism, I usually place the founding of the Conspiracy with the collaborative efforts of A R Wallace, J Walsh and G Airy (Copernican fantasist, media mogul and astronomer Royal respectively) to ruin John Hampden for money. The three recurring power-elements of the Conspiracy (globularism, the media and government bodies) are all represented in this single proto-Conspiracy against legitimate science.

Regarding the ancient Greeks, I'm usually hesitant to mark Plato and chums as actual Conspirators. A look at some of Plato's other work (world of perfect forms and other bizarre fantasy) will reveal that he wasn't actually evil, just plain bonkers.

(Of course, a wide range of legitimate Greek philosophy and science can be derived from the numerically more significant zetetic science bloc of ancient Greece - Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, etc, etc)
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

Re: The New Theory
« Reply #12 on: January 30, 2008, 03:23:39 PM »
What do you mean how you believe in guns right?

?

Chase_the_Bass

  • 170
  • +0/-0
  • Musical Master
Re: The New Theory
« Reply #13 on: January 30, 2008, 03:30:03 PM »
Quote
From what I have read/heard/seen ICBMs do work.

Actually, they don't. ICBMs are a scare tactic.

Quote
India just designed a spiffy new one.

India is a US Allie. Of course they'd be in on it.

Can I get a link to anything debunking ICBMs?
A painter paints pictures on canvas.  But musicians paint their pictures on silence.  ~Leopold Stokowski

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
  • +1/-0
Re: The New Theory
« Reply #14 on: January 30, 2008, 03:38:51 PM »
Can I get a link to anything debunking ICBMs?

Well ICBMs require orbit/space travel to work as the GlobCon claims they do right? If you have a look around the site, you should be able to find numerous discussions on why orbit/space travel can't and don't happen.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

?

Chase_the_Bass

  • 170
  • +0/-0
  • Musical Master
Re: The New Theory
« Reply #15 on: January 30, 2008, 03:42:31 PM »
Yeah, but I was hoping for some other source other then this site. I have read through the Space, orbit, satellites, and what have you threads. But an outside source would be appreciated. It's like if I walked into a crowded room. And everyone told me something I found absolutely ridiculous. I need a 3rd party to verify. I am sure that there would be something on the internets about ICBMs not working. Even if they don't believe in FE there would have to be reports of ICBMs failing all the time.
A painter paints pictures on canvas.  But musicians paint their pictures on silence.  ~Leopold Stokowski

Re: The New Theory
« Reply #16 on: January 31, 2008, 01:44:33 AM »
The Conspiracy has manifested itself in a few ways over the years. While, as Tom has pointed out, the modern "Space" Conspiracy is a convergence of military interests and fanatical globularism, I usually place the founding of the Conspiracy with the collaborative efforts of A R Wallace, J Walsh and G Airy (Copernican fantasist, media mogul and astronomer Royal respectively) to ruin John Hampden for money. The three recurring power-elements of the Conspiracy (globularism, the media and government bodies) are all represented in this single proto-Conspiracy against legitimate science.

Regarding the ancient Greeks, I'm usually hesitant to mark Plato and chums as actual Conspirators. A look at some of Plato's other work (world of perfect forms and other bizarre fantasy) will reveal that he wasn't actually evil, just plain bonkers.

(Of course, a wide range of legitimate Greek philosophy and science can be derived from the numerically more significant zetetic science bloc of ancient Greece - Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, etc, etc)

So you believe ancient greek scientists/philosophers (whichever term you want to use) like archimedes, plato, aristotle, socrates, protagoras, pythgoras, etc. were....bonkers.  I see.  And they had no motive in telling people the world is rond after they made observations and performed experiments.  So what exactly are you trying to say?
Don't be  hatin'.  Be appreciatin'.

?

The Terror

  • 1773
  • +0/-0
  • Flat Earth Propane Tank
Re: The New Theory
« Reply #17 on: January 31, 2008, 05:00:41 AM »
He's trying to say that everybody who's ever proved that the Earth is round is in on the conspiracy.

I thought that America's economic power made it the superpower it is today. Besides which America's fleet of nuclear submarines, air bases and aircraft carriers can pretty much guarantee delivering a nuke anywhere in the world, so why would they need this conspiracy?

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6901
  • +0/-0
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: The New Theory
« Reply #18 on: January 31, 2008, 05:28:13 AM »
The problem is you use the word "proved."

Those people didn't prove the Earth was round. They inferred through experimentation and thought that it was. There is a very significant and large difference between the two. Next, the only entity that would be able to prove such a thing, if you can even call it that, would be NASA. And since their integrity is brought into question, we'd have to rely on something else.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

?

The Terror

  • 1773
  • +0/-0
  • Flat Earth Propane Tank
Re: The New Theory
« Reply #19 on: January 31, 2008, 05:56:19 AM »
Proponents of the round earth theory then.

Why is NASA's integrity called into question anyway? I believe what they say because there is no evidence that they have lied and I've seen nothing in their behaviour that would lead me to suspect any kind of fraud. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt. If you believe that there is some kind of conspiracy then you'd have to say that NASA have murdered some of their own astronauts, which seems a bit off. What would the motive be anyway? Money? It seems to me that the cost of running a successful conspiracy would dwarf the costs of space exploration. All those icewall guards need feeding.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6901
  • +0/-0
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: The New Theory
« Reply #20 on: January 31, 2008, 06:22:58 AM »
Why is NASA's integrity called into question anyway? I believe what they say because there is no evidence that they have lied and I've seen nothing in their behaviour that would lead me to suspect any kind of fraud. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt. If you believe that there is some kind of conspiracy then you'd have to say that NASA have murdered some of their own astronauts, which seems a bit off. What would the motive be anyway? Money? It seems to me that the cost of running a successful conspiracy would dwarf the costs of space exploration. All those icewall guards need feeding.

Their integrity is called into question because if the Earth is flat, they are part of a conspiracy. This would taint any results that they release.

Yes, NASA would have to have some way of silencing legitimate astronauts. Be it killing or holding them.

And money is the primary motive. You think it costs more to fabricate launches and photos vs. building large space crafts and flying into space?
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

Re: The New Theory
« Reply #21 on: January 31, 2008, 06:36:41 AM »
The problem is you use the word "proved."

Those people didn't prove the Earth was round. They inferred through experimentation and thought that it was. There is a very significant and large difference between the two. Next, the only entity that would be able to prove such a thing, if you can even call it that, would be NASA. And since their integrity is brought into question, we'd have to rely on something else.

oh, you're right, sorry, they performed experiments and made observations for centuries and developed theories based on the RE model that turned out to be true laws, but no, they never actually proved it.   ::) As opposed to FE which has a hundred different theories from a hundred different FE'rs who don't seem to know what to agree on, other than the timeless "the Earth looks flat up close, so it must be flat."
Don't be  hatin'.  Be appreciatin'.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6901
  • +0/-0
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: The New Theory
« Reply #22 on: January 31, 2008, 06:41:59 AM »
oh, you're right, sorry, they performed experiments and made observations for centuries and developed theories based on the RE model that turned out to be true laws, but no, they never actually proved it.   ::)

Really? True laws? Fascinating.

And no, inference != proof.

As opposed to FE which has a hundred different theories from a hundred different FE'rs who don't seem to know what to agree on, other than the timeless "the Earth looks flat up close, so it must be flat."

Ah, you're one of those "because there is no consensus, the theory is flawed" people. Nevermind that that doesn't actually make it invalid.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2008, 06:58:21 AM by divito the truthist »
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

Re: The New Theory
« Reply #23 on: January 31, 2008, 06:48:25 AM »
oh, you're right, sorry, they performed experiments and made observations for centuries and developed theories based on the RE model that turned out to be true laws, but no, they never actually proved it.   ::)

Really? True laws? Fascinating.

And no, inference != proof.

As opposed to FE which has a hundred different theories from a hundred different FE'rs who don't seem to know what to agree on, other than the timeless "the Earth looks flat up close, so it must be flat."

Ah, you're one of those "because there is no consensus, the theory is flawed" people. Nevermind that that doesn't actually make it invalid.


Uh...yes, true laws, they're called the "laws of physics," I don't know if you've heard about them, they're rather obscure.
And I never said anything about a consensus.  I'm just saying you (FE'rs) are not sure what to agree on, and have so many theories it's hard to believe Tom Bishop or the FAQ or anybody else for that matter, whereas the RE model is pretty universal.  Anyway.
Don't be  hatin'.  Be appreciatin'.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6901
  • +0/-0
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: The New Theory
« Reply #24 on: January 31, 2008, 06:59:50 AM »
Uh...yes, true laws, they're called the "laws of physics," I don't know if you've heard about them, they're rather obscure.

And which laws does the FE not adhere to?

And I never said anything about a consensus.  I'm just saying you (FE'rs) are not sure what to agree on, and have so many theories it's hard to believe Tom Bishop or the FAQ or anybody else for that matter, whereas the RE model is pretty universal.  Anyway.

So, if something is agreed upon by many people, that makes it more valid?

Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

Re: The New Theory
« Reply #25 on: January 31, 2008, 07:03:33 AM »
Uh...yes, true laws, they're called the "laws of physics," I don't know if you've heard about them, they're rather obscure.

And which laws does the FE not adhere to?

And I never said anything about a consensus.  I'm just saying you (FE'rs) are not sure what to agree on, and have so many theories it's hard to believe Tom Bishop or the FAQ or anybody else for that matter, whereas the RE model is pretty universal.  Anyway.

So, if something is agreed upon by many people, that makes it more valid?



gravity, for one. (see: orbit.)

well, when one FE'r gives you one answer, the other quotes a book, and the other quotes the book with a bit of his own theory blended in, what exactly are you going to believe? It's like me telling you the earth is round but gravity doesn't exist, then another telling you it's a disk but space travel is possible, and a third telling you its a triangle, yet there is no conspiracy.
Don't be  hatin'.  Be appreciatin'.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6901
  • +0/-0
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: The New Theory
« Reply #26 on: January 31, 2008, 07:34:07 AM »
gravity, for one. (see: orbit.)

See the sticky on gravity.

well, when one FE'r gives you one answer, the other quotes a book, and the other quotes the book with a bit of his own theory blended in, what exactly are you going to believe? It's like me telling you the earth is round but gravity doesn't exist, then another telling you it's a disk but space travel is possible, and a third telling you its a triangle, yet there is no conspiracy.

You're going use whatever values you have setup to evaluate what's said. You're going to check that with the stuff that you've been fed from school and come to a conclusion.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

Re: The New Theory
« Reply #27 on: January 31, 2008, 08:27:30 AM »
gravity, for one. (see: orbit.)

See the sticky on gravity.

well, when one FE'r gives you one answer, the other quotes a book, and the other quotes the book with a bit of his own theory blended in, what exactly are you going to believe? It's like me telling you the earth is round but gravity doesn't exist, then another telling you it's a disk but space travel is possible, and a third telling you its a triangle, yet there is no conspiracy.

You're going use whatever values you have setup to evaluate what's said. You're going to check that with the stuff that you've been fed from school and come to a conclusion.

1.  the sticky proves nothing
2.  ...what?  ???
Don't be  hatin'.  Be appreciatin'.

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
  • +1/-0
Re: The New Theory
« Reply #28 on: January 31, 2008, 08:49:24 AM »
So you believe ancient greek scientists/philosophers (whichever term you want to use) like archimedes, plato, aristotle, socrates, protagoras, pythgoras, etc. were....bonkers.  I see.  And they had no motive in telling people the world is rond after they made observations and performed experiments.  So what exactly are you trying to say?

Nope. Read carefully - only some Greek philosophers subscribed to globularism.

Quote
He's trying to say that everybody who's ever proved that the Earth is round is in on the conspiracy

You have the reading comprehension of a five year old. Re-read my post and see that I in fact said almost the opposite.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

Re: The New Theory
« Reply #29 on: January 31, 2008, 09:24:28 AM »
So you believe ancient greek scientists/philosophers (whichever term you want to use) like archimedes, plato, aristotle, socrates, protagoras, pythgoras, etc. were....bonkers.  I see.  And they had no motive in telling people the world is rond after they made observations and performed experiments.  So what exactly are you trying to say?

Nope. Read carefully - only some Greek philosophers subscribed to globularism.

Quote
He's trying to say that everybody who's ever proved that the Earth is round is in on the conspiracy

You have the reading comprehension of a five year old. Re-read my post and see that I in fact said almost the opposite.

uh, i believe youre the one with the low reading comprehension level, seeing as you didn't really answer my question, both the one you quoted and the question about the "passing down" and the future of the conspiracy
Don't be  hatin'.  Be appreciatin'.