I'm looking for a single scientific study which proves that the earth is a globe

Quote

In lieu of a published study, would you settle for an entire branch of science instead?

A branch of science which hasn't published a single study for one of its fundamental assumptions. Right.

And you know this for a fact because....

Tom, I have to let you in on a little secret.  There are a number of comprehensive studies concerning the actual size and shape of the earth.  But it is highly classified material.  As a sworn members of the round earth conspiracy, we are all strictly forbidden from providing any non-conspiracy member with any of that material.  We are allowed to provide you with evidence supporting the claim that the earth is round, including experiments that you can perform yourself, satellite imagery, mathematical models, etc.  However, the actual studies are strictly forbidden for non-members.  Sorry.

Shoot, I will probably get into a lot of trouble for even telling you this much.

Markjo! Report to punishment hall 6! Immediately!

Markjo! Report to punishment hall 6! Immediately!

Damn!! I knew I shouldn't have said anything.   

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 02, 2008, 12:19:43 PM

Oh right, leave it to NASA to tell us the shape of the earth. 

AND THERE YOU GO! lol. Direct proof, tons of studies, and Tom says its a lie.

Proof that they can't prove the sahpe of the earth, Tom? Proof they didn't do these studies?

Tom? Gona prove that this technology 'doesn't exist'? Huh?

Tom left, he's narcberry now.

Tom left, he's narcberry now.

Narc Bishop?

Tom? Gona prove that this technology 'doesn't exist'? Huh?

Prove a negative? Yeah right. Why don't you actually do what's possible and prove a positive.

Quote

Tom? Gona prove that this technology 'doesn't exist'? Huh?

Prove a negative? Yeah right. Why don't you actually do what's possible and prove a positive.

I've given you proof. I gave you studies, I've indicated that private industry has a presence in space, and I've given you an experiment you can even try at home. You're the one claiming these don't exist. Prove it. It's not my job, its yours.

I've given you proof. I gave you studies, I've indicated that private industry has a presence in space, and I've given you an experiment you can even try at home. You're the one claiming these don't exist. Prove it. It's not my job, its yours.

Links to NASA's website! Like NASA's science fiction has any credibility on these forums. You may as well be linking me to an online bible.

Quote

I've given you proof. I gave you studies, I've indicated that private industry has a presence in space, and I've given you an experiment you can even try at home. You're the one claiming these don't exist. Prove it. It's not my job, its yours.

Links to NASA's website. Like NASA's science fiction has any credibility on these forums. You may as well be linking me to an online bible.

I could if you like.

Fine then lets start with something easy. Prove the conspiracy exists. Thats not proving a negative. More accurately, prove NASA isn't credible.

Tom how about this, you provide me with proof of a natural magnet that has a center +(north) and a perimeter -(south) and I'll give your theories a thought.  But until you can find some explanation of an impossible magnetic field, I don't really have any faith in you.

Fine then lets start with something easy. Prove the conspiracy exists. Thats not proving a negative. More accurately, prove NASA isn't credible.

We already know that NASA's not credible. This can be seen in many of their slip-ups.

NASA lies about Global Warming

NASA tries to shut up Climate Expert (NY Times)

NASA lied about the Hubble not being able to photograph the moon

NASA lied about the Apollo 1 fire

NASA lied about the existence of "cold" in space

NASA lied to get plutonium cleared for space

Quote

Fine then lets start with something easy. Prove the conspiracy exists. Thats not proving a negative. More accurately, prove NASA isn't credible.

We already know that NASA's not credible. This can be seen in many of their slip-ups.

NASA lies about Global Warming

NASA tries to shut up Climate Expert (NY Times)

NASA lied about the Apollo 1 fire

NASA lied about the existence of "cold" in space

NASA lied to get plutonium cleared for space

NASA lied about the Hubble not being able to photograph the moon

Tom, these are media articles (part of the conspiracy are they not?) and posts on threads caliming a conspiracy. Can't you do better? Can you provide us with, oh lets say, a study? Or proof, rather than forum posts and people claiming stuff?

Tom, these are media articles (part of the conspiracy are they not?) and posts on threads caliming a conspiracy. Can't you do better? Can you provide us with, oh lets say, a study? Or proof, rather than forum posts and people claiming stuff?

I don't recall seeing anything in the FAQ which states that the media is "in on the Conspiracy." You just made that up.

As far as the forum posts go, the posters reference their sources, as well as links to corroborating news articles. I don't see why the arguments aren't valid.

If you want to see a study demonstrating that NASA is not credible, the one which sticks out most in my mind is "What Happened on the Moon" by David Percy:

Watch Part 1 of 2

Especially interesting here is the argument presented at the 1:35 hour mark of Part 1 which deals with the reflection of the sun off of the astronaut's convex visors. When the diameter of the reflected sun is compared to the diameter of sun reflections from other space missions we find there are clear and irrefutable discrepancies which should not exist.

Next I'll point your interest to the 2:00 hour mark in Part 1. There is no satisfactory explanation for the wire-support argument. There are pings of light directly above the heads of astronauts where a wire momentarily catches the light of the studio lighting. Additionally, the weight distribution of the astronauts in some scenes are especially hard to explain. Considering the NASA video data presented in this section I feel that there is no other conclusion a person could arrive at. The Apollo astronauts were using wire supports. What other explanation is there for astronauts being seen to hover and bounce without contact with the Moon's surface?

Watch part 2 of 2

In this second part, I'll direct your attention to the 54:30 minute mark where a Government Contractor describes the LEM construction. NASA apparently submitted a 110 page document proposal for the 6.9 billion dollar construction of the Lunar Lander. This is in direct contrast to similar sized government proposals which can be eighty thousand pages in length.

I know that there are websites out there which attempt to "debunk" many of the arguments in the video; however I have never seen coherent rebuttals for the above phenomena.

In addition to the above evidence, we also have evidence that the Mars rover missions did not occur.

NASA fakes colors of Mars

NASA determines the results of its mars missions before launch.

NASA deliberately edits its own images and fakes data loss.

NASA deliberately released low resolution versions of their mars imaging to encourage public hype about the Cydonia Menasae.

Especially interesting here is the argument presented at the 1:35 hour mark of Part 1 which deals with the reflection of the sun off of the astronaut's convex visors. When the diameter of the reflected sun is compared to the diameter of sun reflections from other space missions we find there are clear and irrefutable discrepancies which should not exist.

Was the same camera and contrast used in the first mission and the following missions? Different cameras and contrasts will record light differently. Was it even the same time of Moon day, and in the same area of the Moon? the hight of the Sun in the sky will have an effect on the position of the reflection, and depending on the shape of the visor, the size of the reflection may change. For that matter, was the visor even made of the same stuff? NASA may have changed the design of the helmet after feedback from the first mission.

Next I'll point your interest to the 2:00 hour mark in Part 1. There is no satisfactory explanation for the wire-support argument. There are pings of light directly above the heads of astronauts where a wire momentarily catches the light of the studio lighting. Additionally, the weight distribution of the astronauts in some scenes are especially hard to explain. Considering the NASA video data presented in this section I feel that there is no other conclusion a person could arrive at. The Apollo astronauts were using wire supports.

Is the wire visible in the rest of the scene? Wires don't change their reflective properties much, and don't randomly contort into different shapes. Also, the fact that most wires are roughly cylindrical in shape means that is should always be visible, as it will always have a surface at a suitable angle to reflect the light. If it isn't then the suggests that it's probably not a wire.

In this second part, I'll direct your attention to the 54:30 minute mark where a Government Contractor describes the LEM construction. NASA apparently submitted a 110 page document proposal for the 6.9 billion dollar construction of the Lunar Lander. This is in direct contrast to similar sized government proposals which can be eighty thousand pages in length.

Size in what way? Physical size? Cost? The Lunar Lander may have been expensive, but it wasn't all that big.

Ok I'll watch those when I get home. For now let me prove to you, using your methods, that aliens exhist:

News stories:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7150156.stm
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Story?id=3349575&page=1
http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/news/latest-world-news/tm_objectid=14449656&method=full&siteid=50082&headline=if-aliens-exist--we-ll-know-in-20-years--name_page.html


Forum posts:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=27131&page=11
http://www.mylot.com/w/discussions/887007.aspx

Google videos:
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=2255563548483462556&q=aliens+documentary&total=916&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=4
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-5908163288242521889&q=aliens+documentary&total=916&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=8
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=381585431082819235&q=aliens+autopsy&total=85&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3


Crap, it's easy to prove things... thanks for the help, Tom!

Ok I'll watch those when I get home. For now let me prove to you, using your methods, that aliens exhist:

UFO's != Aliens

Was the same camera and contrast used in the first mission and the following missions? Different cameras and contrasts will record light differently. Was it even the same time of Moon day, and in the same area of the Moon? the hight of the Sun in the sky will have an effect on the position of the reflection, and depending on the shape of the visor, the size of the reflection may change. For that matter, was the visor even made of the same stuff? NASA may have changed the design of the helmet after feedback from the first mission.

The comparisons in question are reflections off of the Astronaut's visor on the Moon (reflection takes up more than half of the visor), and reflections from other non-moon space missions in Earth orbit (reflection is a tiny point of light). We know from NASA's own data that the Moon was farther away from the sun than the earth, so how is a reflection so huge in one mission but a tiny point of light in another mission?

UFO's != Aliens

Forums posts + google videos + news stories != proof

UFO's != Aliens

Is != supposed to mean, does not equal, because the symbol for that is <> I believe.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 03, 2008, 11:34:35 AM

UFO's != Aliens

Is != supposed to mean, does not equal, because the symbol for that is <> I believe.

there are plenty of signs that represent does not equal. != is in programming, <> can also be in programming or scripting, and in math I was tought an equal sign with a diagonal line through it

Quote from: Vincent on April 03, 2008, 11:36:44 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 03, 2008, 11:34:35 AM

UFO's != Aliens

Is != supposed to mean, does not equal, because the symbol for that is <> I believe.

there are plenty of signs that represent does not equal. != is in programming, <> can also be in programming or scripting, and in math I was tought an equal sign with a diagonal line through it

Sorry I didn't mean to say you were wrong, just that I was confused as to what the symbol was supposed to mean.

The comparisons in question are reflections off of the Astronaut's visor on the Moon (reflection takes up more than half of the visor), and reflections from other non-moon space missions in Earth orbit (reflection is a tiny point of light). We know from NASA's own data that the Moon was farther away from the sun than the earth, so how is a reflection so huge in one mission but a tiny point of light in another mission?

Again, is the same camera being used? Is the visor the same material? Could the huge reflection you see on the Moon, be the Moon?

Again, is the same camera being used? Is the visor the same material? Could the huge reflection you see on the Moon, be the Moon?

I don't know of any cameras which can severely distort shapes and sizes. In the Apollo footage the reflections of the sun are huge and take up more than half the visors. On other non-Apollo missions we see sun reflections which appear as tiny points of light, taking up 1/100th of an astronauts visor.

No. The reflection is not the moon. Watch the video.

Forums posts + google videos + news stories != proof

So lets see. We have government contractors who tell us that NASA's proposal for the LEM was equal in quality to something designed for a museum prop. We have scientists who claim that NASA tried to silence them. We have observers from the NASA mars mission control room who say that colors were deliberately adjusted.

How are those first hand testimonials not direct evidence against NASA's credibility?

Go to Florida, watch space canoe go in space. [/society] Wait, crap! Don't you fucking dare, this society is good for the most part!

Quote

Again, is the same camera being used? Is the visor the same material? Could the huge reflection you see on the Moon, be the Moon?

I don't know of any cameras which can severely distort shapes and sizes. In the Apollo footage the reflections of the sun are huge and take up more than half the visors. On other non-Apollo missions we see sun reflections which appear as tiny points of light, taking up 1/100th of an astronauts visor.

No. The reflection is not the moon. Watch the video.

Quote

Forums posts + google videos + news stories != proof

So lets see. We have government contractors who tell us that NASA's proposal for the LEM was equal in quality to something designed for a museum prop. We have scientists who claim that NASA tried to silence them. We have observers from the NASA mars mission control room who say that colors were deliberately adjusted.

How are those first hand testimonials not direct evidence against NASA's credibility?

So lets see. I have a testimonial where you failed to identify a picture shown to you, in which you successfully acted like a bot. The moderators tried to silence us. We have observers which note specifically, that you deliberately copy-paste pretty much everything you right.

How are these first hand testimonials not direct evidence that you are a bot?

Furthermore, there are no studies which suggest you are not a bot. Give me one. You can't, it is a conspiracy.

I don't know of any cameras which can severely distort shapes and sizes. In the Apollo footage the reflections of the sun are huge and take up more than half the visors. On other non-Apollo missions we see sun reflections which appear as tiny points of light, taking up 1/100th of an astronauts visor.

No. The reflection is not the moon. Watch the video.

From what I saw in that part of the video, the Moon astronauts have a gold visor, and the other astronauts have a black visor, or some kind of dark visor in the case of the shots that look black and white. That suggests that the visors are made of different materials.

Quote

Again, is the same camera being used? Is the visor the same material? Could the huge reflection you see on the Moon, be the Moon?

I don't know of any cameras which can severely distort shapes and sizes. In the Apollo footage the reflections of the sun are huge and take up more than half the visors. On other non-Apollo missions we see sun reflections which appear as tiny points of light, taking up 1/100th of an astronauts visor.

No. The reflection is not the moon. Watch the video.

Quote

Forums posts + google videos + news stories != proof

So lets see. We have government contractors who tell us that NASA's proposal for the LEM was equal in quality to something designed for a museum prop. We have scientists who claim that NASA tried to silence them. We have observers from the NASA mars mission control room who say that colors were deliberately adjusted.

How are those first hand testimonials not direct evidence against NASA's credibility?

So lets see. We have government contractors who tell us the US government is in possesion of crashed alien craft. We have scientists that claim that the US government has alien bodies and actual aliens. We have observers who have witnessed alien encounters first hand and some that were abducted.

How are those first hand testimonials not direct evidence against the US government's credibility?

I have a comment about the tide theory in FE. If its true that tides are caused when the Earth see-saw's slightly and the water splashes around, how is it that the "ice wall" supposedly surrounding the planet has not been corroded from million's years abuse by the salt water of the ocean?

Who knows? Tom does! Do tell, Tom.