"Conspiracy" is not a valid argument

Can anyone tell me what efforts have been made by FEr's to expose the conspiracy?  What research has been done?

Well I've looked into various times in history when it could've been started (I'm thinking Pythagorus's secret society could've been the foundation) and possible motivation other than money. As for exposing the conspiracy, I don't really care about it - I'm happy for most of you to live in ignorance.

But for you to then go and say that because we can't explain something like NASA photos then the only explanation is that they are real and accurate representations of a round earth is like saying that just because something's evolution can't be shown exactly step by step for every mutation that came along then intelligent design must be true.

But for you to then go and say that because we can't explain something like the few observations that point to the Earth being flat then the only explanation is that they are real and accurate representations of a flat earth is like saying that just because something's evolution can't be shown exactly step by step for every mutation that came along than intelligent design must be true.

It works just as well this way.

Except that we pretty much can explain those few, lonely, experiments.

But for you to then go and say that because we can't explain something like the few observations that point to the Earth being flat then the only explanation is that they are real and accurate representations of a flat earth is like saying that just because something's evolution can't be shown exactly step by step for every mutation that came along than intelligent design must be true.

It works just as well this way.

Except that we pretty much can explain those few, lonely, experiments.

Wow, now there's a complicated sentence to wade through.

But good point though. The only evidence FE'ers have ever presented are experiments done a long time ago that have never been replicated. There are theories (such as superior mirages) that can probably expain these isolated examples. Meanwhile, there is a huge body of evidence for RET.

So maybe one or two freak occurences suggest the earth is flat. That's no reason to go believing it.

Quote from: ghazwozza on June 11, 2008, 08:11:56 AM

Not really. The conspiracy is a result of a flat earth theory -- it's needed to explain away the mountain of evidence that points to a RE (e.g. space travel, worlwide acceptance of RET, lack of evidence for the ice wall etc.).

The conspiracy is not an argument for a flat Earth, but the lack of a conspiracy is evidence for a round earth, hence the importance of debating it.

It's not needed to explain anything. It is an explanation that does explain a lot of things but it's certainly not needed. The simple retort could just be, "I don't yet know how that is possible." But for you to then go and say that because we can't explain something like NASA photos then the only explanation is that they are real and accurate representations of a round earth is like saying that just because something's evolution can't be shown exactly step by step for every mutation that came along then intelligent design must be true. Alternative explanations of NASA photos could be an optical illusion or something else, I just happen to believe that a conspiracy fits best. Repeated yet again: the conspiracy theory comes from the idea that the earth is flat. Debunking the conspiracy would do nothing to prove a round earth, it would just mean that new hypothesis would be needed to explain various phenomena. Now you could point out that a round earth theory explains the phenomena quite succinctly and I would completely agree with you, I would also understand if you held on to your round earth beliefs. However, I happen to know that the earth is flat and am trying to explain phenomena based on that knowledge. I'm not trying to prove anything to you and I don't really care what beliefs you come away with (flat or round), you're more than entitled to them. I hope you stick around and keep asking questions because occasionally REers come on here with something that hasn't been thought of yet that needs an explanation (though I doubt that's you).

I think you're biggest mistake is you believe people here give a shit about what you think and are trying to prove the flat earth model to you. Trust me we don't and we're not.

Fair enough. Like I said though, I am not trying to prove RE or FE in this particular thread. I just want to know more about this conspiracy because if it were to be true and it were to be exposed it would be right up there with someone finding and proving they have the remains of Jesus Christ. It would turn the world upside down.

So for anyone to believe in this conspiracy I think is a big deal. And if there is proof of it then it needs to be exposed. I feel it would be our duty as humanitarians to do everything in our power to let the world know of such a conspiracy. Not only that we would become very rich and famous.

I tell you what, if you dont feel comfortable with the limelight then just email me the proof of this conspiracy and I will call Oprah and let the world know of my findings. Heck, I may even send you a little something something for your efforts.

But good point though. The only evidence FE'ers have ever presented are experiments done a long time ago that have never been replicated. There are theories (such as superior mirages) that can probably expain these isolated examples. Meanwhile, there is a huge body of evidence for RET.

So maybe one or two freak occurences suggest the earth is flat. That's no reason to go believing it.

And the thing is that the Fe's will go to any lengths to get semi-plausible FE explanations of observations that point to a Round Earth by tacking on all sort of extra hypotheses.

But what they don't seem to realize is that you can explain all the observations that point to a flat earth in the Round Earth model in the same way, except that your explanations are more plausible and you don't need as many extra hypotheses.

And the thing is that the Fe's will go to any lengths to get semi-plausible FE explanations of observations that point to a Round Earth by tacking on all sort of extra hypotheses.

But what they don't seem to realize is that you can explain all the observations that point to a flat earth in the Round Earth model in the same way, except that your explanations are more plausible and you don't need as many extra hypotheses.

No. Wrong. You guys are making the hypothesis. You guys are claiming that stellar communication exists, that ion drives exist, that specially designed heat shields exist, that NASA has created all of these hundreds of never before seen technologies and alloys necessary for them to do these amazing and unthinkable things in space. You are making many claims. You are claiming all of these things beyond human experience which only a select few have access to.

The simplest explanation is that it's a lie. Therefore the burden of proof is solely on you to prove that these things exist.

And your argument earlier about a religious man not having to prove that God exists is wrong. Every atheist will tell you that the burden lies on the religious man to prove his claim. Not that it matters, but the burden lies on both people to prove their claim.

The burden of proof is on the man to prove his claims that God talks to him in his sleep, that a magical fairy grants him wishes, or that spirits from the afterlife guide him through life. The man must prove his claims. It's not up to others to disprove his claims. The man is a liar by default until he proves his claims.

You are making all of these fantastic claims of space travel. Therefore you must prove that these unverifiable claims are true. The burden is not on others to prove that they are false. It's impossible to prove a negative. Look up Russel's Teapot.

The burden is always on he who makes the claim. You are the one coming here and making a claim. If you cannot back up your claim, you are wrong.

Let's get this straight Tom.

1) The technology developed by NASA, the RSA and others is not as outlandish as you claim. It's based on physics you can learn at University and just involves a bit of clever engineering. It's impressive, yes, but the human brain is an impressive tool.

2) You are the one making the claim. Let me explain:

We made a claim: we said that people travelled into space. As evidence, we cited the testimonies of astronaut's and eye-witnesses, ground based observers, the scientific data produced, amateur astronomer's, the ability to see artificial satellites, videos of space travel, photos from space, photos from Hubble, NASA and ESA documents, moon rocks, samples of comet trails, GPS, satellite phones, television, news coverage of missions etc. This is a lot of evidence.

Next, you claim that this is all a conspiracy. You offer no evidence. So, the burden of proof is on you.

Tom, you are an asshole, always have been, and always will be!

YOU are the one who claims that NASA is lying. they have HUNDREDS OF TONS of proof of THEIR claims!

YOU are the one challanging HUNDREDS OF YEARS of ESTABLISHED FACT!!

the burden of proof is ENTIRELY on YOU, always has been entirely on you, and always will be entirely on you!

your claims are total bullshit, always have been total bullshit, and always will be TOTAL BULLSHIT!!

you say the burden of proof is on them JUST to TRY to divert attention from the FACT that you have NO PROOF, never have had ANY PROOF, and never will be able to produce ANY PROOF!!

you can't even produce ONE picture of the beach across the bay that you CLAIM to be able to see! NOT ONE PICTURE!!

the FACT that you are INCAPABLE of producing such a picture al absolute proof that you are ABSOLUTELY WRONG, always have been ABSOLUTELY WRONG, and always will be ABSOLUTELY WRONG!!

It's based on physics you can learn at University and just involves a bit of clever engineering. It's impressive, yes, but the human brain is an impressive tool.

Many theories of physics tell us that time travel is possible. Should we go around believing anyone who claims to travel through time?

We made a claim: we said that people travelled into space. As evidence, we cited the testimonies of astronaut's and eye-witnesses, ground based observers, the scientific data produced, amateur astronomer's, the ability to see artificial satellites, videos of space travel, photos from space, photos from Hubble, NASA and ESA documents, moon rocks, samples of comet trails, GPS, satellite phones, television, news coverage of missions etc. This is a lot of evidence.

All of that is third hand evidence which originates from the same source. An appeal to an authority. It's not evidence. It's a fallacy.

You must provide real direct evidence that the claims of space grandeur are true.

Next, you claim that this is all a conspiracy. You offer no evidence.

There is actually a lot of evidence and testimonials suggesting that NASA is deceptive. But there is no reason to offer it to you. I don't need to.

It's not my responsibility to prove that NASA is lying. It's your and only your responsibility to prove that they are telling the truth. By default NASA's unverifiable and never-peer-reviewed claims are false. You must PROVE to us that these claims of space mechamania are true. I don't need to prove that they are false. I don't need to prove that God doesn't talk to a man in his sleep. I don't need to prove that a man cannot travel to time. All of the former must be PROVEN.

The burden is on he who makes the claim. You are making the claim. Not me. You.

Tom, you are an asshole, always have been, and always will be!

YOU are the one who claims that NASA is lying. they have HUNDREDS OF TONS of proof of THEIR claims!

YOU are the one challanging HUNDREDS OF YEARS of ESTABLISHED FACT!!

the burden of proof is ENTIRELY on YOU, always has been entirely on you, and always will be entirely on you!

your claims are total bullshit, always have been total bullshit, and always will be TOTAL BULLSHIT!!

you say the burden of proof is on them JUST to TRY to divert attention from the FACT that you have NO PROOF, never have had ANY PROOF, and never will be able to produce ANY PROOF!!

you can't even produce ONE picture of the beach across the bay that you CLAIM to be able to see! NOT ONE PICTURE!!

the FACT that you are INCAPABLE of producing such a picture al absolute proof that you are ABSOLUTELY WRONG, always have been ABSOLUTELY WRONG, and always will be ABSOLUTELY WRONG!!

We will never stop loving you Eric, no matter what

Quote

And the thing is that the Fe's will go to any lengths to get semi-plausible FE explanations of observations that point to a Round Earth by tacking on all sort of extra hypotheses.

But what they don't seem to realize is that you can explain all the observations that point to a flat earth in the Round Earth model in the same way, except that your explanations are more plausible and you don't need as many extra hypotheses.

No. Wrong. You guys are making the hypothesis. You guys are claiming that stellar communication exists, that ion drives exist, that specially designed heat shields exist, that NASA has created all of these hundreds of never before seen technologies and alloys necessary for them to do these amazing and unthinkable things in space. You are making many claims. You are claiming all of these things beyond human experience which only a select few have access to.

The simplest explanation is that it's a lie. Therefore the burden of proof is solely on you to prove that these things exist.

Once again, what is unthinkable about what NASA does in space?  Take a look at the computer you're using, the technology in it is more advanced than probably anything they used on the Apollo Mission.

I'm sure Messier would be glad to explain that these things are not beyond human experience, as he has some rather nice photos of the ISS & the Space Shuttle.

And anyway, you don't need NASA for RE.  If it was somehow shown that all space exploration is a hoax, than the case for a round earth would not fall.  We got oceanography, geography, studies of seismic waves, Metrology, basic astronomy, gravimetry, surveys, etc...

People knew that the earth was round before the sixties, you know.

Appeal to authority?  Tom your entire case for Fe is based off of appeal to authority.

I don't need to prove that a man cannot travel to time. All of the former must be PROVEN.

The burden is on he who makes the claim. You are making the claim. Not me. You.

No it doesn't need to be proven.  You can show that the Earth is round w/o/ any NASA.

And you're claiming that the Earth is flat.  So if the burden is on he who makes the claim, than the burden is on you.

All of that is third hand evidence which originates from the same source. An appeal to an authority. It's not evidence. It's a fallacy.

It is not an appeal to authority. It is citing second-hand evidence. If everything had to be proven personally no debate would get anywhere. Also, this evidence comes from a wide variety of sources. NASA and the RSA for two, but also amateur astronomers (and their pictures of the ISS), independent labs that have analysed moon samples and comet trails, and man-made satellites are visible from space.

ISS seen by amateur astronomers:

http://dwarmstr.blogspot.com/2006/10/international-space-station-pass-seen.html

Mirrors left on the moon:
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/1999-07/931350588.As.r.html

An appeal to authority would be something like "Einstein thought the world was round" or "Rowbotham thought the world was flat". By your standards, none of the "evidence" you claim would be admitable, becasue it's all testimonies from one or two people.

Our evidence is solid enough to convince a rational person. It is up to you to disprove it.

Once again, what is unthinkable about what NASA does in space?  Take a look at the computer you're using, the technology in it is more advanced than probably anything they used on the Apollo Mission.

Once again, a fallacious argument.

"IBM builds complicated computers... therefore John Titor can really travel through time."

"The Egyptians built pyramids... therefore Casper Harris really has a machine which can bore through the earth's crust."

"Theoretical Physics says that a higher being is 'possible'... therefore my local preacher is correct when he says that God talks to him in his sleep."

An appeal to authority would be something like "Einstein thought the world was round" or "Rowbotham thought the world was flat". By your standards, none of the "evidence" you claim would be admitable, becasue it's all testimonies from one or two people.

The vast majority of evidence mentioned in this thread comes directly from NASA's PR department. Astronaut testimony isn't evidence for NASA's honesty. Video NASA releases to the public aren't evidence for NASA's honesty. You argument is "my local preacher says that God talks to him on a regular basis... just ask him!!!"

ISS seen by amateur astronomers:

I don't see how a blip in the sky proves NASA's honesty in all matters mentioned. What does looking at a blip float by in the sky tell us about the moon missions, sustained space travel, the technologies NASA has claimed to have invented, whether NASA is a fraudulent entity, or whether their video portrayal of earth and space are untainted?

Mirrors left on the moon:

The mirrors were deliberately left in an attempt to prove to the world that NASA really did go to the moon. NASA works directly with professional astronomers to build the high power military-grade lasers necessary for the moon-bounce.

Quote

Once again, what is unthinkable about what NASA does in space?  Take a look at the computer you're using, the technology in it is more advanced than probably anything they used on the Apollo Mission.

Once again, a fallacious argument.

"IBM builds complicated computers... therefore John Jones can really travel through time."

"The Egyptians built pyramids... therefore Casper Harris really has a machine which can bore through the earth's crust."

"Theoretical Physics says that a higher being is 'possible'... therefore my local preacher is correct when he says that God talks to him in his sleep."

Nope.  Time Travel is far beyond IBM computers.  Boring through the Earth's crust is way beyond pyrmaids.  The technology used on the Apollo Missions is less advanced than a cell phone of a flat screen TV.

And the images of the ISS aren't just blips in the sky, just look at all the shit Messier has posted.

Once again, a fallacious argument.

"IBM builds complicated computers... therefore John Jones can really travel through time."

"The Egyptians built pyramids... therefore Casper Harris really has a machine which can bore through the earth's crust."

"Theoretical Physics says that a higher being is 'possible'... therefore my local preacher is correct when he says that God talks to him in his sleep."

I wasn't using that to prove space travel. I was just pointing out that it is not the outlandish claim you imply it is.

I don't see how a blip in the sky proves NASA's honesty in all matters mentioned. What does looking at a blip float by in the sky tell us about the moon missions, sustained space travel, the technologies NASA has claimed to have invented, whether NASA is a fraudulent entity, or whether their video portrayal of earth and space are untainted?

This isn't a blip floating in the sky. This is a clearly and unquestionably a video of an obviously man-made object extremely high up and moving very quickly. This object must be above the bulk of the atmosphere (because of it's unaerodynamic shape). This tells us quite a lot. This tells us that mankind has indeed sent objects into space.

Quote

Mirrors left on the moon:

NASA works directly with professional astronomers to build the high power military-grade lasers necessary for the moon-bounce.

Are you claiming they just shine an immensely powerful laser at the moon and measure the scattered light!? This is an outrageous claim.

1) The time delay (which has been measured by independant amateur astronomers) indicates the moon is far more 3000 km away
2) The amount of power required to do this without a laser is laughable. Observe:

Suppose 0.1W of power are needed for detection, and the detector has a collecting surface of 100 m^2. Also assume the moon is 3100 km away. The moon has an albedo of 0.12, which means that 12% of the light that hits it is scattered. So, the amount of power required for the laser is:

P = 0.1*4*Pi*(3.1E6)^2 / 100*0.12 = 1E12 W, which is 1 Terrawatt, a preposterous amount.

For comparison, a power station outputs a few hundred megawatts. My Dad, who builds industrial lasers, has never worked with one more powerful than a few kilowatts. These are a few thousand and a few million times too feeble, repectively.

But for you to then go and say that because we can't explain something like the few observations that point to the Earth being flat then the only explanation is that they are real and accurate representations of a flat earth is like saying that just because something's evolution can't be shown exactly step by step for every mutation that came along than intelligent design must be true.

It works just as well this way.

Except that we pretty much can explain those few, lonely, experiments.

Spot on! I absolutely agree with you 100%. It's up to you do decide what evidence will determine your beliefs and go from there. Personally, I am convinced that the earth is flat as I have travelled on the Potent Voyager and seen it with my own eyes. I did consider that maybe I was insane but then I went and got my eyes checked and my head examined and the leprechauns told me I was a-okay.

I think this basically comes back to the REers trying to prove things and attempting to "win". At the end of the day you can put forth the best argument you have and make it extremely tight (who knows it may even be true) but that still won't mean the other will change their beliefs so what have you proven or "won"?

Fair enough. Like I said though, I am not trying to prove RE or FE in this particular thread. I just want to know more about this conspiracy because if it were to be true and it were to be exposed it would be right up there with someone finding and proving they have the remains of Jesus Christ. It would turn the world upside down.

So for anyone to believe in this conspiracy I think is a big deal. And if there is proof of it then it needs to be exposed. I feel it would be our duty as humanitarians to do everything in our power to let the world know of such a conspiracy. Not only that we would become very rich and famous.

I tell you what, if you dont feel comfortable with the limelight then just email me the proof of this conspiracy and I will call Oprah and let the world know of my findings. Heck, I may even send you a little something something for your efforts.

Well I'm not too sure about being a humanitarian but I certainly like the idea of being rich.

As of yet, there is no evidence to support it. It's merely a hypothesis that attempts to explain phenomena, so it's on pretty similar footing to dark matter or the Higgs boson.

I will definitely try and find some direct evidence for a conspiracy though if you think it would go a long way to validating Flat Earth Theory.

time for some sillyness:

Tom Bishop is a vampire. i have no proof that he is, THEREFORE IT MUST BE TRUE!!

that's how absurd FEr's "conspiracy" babbling is.

oh, i remember reading about the laser bouncing off the moon: it was focussed into a VERY narrow beam, which bounced off a MIRROR that the Apollo crews left on the moon. you wouldn't need a REALLY powerful laser for that, just an accurate aiming system!

Please get back on your Olanzapine tablets, Eric.

oh, i remember reading about the laser bouncing off the moon: it was focussed into a VERY narrow beam, which bounced off a MIRROR that the Apollo crews left on the moon. you wouldn't need a REALLY powerful laser for that, just an accurate aiming system!

My goodness! Why didn't NASA think of that?

Quote from: eric bloedow on June 11, 2008, 02:41:18 PM

oh, i remember reading about the laser bouncing off the moon: it was focussed into a VERY narrow beam, which bounced off a MIRROR that the Apollo crews left on the moon. you wouldn't need a REALLY powerful laser for that, just an accurate aiming system!

My goodness! Why didn't NASA think of that?

Because it doesn't work and nobody has bounced a beam off the moon except NASA, and NASA funded/supplied organizations.

Quote from: ghazwozza on June 11, 2008, 03:01:01 PM

Quote from: eric bloedow on June 11, 2008, 02:41:18 PM

oh, i remember reading about the laser bouncing off the moon: it was focussed into a VERY narrow beam, which bounced off a MIRROR that the Apollo crews left on the moon. you wouldn't need a REALLY powerful laser for that, just an accurate aiming system!

My goodness! Why didn't NASA think of that?

Because it doesn't work and nobody has bounced a beam off the moon except NASA, and NASA funded/supplied organizations.

Right, so now it's up to you to prove they're lying.

I don't recall NASA being the only people collecting data from the laser arrays on the Moon. From what I can tell, the two main places keeping an eye on the Moon are in Texas and France, and don't really have all that much to do with NASA. I don't know why people keep saying that NASA is the only group that has control over the reflectors on the Moon. Anyone with a sufficiently powerful laser and detector could use them. NASA doesn't have a big sheet it puts in front of the Moon to stop people using the stuff on it.

It wouldn't surprise me if in reality, NASA weren't the ones who measured the distance to the Moon in the first place. NASA doesn't have many excessively powerful lasers and sensitive detectors for the relevant wavelengths, so they probably asked some other group to do it for them.

All in all, we know that it takes 2.5 seconds for light to go from the Earth to the Moon and back again. I doubt NASA's going to be able to hide anything about that.

I don't recall NASA being the only people collecting data from the laser arrays on the Moon. From what I can tell, the two main places keeping an eye on the Moon are in Texas and France, and don't really have all that much to do with NASA.

You are taking about the McDonald's Observatory and the Observatoire de la Côte d'Azur which were both shown to recieve direction and funding from NASA in a different thread.

All in all, we know that it takes 2.5 seconds for light to go from the Earth to the Moon and back again. I doubt NASA's going to be able to hide anything about that.

No we don't.  NASA and NASA funded/supplied organizations tell us that.

Nope.  Time Travel is far beyond IBM computers.  Boring through the Earth's crust is way beyond pyrmaids.  The technology used on the Apollo Missions is less advanced than a cell phone of a flat screen TV.

Rocket technologies, space suits, heat shields, space alloys, and oxygen recyclers are all entirely different technologies than cell phones and flat screen TV's. You must prove that these space technologies exist as NASA advertises. None the technologies NASA claims exist are within human experience as cell phones and flat screen TV's are.

It's not my responsibility to prove that the technologies do not exist. I don't need to prove that a man can't travel through time,  that God doesn't talk to people, or a man can't bore through the earth's crust. The burden of proof is on he who makes the claim.

Claiming that the technologies are "physically possible" and therefore real isn't proof. I don't know what that is. That's just stupid.

Time Travel is also "physically possible" in many theories of physics. Does that mean we should believe John Titor when he claims to have a device which can travel through time?

his isn't a blip floating in the sky. This is a clearly and unquestionably a video of an obviously man-made object extremely high up and moving very quickly. This object must be above the bulk of the atmosphere (because of it's unaerodynamic shape). This tells us quite a lot. This tells us that mankind has indeed sent objects into space.

Plenty of man made devices move through the sky. You must prove:

- That what you see is a space ship.
- That what you see is sitting beyond the atmosphere of the earth.
- That the device is moving at the speeds claimed by NASA.

If you cannot prove any of the above, all we can really say on the matter is that we see a man-made object moving through the sky. The existence of this object says nothing on the honesty of NASA, their videos, their testimonies, their press releases or claims.

You are taking about the McDonald's Observatory and the Observatoire de la Côte d'Azur which were both shown to recieve direction and funding from NASA in a different thread.

Yeah, because NASA lies about absolutely everything except who they fund.  Apparently, that is the only area where we can trust NASA.

Quote

Nope.  Time Travel is far beyond IBM computers.  Boring through the Earth's crust is way beyond pyrmaids.  The technology used on the Apollo Missions is less advanced than a cell phone of a flat screen TV.

Rocket technologies, space suits, heat shields, space alloys, and oxygen recyclers are all entirely different technologies than cell phones and flat screen TV's. You must prove that these space technologies exist as NASA advertises. None the technologies NASA claims exist are within human experience as cell phones and flat screen TV's are.

I wasn't saying that they are the same kind of technology.  I was saying that the shit in a cell phone is more advanced than the shit in the Moon Lander.  All the technology that NASA used in the Sixties isn't all that advanced compared to, say, the laptop I'm typing on.  Of course, the shit they got now is at an entirely different level.

I must prove them?  Tom, how do you suggest that I do that, how could I prove them to your satisfaction?

Claiming that the technologies are "physically possible" and therefore real isn't proof. I don't know what that is. That's just stupid.

Time Travel is also "physically possible" in many theories of physics. Does that mean we should believe John Titor when he claims to have a device which can travel through time?

I wasn't trying to show that NASA has those technologies.  You where saying that those technologies where insane/far-fetched.  I was point out that they aren't.

Plenty of man made devices move through the sky. You must prove:

- That what you see is a space ship.
- That what you see is sitting beyond the atmosphere of the earth.
- That the device is moving at the speeds claimed by NASA.

If you cannot prove any of the above, all we can really say on the matter is that we see a man-made object moving through the sky. The existence of this object says nothing on the honesty of NASA, their videos, their testimonies, their press releases or claims.

Go look at Messier's shit.  Better yet, wait 'til he's back on here.

Yeah, because NASA lies about absolutely everything except who they fund.  Apparently, that is the only area where we can trust NASA.

You're suggesting they do not fund those observatories? It'd be pretty hard to fund them secretly, wouldn't you agree?

I was saying that the shit in a cell phone is more advanced than the shit in the Moon Lander.  All the technology that NASA used in the Sixties isn't all that advanced compared to, say, the laptop I'm typing on.

I'll take you seriously when your laptop or cellphone goes to the moon.

Quote from: lindelof on June 11, 2008, 10:11:28 PM

Yeah, because NASA lies about absolutely everything except who they fund.  Apparently, that is the only area where we can trust NASA.

You're suggesting they do not fund those observatories? It'd be pretty hard to fund them secretly, wouldn't you agree?

I'm suggesting that if you're going to say that everything NASA says is a lie, than you can't go around quoting their financial statements as the truth.

Quote

I was saying that the shit in a cell phone is more advanced than the shit in the Moon Lander.  All the technology that NASA used in the Sixties isn't all that advanced compared to, say, the laptop I'm typing on.

I'll take you seriously when your laptop or cellphone goes to the moon.

My laptop wasn't designed to go to the moon.  But it can run computations in a few minutes that would have taken the computers on the Apollo Rocket's a hell of a long time.