Conspiritory Conspiracy

Why?

Why would the government cover that up?ok so you say money. wouldnt you get MORE money if you didnt waste it on "faking" everything? i mean think about all the money put into NASA. If NASA came out and said "wow the world is flat" after they figured it out, they wouldnt have to exist, thus less money wqould be spent. BILLIONS have been poured into them. probably hundreds of billions.

if the world was flat wouldnt trade be a hell of alot easier too?

saying everything is a conspiracy is an easy way to prove anything. did you know that people dont actually die? they just fall asleep and then the government gatheres them up for slave labour. and people dont get old either. we hit 20 and stay that old forever, we just look like we age because the governments put chemicals in the water.

oh and World war two? yeah that never happened. the government wanted to make us think it did, why? i dont know maybe to save money.

oh and electricity isnt real. it's actually a placebo effect. people are shocked by the fear and computers run on oxygen.

oh and air, it isnt real...

you get my point.

infact maybe YOU arent real! maybe you are a conspiracy because you want government money for roads and health care! yes i see it now! you want to bring down a round earth because then Nasa's money will be put to better use!

prove me wrong! you cant! youre all a part of the conspiracy!




Yours in Irony,
Ast Onok

Most of us believe the government as a whole is not involved in the conspiracy; it's mostly just the head honchos of NASA and maybe a few other plants (although it's speculative to try to judge exactly how much involvement anyone else in the government has).

NASA is profiting from the government.  It costs much less to fake a space program than to actually have one, which translates into fat pockets for the conspirators.

Most of us believe the government as a whole is not involved in the conspiracy; it's mostly just the head honchos of NASA and maybe a few other plants (although it's speculative to try to judge exactly how much involvement anyone else in the government has).

NASA is profiting from the government.  It costs much less to fake a space program than to actually have one, which translates into fat pockets for the conspirators.

or maybe thats what you want us to believe conspirator

All of your analogies are easily peer reviewed and verifiable. But it's impossible to peer review NASA.

All of your analogies are easily peer reviewed and verifiable. But it's impossible to peer review NASA.

Are you sure about that Tom?
http://pds.jpl.nasa.gov/data_services/peer_reviews.html

PDS will organize peer reviews and these will involve both technical specialists on archiving and scientific peers who are not connected with either PDS or the mission (much like referees of journal articles).

The Personnel
The peer review panel will typically consist of the following people:

    * One or more representatives from the discipline node
          o The node manager usually chairs the meeting. Other node personnel may be there to address questions about PDS standards, take notes or record liens.
    * The data preparer
          o A representative for the group responsible for preparing the data for ingestion is also present to answer questions about the formatting and content of the data.
    * The peer reviewers
          o Generally 2-3 people knowledgeable in the type of data being reviewed, but not directly connected with the project which produced it.

Are you sure about that Tom?
http://pds.jpl.nasa.gov/data_services/peer_reviews.html

Is that an unconnected third party body who reproduced and verified NASA's data?

Most of us believe the government as a whole is not involved in the conspiracy; it's mostly just the head honchos of NASA and maybe a few other plants (although it's speculative to try to judge exactly how much involvement anyone else in the government has).

NASA is profiting from the government.  It costs much less to fake a space program than to actually have one, which translates into fat pockets for the conspirators.

I think it would actually cost more to fake a space program and lead everybody on earth to believe it (as in bribe the thousands of people to say it's real), than actually doing it.

Quote

Are you sure about that Tom?
http://pds.jpl.nasa.gov/data_services/peer_reviews.html

Is that an unconnected third party body who reproduced and verified NASA's data?

Main Entry: peer review
Function: noun
Date: 1969

: a process by which something proposed (as for research or publication) is evaluated by a group of experts in the appropriate field

Since when does peer review require data to be independently reproduced?

I think it would actually cost more to fake a space program

So you're saying that it would cost more to go into space than to fake it? Someone get George Lucas on the phone stat!

Quote from: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/peer%20review

Main Entry: peer review
Function: noun
Date: 1969

: a process by which something proposed (as for research or publication) is evaluated by a group of experts in the appropriate field

Since when does peer review require data to be independently reproduced?

Peer review doesn't really mean anything if NASA is peer reviewing itself. 

Peer review doesn't really mean anything if NASA is peer reviewing itself. 

http://pds.jpl.nasa.gov/data_services/peer_reviews.html

Quote

PDS will organize peer reviews and these will involve both technical specialists on archiving and scientific peers who are not connected with either PDS or the mission (much like referees of journal articles).

The Personnel
The peer review panel will typically consist of the following people:

    * One or more representatives from the discipline node
          o The node manager usually chairs the meeting. Other node personnel may be there to address questions about PDS standards, take notes or record liens.
    * The data preparer
          o A representative for the group responsible for preparing the data for ingestion is also present to answer questions about the formatting and content of the data.
    * The peer reviewers
          o Generally 2-3 people knowledgeable in the type of data being reviewed, but not directly connected with the project which produced it.

I'm sorry Tom, but did you miss the highlighted bits or did you just ignore them?

Quote

I think it would actually cost more to fake a space program

So you're saying that it would cost more to go into space than to fake it? Someone get George Lucas on the phone stat!

Too much Star Wars? Look into the history, babe.

Quote

I think it would actually cost more to fake a space program

So you're saying that it would cost more to go into space than to fake it? Someone get George Lucas on the phone stat!

Actually he's saying it would cost LESS

It's a glitch in Tom's AI.  A quick reboot should fix it.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 18, 2008, 09:53:56 PM

Quote

I think it would actually cost more to fake a space program

So you're saying that it would cost more to go into space than to fake it? Someone get George Lucas on the phone stat!

Actually he's saying it would cost LESS

i never considered that but thats is true. you would have to bribe a crapload of people a crapload of money to get waya with it. hey and then youd have to fake every expedition to Antarctica too

I can't remember who peer reviewed "Earth Not a Globe". Maybe Tom can tell us?

After Rowbotham published ENAG there was a monthly journal published called "Earth Not a Globe Review" which peer reviewed Rowbotham's claims.

What unconnected third-party peer reviewed NASA's claims?

Also you should be aware that most of scientist would have to be connected to the conspiracy as well. At least all astronomers, everyone who study earth, scientist working in antarctida. Even all physicist would have to be in it, since your theory is in huge contradiction to basics of physics.

Then there are pilots, cartographers... All these people would have to know the earth is flat (ot at least know it isn't sphere), yet they all would be quiet about it? Now this is paranoia.

Also you should be aware that most of scientist would have to be connected to the conspiracy as well.

No they wouldn't. They're studying Flat Earth phenomenons.

Quote from: Rastafarth on October 20, 2008, 02:46:03 PM

Also you should be aware that most of scientist would have to be connected to the conspiracy as well.

No they wouldn't. They're studying Flat Earth phenomenons.

Oh?  Which ones are studying the celestial gears?

Quote from: Rastafarth on October 20, 2008, 02:46:03 PM

Also you should be aware that most of scientist would have to be connected to the conspiracy as well.

No they wouldn't. They're studying Flat Earth phenomenons.

If they are studying Flat Earth phenomenons, then they have to know that earth is flat. And since no scientists do that, they have to be part of the conspiracy.

Don't tell me scientists study Flat earth phenomenons and believe earth is sphere. That is complete rubbish.

According to Tom, the Earth is Flat but fools everyone into thinking it is round.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 20, 2008, 02:29:49 PM

Quote from: goldstein on October 20, 2008, 01:18:41 PM

I can't remember who peer reviewed "Earth Not a Globe". Maybe Tom can tell us?

After Rowbotham published ENAG there was a monthly journal published called "Earth Not a Globe Review" which peer reviewed Rowbotham's claims.

Really? A monthly journal you say? Strange, this is news to me. And news to Google too.

Can you provide evidence that it existed, and that it was peer reviewed? I think we've been through this before Tom, and you've been found to be smoking from the pipe of rainbow dreams.

Seeing as this "journal" was published 100+ years ago, you probably have to look in special collections of bigger libraries.  The University of Liverpool is supposed to have some copies, but I'm on the wrong side of the pond to be able to verify this personally.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 20, 2008, 02:29:49 PM

Quote from: goldstein on October 20, 2008, 01:18:41 PM

I can't remember who peer reviewed "Earth Not a Globe". Maybe Tom can tell us?

After Rowbotham published ENAG there was a monthly journal published called "Earth Not a Globe Review" which peer reviewed Rowbotham's claims.

Really? A monthly journal you say? Strange, this is news to me. And news to Google too.

Can you provide evidence that it existed, and that it was peer reviewed? I think we've been through this before Tom, and you've been found to be smoking from the pipe of rainbow dreams.

Much of NASA's work is peer reviewed. It's very nature, a government organisation providing a service of scientific exploration makes this largely necessary. Government and/or investors wouldn't hand over money if they couldn't assess whether the money was being well spent.

Here's a copy of NASA's project management doc NPR 7120.5C

http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?Internal_ID=N_PR_7120_005C_

Quote

Independent reviews are conducted by independent panels composed of management, technical, and budget experts from organizations outside of the advocacy chain of the program/project being reviewed. To the extent possible, continuity of review panel membership is maintained from review to review and throughout the life cycle of a project.

I suspect you've been shown this before Tom.

Classic

I cant wait to hear his comeback for this one.  Tom is the epitomy of reading one book by one kook and then believing everything he said to be true.  This contrary to popular physics of course and would entail the large body of conspirators ever imagined.  The hush money itself would exceed any profits NASA planned on making.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 20, 2008, 02:29:49 PM

Quote from: goldstein on October 20, 2008, 01:18:41 PM

I can't remember who peer reviewed "Earth Not a Globe". Maybe Tom can tell us?

After Rowbotham published ENAG there was a monthly journal published called "Earth Not a Globe Review" which peer reviewed Rowbotham's claims.

Really? A monthly journal you say? Strange, this is news to me. And news to Google too.

Of course everything that's ever been published in human history can be found on the internet. 

Quote from: Doctor Roundbottom on October 21, 2008, 10:55:30 AM

Quote from: goldstein on October 21, 2008, 01:35:19 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 20, 2008, 02:29:49 PM

Quote from: goldstein on October 20, 2008, 01:18:41 PM

I can't remember who peer reviewed "Earth Not a Globe". Maybe Tom can tell us?

After Rowbotham published ENAG there was a monthly journal published called "Earth Not a Globe Review" which peer reviewed Rowbotham's claims.

Really? A monthly journal you say? Strange, this is news to me. And news to Google too.

Of course everything that's ever been published in human history can be found on the internet. 

That's not what I said. It doesn't need to be on the internet. Just identified somewhere on the internet.

Anyway...

To quote Garwood:

Quote

Lady Blount established a journal, the Earth not a Globe Review to act as a further mouthpiece for zetetic views.

Oh looky here a copy of the covering page.

Anything defined as a "mouthpiece", which identifies itself as "edited by 'zetetes'" is not peer reviewed.

Shame.

So based on the content of this post you think Christine Garwood was just lying about Earth Not a Globe Review? 

Quote from: goldstein on October 20, 2008, 01:18:41 PM

I can't remember who peer reviewed "Earth Not a Globe". Maybe Tom can tell us?

After Rowbotham published ENAG there was a monthly journal published called "Earth Not a Globe Review" which peer reviewed Rowbotham's claims.

What unconnected third-party peer reviewed NASA's claims?

Hmmm, hardly looks as though it was independent peer review does it Bish?

Quote from: Doctor Roundbottom on October 21, 2008, 01:41:49 PM

So based on the content of this post you think Christine Garwood was just lying about Earth Not a Globe Review? 

That's something for FE proponents to decide not me.

No.  You implied that a lack of results in a Google search meant that it didn't exist.  Then you quoted a book confirming its existence.  Surely you noticed that you contradicted yourself in one post? 

Quote

I think it would actually cost more to fake a space program

So you're saying that it would cost more to go into space than to fake it? Someone get George Lucas on the phone stat!

Learn2Read

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 20, 2008, 03:26:50 PM

Quote from: Rastafarth on October 20, 2008, 02:46:03 PM

Also you should be aware that most of scientist would have to be connected to the conspiracy as well.

No they wouldn't. They're studying Flat Earth phenomenons.

If they are studying Flat Earth phenomenons, then they have to know that earth is flat. And since no scientists do that, they have to be part of the conspiracy.

Don't tell me scientists study Flat earth phenomenons and believe earth is sphere. That is complete rubbish.

No the wouldn't that like saying in order to study electricity you need to know that electricity flows from negative to positive. The things they are studying are flat earth phenomenons but they think they happen on a round earth.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 20, 2008, 02:29:49 PM

Quote from: goldstein on October 20, 2008, 01:18:41 PM

I can't remember who peer reviewed "Earth Not a Globe". Maybe Tom can tell us?

After Rowbotham published ENAG there was a monthly journal published called "Earth Not a Globe Review" which peer reviewed Rowbotham's claims.

Really? A monthly journal you say? Strange, this is news to me. And news to Google too.

Can you provide evidence that it existed, and that it was peer reviewed? I think we've been through this before Tom, and you've been found to be smoking from the pipe of rainbow dreams.

Much of NASA's work is peer reviewed. It's very nature, a government organisation providing a service of scientific exploration makes this largely necessary. Government and/or investors wouldn't hand over money if they couldn't assess whether the money was being well spent.

Here's a copy of NASA's project management doc NPR 7120.5C

http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?Internal_ID=N_PR_7120_005C_

Quote

Independent reviews are conducted by independent panels composed of management, technical, and budget experts from organizations outside of the advocacy chain of the program/project being reviewed. To the extent possible, continuity of review panel membership is maintained from review to review and throughout the life cycle of a project.

I suspect you've been shown this before Tom.

You know why continuity is maintained? Only one group to bribe. If you were offered money to shut up you would be a fool not to take it. If you didn't NASA might even send hitmen after you....