Proof of Conspiracy

Firstly, do not try to insult me. I have read the 100 proofs that the earth is not a globe.
Thank you Tom Bishop for the wonderful link.

William Carpenter lived from 1830-1896.
In the many miles the Nile river spans, how does it fall only a few feet? and what is falling a few feet? the depth? the lowest point of the river?
William Carpenter never stated his view point, how could he have observed a river falling a few feet if he could not see the entire river? He never elaborated on his procedure as to measure the "few feet" which the Nile dropped. Now the burden of proof is on you to prove Carpenter right.

"Not it's not possible, as I explained here.

Fish eye photography will not stop you seeing 100% of the subject, it will simply distort how the whole subject is seen.

Only 50% of the earth can ever be photographed at one time from space.

Therefore fish eye photography of a flat earth will not produce an image as seen from space"

---goldstein

Sir.  I already conceded to you the fish eye point on the last thread we spoke on.  In these posts, I am suggesting that the pictures in question could have been framed so that it 'looks' like a spherical "planet" drifting through "space".....

And I believe that to be proof of a conspiracy.

I'm not quite clear on this "fish-eye photography" How does it only show 50% of the earth?

I'm not quite clear on this "fish-eye photography" How does it only show 50% of the earth?

I think maybe you combined a few posts in that question....I had earlier, on another thread claimed that maybe this famous earth "photo" was possibly just a very high altitude picture taken through a fish-eye lens....



Instead of some great voyage to "space" as they would have us believe....

But, goldstein, would have none of this and promptly shot down this theory of mine....And I don't believe he said that 50% of the earth could be seen through fish-eye photography, but rather that one could only see 50% of the earth at any one time from outer "space"....

He went on to state that "Fish eye photography will not stop you seeing 100% of the subject, it will simply distort how the whole subject is seen."

Ah that makes perfect sense. NASA merely flew high and took a picture with a fish eye lenses. The rest of the earth is visible (just not with the fish eye view and edited in black) but they flew at a perfect height to make it a "round earth effect".

Firstly, do not try to insult me. I have read the 100 proofs that the earth is not a globe.
Thank you Tom Bishop for the wonderful link.

William Carpenter lived from 1830-1896.
In the many miles the Nile river spans, how does it fall only a few feet? and what is falling a few feet? the depth? the lowest point of the river?
William Carpenter never stated his view point, how could he have observed a river falling a few feet if he could not see the entire river? He never elaborated on his procedure as to measure the "few feet" which the Nile dropped. Now the burden of proof is on you to prove Carpenter right.

Why he proved himself right in his own book 

But wait, haven't you guys ever been up in a plane before, and been able to see the curvature of the earth with your own eyes? haha.

Seriously this site is hilarious. I will post my favourite bit from this thread.

Quote from: Ibelieveinaroundearth on October 19, 2008, 10:21:46 PM

And the RE believers have shown evidence, and while it is not credible to some people,
it is alot more than I have seen from any FE'er

Really? Where's your evidence that NASA has invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter straight up at 7 miles per second, and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis, explore the cosmos, and constantly wow the nation by landing a man on the moon and sending robots to mars?

You're the one making all of these claims. You're the one claiming that government contractors can send 100 tons of matter straight upwards at 7 miles a second (third stage of the Saturn V), and that NASA can do all of these amazing never before done things.

The burden of you is to prove these things to us. You're the one making the claim. The simplest explanation is that NASA really can't do all of that stuff.

If two people are having a debate, should the burden of proof rest on the shoulders of the person who make the most complicated claim, or should the burden of proof rest on the shoulders of the person who makes the simplest and easily observable claim?

In a discussion on the existence of ghosts should the burden of proof be on the group mumbling "just because you can't see something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist," or should the burden of proof be on everyone else to prove that ghosts *don't* exist?

A company called Mollar International claims to have invented a flying car with safety comparable to a land vehicle, an outstanding performance of a 400 mile range, and sophisticated never before seen computer control. They claim that the Sky Car is ready to be mass produced if only they got a few more big investments. They've released a few videos of it hovering a short distance off the ground in test flights. Should the burden of proof be on the Moller proponents who are absolutely certain that all of Moller's claims are true, or should the burden of proof be on everyone else to prove that Moller's claims are *not* true?

I like the bit about 'never before seen rocket technologies from scratch'. Are you implying that all inventions and technological innovations have to of existed in some form before they were invented? I really don't know what you are trying to get at here.

These things have been proven. They have been proven by people witnessing the rockets taking off. They have been proven by watching spacecraft re-enter the atmosphere. They have also been proven by the photographs and videos taken while in space. Your accusations that these photographs and videos are fake are weak and ironically the burden of proof is on you to prove that they are fake, which you can't. That NASA spent a lot of money and got some of the top minds in the world to develop rocket technology to propel us out of our own atmosphere is a much simpler explanation than them staging the whole thing with fake rockets/photographs/videos/physical evidence with numerous people in on the conspiracy and no apparent motive. Can't you see that? Are you really that dense? Is that infantile little analogy at the end there really supposed to convince anyone that the world is flat? Because all it did was make me laugh.

The problem with you people is that you come to a conclusion (the world is flat) and then work your way backwards into the facts (the photographs must be faked and other skewed interpretations of evidence to support your claim). The proper way to look at things is to examine the evidence and facts and then come to a conclusion, which to anyone of sound mind is that the earth is round.

Ah that makes perfect sense. NASA merely flew high and took a picture with a fish eye lenses. The rest of the earth is visible (just not with the fish eye view and edited in black) but they flew at a perfect height to make it a "round earth effect".

That's the way I see it Mr. Kepler.  I really believe NASA took some extremely high altitude flights---above the clouds and what not.  And from these lofty positions, they composed some very rigged photos.  

Maybe, they snapped the photos through 'this' particular window.  Maybe they didn't....


And maybe they 'blacked' out the surrounding part as you suggested.  Maybe they didn't.


Maybe they used a fish-eye lens to get this spherical effect.  Maybe they didn't.  

What they most certainly did not do & will never do is go to "space".  NASA knows it cannot engineer a "space" journey.  It is not even possible to us.  There is only so far that we can go up "there" and that is it....And no amount of "space" technology that we have now or will ever have is going to make a difference.  

Thank you Mr. Kepler for keeping an open mind  

What they most certainly did not do & will never do is go to "space".  NASA knows it cannot engineer a "space" journey.  It is not even possible to us.  There is only so far that we can go up "there" and that is it....And no amount of technology that we have now or will ever have is going to make a difference.  

But thank you Mr. Kepler for keeping an open mind  

Pretty much the furtherest we can go at the moment is restricted by the amount of life support that can be contained on a manned vessel. What restrictions do you think are keeping us from exploring space?

[/quote]
Pretty much the furtherest we can go at the moment is restricted by the amount of life support that can be contained on a manned vessel. What restrictions do you think are keeping us from exploring space?
[/quote]

I am glad you asked fpot....The earliest attempts at "rocket" science proved just how far these "rockets" and by extension, humans, can or will ever go in "space"....But put a better way is how far humans can travel from the earth. 

Anyways, these "rockets" all shared the same fate.  Each one of them blew up when they reached these enormous altitudes.  Some reports had it that they disentegrated up there in the upper "atmosphere".  But we can just go w/ 'blew up' for now. 

The point being, that these "rockets" went as far as they could go.  They went further than NASA goes now, when they snap these earth "photos".  There is something up there that is impenetrable.  I have heard it called the 'Van Allen Belt' and maybe that is what it is.  Either way, no amount of technology is going to go past 'it'....

I am glad you asked fpot....The earliest attempts at "rocket" science proved just how far these "rockets" and by extension, humans, can or will ever go in "space"....But put a better way is how far humans can travel from the earth. 

Anyways, these "rockets" all shared the same fate.  Each one of them blew up when they reached these enormous altitudes.  Some reports had it that they disentegrated up there in the upper "atmosphere".  But we can just go w/ 'blew up' for now. 

The point being, that these "rockets" went as far as they could go.  They went further than NASA goes now, when they snap these earth "photos".  There is something up there that is impenetrable.  I have heard it called the 'Van Allen Belt' and maybe that is what it is.  Either way, no amount of technology is going to go past 'it'....

See that little quote button at the top right of peoples posts? Click that to quote properly.

Of course early rockets blew up, that always happens to new technology, things going wrong. By your theory planes would never be able to fly farther then 20 feet because the that's all the Wright brothers could manage. I don't mean to get narky and rude on an internet forum, but what you just said is a total load of bullshit. It sounds like the sort of explanation you'd give a child, vague and completely void of any details and reasoning. There is just 'something' up there which is impenetrable is there? What could that be? Oh the magical Van Allen Belt oh I have heard of that! Maybe it's that!

The Van Allen Belt (that would make an awesome name for a band or clothing label or something but I digress) are charged radioactive particles that exist in the upper atmosphere of our planet. Yes, passing through the VAB is deadly to organic life and exposed sensitive electronic equipment. That you'd think that this sort of thing could cause a rocket to just magically explode shows your complete lack of understanding of what you are talking about. To safely traverse the VAB organic matter and electronic equipments needs to be shielded and protected. Have you heard of a metal called lead? It does wonders for shielding against radiation.

And by the way just in case you haven't realised, putting certain words in quotation marks doesn't make your argument any more convincing or compelling, it just makes you look really stupid.

This might be so, because I feel like I have to put things in simple terms which is---what people can and cannot do in this life.  Some people feel so important w/ all their "technical" jargon.  At the end of the day, this 'jargon' is still 'jargon'.  And this 'jargon' cannot change the way things are, fpot. 

I know you feel like you are standing on such high & mighty ground w/ your NASA god.  You guys have accomplished so much in such a short time.  Hallelujah!

To the "rocket" point, I might add that these "rockets" went quite a bit more than 20 feet.  Even a bit more than 2,000 feet.  But you must believe what you must.  I can only point the way....

What is your reason for believing NASA went to "space" and photographed the earth?

This might be so, because I feel like I have to put things in simple terms which is---what people can and cannot do in this life.  Some people feel so important w/ all their "technical" jargon.  At the end of the day, this 'jargon' is still 'jargon'.  And this 'jargon' cannot change the way things are, fpot. 

I know you feel like you are standing on such high & mighty ground w/ your NASA god.  You guys have accomplished so much in such a short time.  Hallelujah!

To the "rocket" point, I might add that these "rockets" went quite a bit more than 20 feet.  Even a bit more than 2,000 feet.  But you must believe what you must.  I can only point the way....

What is your reason for believing NASA went to "space" and photographed the earth?

I see you missed the part about quotation marks in my post, or simply ignored it.

For the record I didn't use any technical jargon in my post. Which parts didn't you understand? I'll gladly explain them to you. I have seen the term 'NASA god' thrown around this forum quite a bit. Is this supposed to discredit us, by comparing NASA to those who have faith in a certain religion or something? The difference between those who have a faith in religion and those of us who know that NASA went to space and the earth is round is simply that, faith. Faith requires no evidence of any kind for people to believe, whereas us who support science require tangible evidence, which is truly in abundance when it comes to the space program. I guess in your next post you are actually going to ask me to tell you what that evidence is. Yawn.

And you completely misunderstood what I was getting at with the 20 feet comment. Perhaps you should learn to comprehend what is written before you make a comment on it. What I was saying that the first successful heavier than air flight only traveled 20 feet or so, with numerous complete failures before that. Now we have planes that travel 5000km/h whilst cruising at 500000ft. Technological advancement is a slippy slope.

And the reason NASA went to space and photographed the earth? Why did cavemen leave their caves? Why did the the spanish set off to find the new world? Why did the British embark upon the first fleet? It's human nature to want to explore, to find out new things and to go to places they haven't been before. The next challenge for the human race was to embark upon space, and then eventually the moon. I guess the next challenge is to set foot upon mars, which is something I hope to see in my lifetime.

Your writing style and general way you come across suggest someone of a very low intelligence by the way. Perhaps anyone who has half a brain and sits on his side of the fence should remark upon that before hitting the 'post reply' button.

Dear Fpot,

     I did not ask you 'why' NASA would 'try' to go into "space".  I know that answer.  I said 'why' do 'you' believe they went into "space" & photographed earth?  In more plain terms, what convinces you they were successful?...See, I should have used more quotations & maybe you would have gotten the point.  I do appreciate your enthusiasm for this lesson though

                             your best friend, lifespan59

Hey Fpot, I am going to go make some coffee....I am hoping (crossing my fingers) that maybe you might give me something to stay up late working on???  If not, I understand....We will see....

What is your reason for believing NASA went to "space" and photographed the earth?

Come on, are you seriously just some 13 year old that has no idea what he's talking about? The reason for people believing NASA went to space and photographed the earth are the photos and the launches that so many people took part in, and not only that, even more people would watch the launch live.

It is up to you to prove that the photos are fake, and this is probably the third time I am saying this. Prove that the photos are fake and the launches where fake. Otherwise, STOP POSTING. Fool.

Hey Fpot, I am going to go make some coffee....I am hoping (crossing my fingers) that maybe you might give me something to stay up late working on???  If not, I understand....We will see....

Make sure you don't slip too much alcohol into your coffee this time. It would be really nice if we had somebody that could talk normally too.

Okay, no alcohol this time.  Not yet anyways....

So, for starters, Messiah, I have no quibble w/ the actual launch.  This is most certainly happening.  Any fool could see this.  I'm with you there.
 
My problem is w/ where these "astronauts" are flying or "launching" to?  That is my concern. 

And as far as these photos?  Well I am game to break them down if you want to?  And I mean this in the best way possible, Messiah.  If I was rude  last night, I do apologize.  But seriously, please present me w/ a photo that you believe is a genuine article.  And I will show you why I think this is not the case....and why I think so?

Is that fair for starters?

It seems as if Fpot was much more interested in attacking me than the subject at hand.....But it is okay.  His 'kind' burn out too quickly to bring anything substantial to the argument....

Hey fpot

I applaude your efforts to reason with these stubborn people (unless this entire forum is just a troller's trolling flame joke).

lifespan59: please watch this entire video. The whole thing.If you don't you'll miss my point.  Now... does that look like space or what? And this wasn't even a space shuttle, just a satellite deploying rocket (i assume).



I'll end my efforts here... Good luck fpot.. youre gonna need it.

thre3dee, I do appreciate your enthusiasm, but I will repeat that yes I do believe these "rockets" are going high up in the atmosphere.  But they are only going so far.

And by that I mean that there is only so far they can go.  Not because of technology, but because that is the way things are.  NASA can take all their fancy photos & they can edit them all they want to, but it does not change anything. 

Your "rocket" video proves that yes we can fly high.  I have no dispute with that.  We can go so high that yes we can see the blackness up there where the moon, sun & stars reside.  But there is a ceiling on that blackness thre3dee.  And NASA knows this, so they stay within it and make pretend they are in outer "space". 

I guess you & your buddy Fpot still believe in the tooth fairy too.  It's okay if it makes you feel secure at night....

P.S.---at least you did post a video.  I can't get Fpot to give me any photos to debate with him....

thre3dee, I do appreciate your enthusiasm, but I will repeat that yes I do believe these "rockets" are going high up in the atmosphere.  But they are only going so far.

And by that I mean that there is only so far they can go.  Not because of technology, but because that is the way things are.  NASA can take all their fancy photos & they can edit them all they want to, but it does not change anything. 

Your "rocket" video proves that yes we can fly high.  I have no dispute with that.  We can go so high that yes we can see the blackness up there where the moon, sun & stars reside.  But there is a ceiling on that blackness thre3dee.  And NASA knows this, so they stay within it and make pretend they are in outer "space". 

I guess you & your buddy Fpot still believe in the tooth fairy too.  It's okay if it makes you feel secure at night....

P.S.---at least you did post a video.  I can't get Fpot to give me any photos to debate with him....

Haha this is gold. What the hell is this ceiling you keep refering too?

That is the age old question thre3dee.  What it is I do not know w/out going into religion.  I could tell you what my Bible tells me it is.  But, suffice is to say that it is there.  There is something that we cannot and will not get past high up there. 

And I know that sounds vague.  But in my humble opinion it is a much simpler truth than all the fascinating & exciting words NASA comes up with to perpetuate the lie to end all lies....

But I am positively sure we could exchange blows like this for hours & days on end....You will probably call me names and talk about how simple I might be for drawing these ridiculous conclusions.  And I most definitely will hurt your feelings and show you how gullible you most certainly are for believing in your NASA religion....

So, without further ado, why don't you pony up & present me w/ a photo which you believe to be a genuine article.  And I will show you why I think this is not the case.  Then we can have a proper debate....

Most people here think spaceflight is possible, just sustained spaceflight is impossible as there is no centripetal force to pull a spacecraft into orbit. But that doesn't mean we believe NASA....

To all the non-believers out there in never-never land....If you got something to say, just say it.  I can take the abuse.  Throw the daggers all you want to.  Get it outta your system please.  We can trade "word" punches all night long if it makes you feel good. 

But then, when you're done w/ trying to be a 'man' please present me w/ some kinda photo or something that we can have an intelligent debate over.  I keep asking for something, but nobody will soldier up and provide it.....I will provide, if you prefer, but I just didn't want anyone to think I might doctor 'em up....

However, once the debate is over and you are proven to be full of sh**, I am gonna have to hurt your feelings.....

I love you!

How about this? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/Earth_&_Mir_(STS-71).jpg

Or this?

(skip ahead about a minute, just astronaut footage first - moon footage about 2 mins)

How about this? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/Earth_&_Mir_(STS-71).jpg

The horizon in that picture isn't an arc of a circle.

Or this?

The earth looks pretty fake at the 2:54 mark

Lol. With all the raw processing power of the incredible feat of engineering which is my human brain, I cannot for the life of me understand how a person could possibly believe at all that any of these theories could possibly be even remotely anything other than some idiots idea of taking thousands of incredibly dumb people for a ride and making them believe that the Earth is flat, that NASA has not gone to space, the Moon and even Mars - all despite thousands of hours of footage of lift-offs and spacewalks, hundreds of thousands of photos from spacecraft clearly hundreds to thousands of kilometres above the Earth, all the very clear photos of the Earth being a sphere, the fact that we've taken up-close photos of almost every planet and their moons.

If 3000 people out of 6 billion believe the Earth is flat and we cannot go into space (which we've been doing happily for the last 40 years), then there's clearly something very wrong going on inside their heads.

Its one of those things that boggles the mind to no end.

Seriously, I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone could actually believe all this crap. My brain hurts.

If 3000 people out of 6 billion believe the Earth is flat and we cannot go into space (which we've been doing happily for the last 40 years), then there's clearly something very wrong going on inside their heads.

It is often argued that since the majority believes that the earth is a globe, it must be true. This is a logical fallacy.

For example: only six hundred years ago the greatest scientific minds of the day and the majority of civilization believed that witches were the cause for disease, crop failures, and natural disasters. Since the majority believed it, does that mean witches existed?

Learn more: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-belief.html

Quote

If 3000 people out of 6 billion believe the Earth is flat and we cannot go into space (which we've been doing happily for the last 40 years), then there's clearly something very wrong going on inside their heads.

It is often argued that since the majority believes that the earth is a globe, it must be true. This is a logical fallacy.

For example: only six hundred years ago the greatest scientific minds of the day and the majority of civilization believed that witches were the cause for disease, crop failures, and natural disasters. Since the majority believed it, does that mean witches existed?

Learn more: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-belief.html

You're talking about theories, not overwhelming evidence.

The problem with your argument is that you're still denying 40 years of 100% factual real evidence that we've actually in fact gone into space and very far from Earth. You seen the photo of Earth from the Voyager II spacecraft some 4 billion km (or miles) from Earth?

There's no point in actually showing you any photos or videos because you dismiss it in a heartbeat. Until you actually clime aboard a space shuttle and go into space, you're not going to wake up to the incredibly overwhelming evidence that is around you.