Proof of Conspiracy

  • 203 Replies
  • 30893 Views
*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4546
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Proof of Conspiracy
« Reply #150 on: October 31, 2008, 02:08:08 PM »
As we move out closer to the edge of the disk, or south if you will, there is a greater concentration of dark energy.  Dark energy acts on the acceleration of planes, boats or any other body in movement.

Due to the greater concentration of dark energy, boats and planes actually move faster than the ones closer to the north pole - this difference in acceleration, which is not simply evident from observing navigational instruments, is directly proportional to the added distance it takes to circumnavigate the globe as me move further south.
Excellent theory, I will have to research this on my trip to Argentina next week.

yeah we should start playing baseball in the southern hemisphere because apparently the DE will allow a pitcher to throw faster.   ::)



Re: Proof of Conspiracy
« Reply #151 on: October 31, 2008, 04:21:53 PM »
go to google and type earth, then go look at the images.  all of the images show a spherical object AKA Earth.  Also all of the images have a different section of the earth.  explain why that would be.



*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41780
Re: Proof of Conspiracy
« Reply #152 on: October 31, 2008, 09:38:09 PM »
go to google and type earth, then go look at the images.  all of the images show a spherical object AKA Earth.  Also all of the images have a different section of the earth.  explain why that would be.

Obviously because Google is part of the conspiracy.  Just look at the source of much of Google Earth's "satellite" imagery.  Google also partnered with the military on a new spy "satellite".
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4546
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Proof of Conspiracy
« Reply #153 on: November 01, 2008, 06:38:37 AM »
go to google and type earth, then go look at the images.  all of the images show a spherical object AKA Earth.  Also all of the images have a different section of the earth.  explain why that would be.

Obviously because Google is part of the conspiracy.  Just look at the source of much of Google Earth's "satellite" imagery.  Google also partnered with the military on a new spy "satellite".

Everybody is in on the conspiracy, everybody knows the earth is flat.  We all just pretend that it is round to screw with those that actually believe that it is flat.

Re: Proof of Conspiracy
« Reply #154 on: November 02, 2008, 01:55:00 AM »
Okay, here's a few quick questions for FEers:

1) Why didn't the USSR expose the hoax, causing a massive rise against the Western World, when the US and the USSR were the only ones in the space game at that time?  Keep in mind the USSR had no need for a hoax to make money off of a Round Earth hoax - they had full control over their spending unlike the US where people had to be 'duped' into funding it.

2) Why didn't the USSR just do their own moon landing hoax?  It would have been cheaper.

3) How do you explain the findings of Eratosthenes over two thousand years ago?  Even with the margin for error, what he observed was a physical effect that can only be explained by a spherical world.

4) Why is the math supporting Round Earth so simple yet explains so much?  It explains daylight hours, distances, seasons, solar cycles, the movement of the stars, the planets - all very elegantly and succinctly.  If there was a conspiracy, the odds of such simple formulas explaining so much would be simply astounding.  Say you can fake all the data... ok, but you can't fake formulas, and the exact same math works for everything we observe under RO, gracefully and simply.  That's one heck of a coincidence. 


Lastly, what do you make of the ground telescopes that hobbyists use to track satellites and the space station?

http://www.hobbyspace.com/SatWatching/index.html

If you are so committed to flat earth, and put so much time into defending these ideas, why not find a group of amateurs meeting for satellite watching and just see for yourself what they see?  You may not want to outright announce you're a FEer, but just go and see what can be seen with a 12 inch telescope lens.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: Proof of Conspiracy
« Reply #155 on: November 02, 2008, 03:47:52 PM »
Quote
1) Why didn't the USSR expose the hoax, causing a massive rise against the Western World, when the US and the USSR were the only ones in the space game at that time?  Keep in mind the USSR had no need for a hoax to make money off of a Round Earth hoax - they had full control over their spending unlike the US where people had to be 'duped' into funding it.

The Russians were in on the space hoax too. During the Cold War NASA and the Russian Space Agency worked closely together on multi-billion dollar space projects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo-Soyuz_Test_Project

Quote
2) Why didn't the USSR just do their own moon landing hoax?  It would have been cheaper.

The Russians did claim to send the first man into space, and they did claim to send robotic rovers to the moon. Under agreement with NASA the Russians likely let them put the first man on the moon.

Quote
3) How do you explain the findings of Eratosthenes over two thousand years ago?  Even with the margin for error, what he observed was a physical effect that can only be explained by a spherical world.

It's a common misconception that Eratosthenes was measuring the circumference of the Round Earth in his shadow experiment. Eratosthenes had simply assumed that the earth was a sphere in his experiment, based on the work of Aristotle. He was actually measuring the diameter of the Flat Earth, which is a figure identical to the circumference of the Round Earth.

We can use Eratosthenes' shadow experiment to determine the diameter of the Flat Earth.

Syene and Alexandria are two North-South points with a distance of 500 nautical miles. Eratosthenes discovered through the shadow experiment that while the sun was exactly overhead of one city, it was 7o12' south of zenith at the other city.

7o12' makes a sweep of 1/25th of the FE's total longitude from 90oS to 90oN.

Therefore we can take the distance of 500 nautical miles, multiply by 25, and find that the radius of the Flat Earth is about 12,250 nautical miles. Doubling that figure for the diameter we get a figure of 25,000 miles.

The earth is physically much larger, of course. A circle with a diameter of 25,000 nautical miles is simply the area of land the light of the sun affects, and represents the area of our known world.

Quote
4) Why is the math supporting Round Earth so simple yet explains so much? 

It's not and it doesn't.

Quote
It explains daylight hours, distances, seasons, solar cycles, the movement of the stars, the planets - all very elegantly and succinctly.

Those phenomena are all based on patterns. When a star takes a particular path in the sky for 2000 thousand consecutive years, it's easy to predict the path of the star in year 2001.

Quote
If there was a conspiracy, the odds of such simple formulas explaining so much would be simply astounding.  Say you can fake all the data... ok, but you can't fake formulas, and the exact same math works for everything we observe under RO, gracefully and simply.  That's one heck of a coincidence. 

Those formulas are just algebraic equations based on what's seen in the sky. The formulas are based on patterns and cycles.

It is often argued that the RE model must be correct because Astronomers can predict the Lunar Eclipse and similar events. This is a misunderstanding of astronomy.

The Lunar Eclipse is not predicted based on the motions of the earth and sun, or the position of the earth. The Lunar Eclipse is predicted based on historic timetables of past eclipses. The Lunar Eclipse comes in repeating patterns, and by studying the particulars of previous eclipses it's possible to create an equation to predict when the next one will occur.

The analysis of repeating patterns is the one and only way astronomers know how to predict Lunar Eclipses, Solar Eclipses, Planetary Transits, and all other recurring phenomenas of the cosmos. The prediction is based on a pattern which occurs in the sky and has nothing to do with the positioning of celestial bodies or the study of any particular cosmic model.

Read the Lunar Eclipse chapter in Zetetic Cosmogony for more information.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2008, 03:55:31 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Proof of Conspiracy
« Reply #156 on: November 02, 2008, 04:36:27 PM »
...

I'll reply to your points in bullet form, to cut down on the vertical size of quoting it in full...

1) That program with the Soviets took place in the 80s, not during the 'race to the moon' a decade before.  My point during the moon race, is 1) at the time of the moon race, what incentive would the Soviets have to let the US fake a "win" when they have full control over their own people's funds, and cannot profit from the US deception?   I am suggesting this is out of character for the Soviets, so what motive would they have then to go along with the deception? 2) I assume you believe the cold war was a hoax then?  If that is your suggestion I can accept that, but I just want you to clarify as mortal enemies do not collaborate as such.

3) Regarding Eratosthenes, the only thing that would cause the shadows to be in different places would be if A) the planet was spherical, and the sun was far away, or B) the planet is flat, and the sun is near.  The problem is if you plot multiple 'shadow' lengths instead of just two, you get results that are curved under RO, and linear shifts under FE.  Later experiments do not work with FE 'near sun' linear math, but do with RE math.

4) What issue can you take with RE math?  "It's not and it doesn't." isn't very descriptive.

The "gravity model" with a RE and round planets are all described by one simple formula:  F = Gm1m2/r2

With that one formula, it is easy to drop the information into a computer model and see all the results that describe the patterns observed.  You only need initial velocities, mass, positions, and it all works.  Planetary motion works.  Lunar cycles work.  Seasons work.  Shadows work.  Star movement works.  These are not simply formulas that "happened" to match observed patterns, they are consistent and predictive.

My point is, why does one simple formula work so well, for so much, if it is entirely artificial?  The whole model, lets you take the earth, tilted on it's axis, orbiting the sun, and everything just works.  The position of the sun on the horizon, the seasons, the time zones, the lunar phases, the planetary movements - everything.  If it worked in places and broke in places, I'd understand why someone would consider it an incomplete theory.  But it doesn't break.  Not only that - it's elegant.  Simple, precise, and from what we can tell in nature, usually the most elegant solutions are the most accurate. 

RE even accounts for why the world looks flat from ground level, based on the distance to the horizon and diameter of the earth. 

In RE vs FE, the constructs to make RE work are simple, elegant, and work seamlessly for the solar system.  FE has tons of unknowns, huge contrived constructs, and is generally unwieldy as far as theories go.  By "contrivances" I mean that FE has a lot of secondary theories that have to also be right, for the premise to be right, and appear to be retroactively applied when the core concept is challenged.  This ranges from Dark Energy to Bendy Light to giant Conspiracies to unknown acceleration sources for an entire world.

Can you at least understand, from a neutral observer's standpoint, why RE makes so much more sense than FE? 


Please don't get too caught up in that, I am really curious where you think RE math fails to be elegant.

Re: Proof of Conspiracy
« Reply #157 on: November 02, 2008, 04:37:20 PM »
Quote
The Russians were in on the space hoax too. During the Cold War NASA and the Russian Space Agency worked closely together on multi-billion dollar space projects.

A single mission occurring after the space race had finished designed to improve international relations does not imply that both parties had been part of an elaborate hoax all along.

Quote
It's a common misconception that Eratosthenes was measuring the circumference of the Round Earth in his shadow experiment...

You cannot use Eratosthenes's shadow experiment to determine the diameter of the FE.

Quote
Those phenomena are all based on patterns. When a star takes a particular path in the sky for 2000 thousand consecutive years, it's easy to predict the path of the star in year 2001.

The problem isn't so much with the laws, it's with the theories or hypothesis that explain them.

*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2755
Re: Proof of Conspiracy
« Reply #158 on: November 04, 2008, 09:07:54 AM »
When your people are starving it is a good distraction to claim their country is flying into space

Re: Proof of Conspiracy
« Reply #159 on: November 07, 2008, 07:06:29 AM »
Quote
If there was a conspiracy, the odds of such simple formulas explaining so much would be simply astounding.  Say you can fake all the data... ok, but you can't fake formulas, and the exact same math works for everything we observe under RO, gracefully and simply.  That's one heck of a coincidence. 

Those formulas are just algebraic equations based on what's seen in the sky. The formulas are based on patterns and cycles.

It is often argued that the RE model must be correct because Astronomers can predict the Lunar Eclipse and similar events. This is a misunderstanding of astronomy.

The Lunar Eclipse is not predicted based on the motions of the earth and sun, or the position of the earth. The Lunar Eclipse is predicted based on historic timetables of past eclipses. The Lunar Eclipse comes in repeating patterns, and by studying the particulars of previous eclipses it's possible to create an equation to predict when the next one will occur.
When taking astronomy at school, one of my tasks for the year was to measure the speeds of the Earth, Sun and Moon and using just the formulas (those simple ones) calculate when the next luna eclipse was to occur. I did not use any historical data, just the data I collected myself. Sorry, it does not require any historical tables at all.
Everyday household experimentation.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: Proof of Conspiracy
« Reply #160 on: November 07, 2008, 12:29:22 PM »
Quote
If that is your suggestion I can accept that, but I just want you to clarify as mortal enemies do not collaborate as such.

Russia and the US were never "mortal enemies," they worked together as allies during WWII and were friends immediately after the Cold War. The fact that NASA and the Soviets worked together on billion dollar space projects during the Cold War demonstrates that there was never really any active aggression or xenophobia between the two nations.

Quote
What issue can you take with RE math?  "It's not and it doesn't." isn't very descriptive
.

The formulas in RE math are based on patterns of occurrences and paths in the sky, not the geometry of the solar system.

Quote
With that one formula, it is easy to drop the information into a computer model and see all the results that describe the patterns observed.


Nope.

Quote
My point is, why does one simple formula work so well, for so much, if it is entirely artificial?

It doesn't. You have yet to demonstrate that it does.

Quote
Please don't get too caught up in that, I am really curious where you think RE math fails to be elegant.

It fails to be elegant because the formulas are based on repeating patterns in the sky. The formulas are equally applicable to predicting celestial events of any world-model of the earth.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2008, 12:31:55 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: Proof of Conspiracy
« Reply #161 on: November 07, 2008, 12:30:57 PM »
Quote
When taking astronomy at school, one of my tasks for the year was to measure the speeds of the Earth, Sun and Moon and using just the formulas (those simple ones) calculate when the next luna eclipse was to occur. I did not use any historical data, just the data I collected myself. Sorry, it does not require any historical tables at all.

Those formulas were derived based on historic charts and tables. Astronomers have studied the period and cycle of the eclipse over the last 2000 years and have made formulas which can predict when the next one will occur.

Re: Proof of Conspiracy
« Reply #162 on: November 07, 2008, 01:04:43 PM »
Quote
When taking astronomy at school, one of my tasks for the year was to measure the speeds of the Earth, Sun and Moon and using just the formulas (those simple ones) calculate when the next luna eclipse was to occur. I did not use any historical data, just the data I collected myself. Sorry, it does not require any historical tables at all.

Those formulas were derived based on historic charts and tables. Astronomers have studied the period and cycle of the eclipse over the last 2000 years and have made formulas which can predict when the next one will occur.

i thought that was the approach of all sciences (except math)

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: Proof of Conspiracy
« Reply #163 on: November 07, 2008, 03:13:45 PM »
i thought that was the approach of all sciences (except math)

A prediction for the Lunar Eclipse based on patterns of past occurrences tells us nothing about the root mechanism for the Lunar Eclipse, or which model is more accurate.

It's just a pattern in the sky.

*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • Ding dong!
Re: Proof of Conspiracy
« Reply #164 on: November 08, 2008, 12:19:36 AM »
Quote
My point is, why does one simple formula work so well, for so much, if it is entirely artificial?

It doesn't. You have yet to demonstrate that it does.


That's not how science works, Tom.  You will be rewarded if you can demonstrate that a formula doesn't work.   It's religion that works your way round (e.g. making statements with no supporting evidence).

Remember, theories are just ideas that have not been demonstrated to be wrong.  The burden is on you.

Also, if you are really an atheist, I'm convince you are someone who was once devoutly religious, lost their faith and are now using FET as a substitute.
I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: Proof of Conspiracy
« Reply #165 on: November 08, 2008, 01:48:05 AM »
Quote
That's not how science works, Tom.  You will be rewarded if you can demonstrate that a formula doesn't work.   It's religion that works your way round (e.g. making statements with no supporting evidence).

The formula isn't even integrated into the predictions for the lunar eclipse, or the transits of the planets. I'm not sure why you think it is.

Quote
Remember, theories are just ideas that have not been demonstrated to be wrong.  The burden is on you.

What ideas? Astronomers freely admit that the formulas for the prediction of celestial events are based on patterns and cycles.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Proof of Conspiracy
« Reply #166 on: November 08, 2008, 02:28:06 AM »
Astronomers freely admit that the formulas for the prediction of celestial events are based on patterns and cycles.
A formula is formed based on observation yes.
But then it is applied to other celestial objects to predict their behavior. An accurate prediction, helps to confirm the formula.
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

Re: Proof of Conspiracy
« Reply #167 on: November 08, 2008, 02:55:15 AM »
Quote
Those formulas were derived based on historic charts and tables. Astronomers have studied the period and cycle of the eclipse over the last 2000 years and have made formulas which can predict when the next one will occur.
Actually I used Newton's laws of motion and gravity to calculate the position, and these laws were not based on past lunar eclipses, but instead were based on on rolling marbles down slopes (and in the Physics classes the year before we had to demonstrate that these laws did give the correct results for marbles rolled down slopes).

Now, unless Newton's Laws actually describe a fundamental similarity in the behaviours of the motions of the planets and how marbles roll down hills (and the path of projectiles, and any other object in motion - to a reasonable degree of accuracy), then there should be no reason why the laws created to describe the motion of marbles rolling down slopes should be in any way related to the future timing and position of eclipses.

In the Flat Earth model, the positions of the Moon and Sun are in now way related to the cause of gravity so there should not be any reason why these phenomena are related. However, in the Round Earth model there is the claim that the motion of the Moon around the Earth and the Earth around the Sun are related to the motion of Marbles rolling down slopes, specifically, both are governed by gravity.

So if Round Earth is correct and gravity controls the motions of the Moon, Earth and Marbles, then you should be able to use the same formulas to work out their motions, you just need to change the various data that you feed into the formulae. And this is indeed what I did to calculate the timing of the eclipses.
Everyday household experimentation.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Proof of Conspiracy
« Reply #168 on: November 10, 2008, 02:01:01 PM »
A formula is formed based on observation yes.
But then it is applied to other celestial objects to predict their behavior. An accurate prediction, helps to confirm the formula.
Dude, I'm saying Newton measured gravitation by observation and applied it to other objects and confirmed the formulas. This is an RE position.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2008, 02:04:20 PM by ﮎingulaЯiτy »
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41780
Re: Proof of Conspiracy
« Reply #169 on: November 11, 2008, 05:33:56 AM »
Quote
If that is your suggestion I can accept that, but I just want you to clarify as mortal enemies do not collaborate as such.

Russia and the US were never "mortal enemies," they worked together as allies during WWII and were friends immediately after the Cold War. The fact that NASA and the Soviets worked together on billion dollar space projects during the Cold War demonstrates that there was never really any active aggression or xenophobia between the two nations.

Tom, does the Cuban Missile Crisis sound familiar?  You know, one itchy trigger finger away from WWIII?  Or was that just a college prank that Khrushchev tried pulling on Kennedy? ::)
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: Proof of Conspiracy
« Reply #170 on: November 11, 2008, 09:19:14 PM »
Quote
Tom, does the Cuban Missile Crisis sound familiar?  You know, one itchy trigger finger away from WWIII?  Or was that just a college prank that Khrushchev tried pulling on Kennedy? ::)

There's a difference between protecting one's territory and active aggression.

It it not possible to befriend your neighbor while installing a home alarm system?

Re: Proof of Conspiracy
« Reply #171 on: November 11, 2008, 09:42:56 PM »
Quote
Tom, does the Cuban Missile Crisis sound familiar?  You know, one itchy trigger finger away from WWIII?  Or was that just a college prank that Khrushchev tried pulling on Kennedy? ::)

There's a difference between protecting one's territory and active aggression.

It it not possible to befriend your neighbor while installing a home alarm system?
How about threatening to shoot them if the move in next door, yet also claiming to be bets friends? That is more like what occurred in the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Everyday household experimentation.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: Proof of Conspiracy
« Reply #172 on: November 11, 2008, 10:02:31 PM »
The Cuban Missile Crisis and every event during the Cold War were all passive preventative tactics.

I'd buy a dog to keep my neighbor from jumping the fence and breaking into my house when I'm away, despite my visiting him on the weekends for friendly house parties. That's perfectly acceptable.

There's a difference between protective measures and active aggression. During the Cold War the US and Russia worked hand-in-hand on many political, scientific, and entrepreneurial ventures as allies, partners, and friends. Throughout the Cold War commerce traded freely between the two nations and civilians were free to travel between the two countries as they wished. The two countries were never at anywhere close to "war" with each other. No one was ever expecting or planning any war. There was never any active hostility between the US and Russia.

The Cold War was really nothing more than the result of post-WWII paranoia. The countries who survived the ashes of WWII took turns buying bigger and meaner dogs for their yards in the far off unlikely chance that a neighbor would jump the fence and try to break in.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2008, 10:12:43 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Proof of Conspiracy
« Reply #173 on: November 11, 2008, 10:15:48 PM »
The Cuban Missile Crisis and every event during the Cold War were all passive preventative tactics.

I'd buy a dog to keep my neighbor from jumping the fence and breaking into my house when I'm away, despite my visiting him on the weekends for friendly house parties. That's perfectly acceptable.

There's a difference between protective measures and active aggression. During the Cold War the US and Russia worked hand-in-hand on many political, scientific, and entrepreneurial ventures as allies, partners, and friends. Throughout the Cold War commerce traded freely between the two nations and civilians were free to travel between the two countries as they wished. The two countries were never at anywhere close to "war" with each other. No one was ever expecting or planning any war. There was never any active hostility between the US and Russia.

The Cold War was really nothing more than the result of post-WWII paranoia. The countries who survived the ashes of WWII took turns buying bigger and meaner dogs for their yards in the far off unlikely chance that a neighbor would jump the fence and try to break in.
And the biggest "Dog" of all would be to show that the other country's government was lying to the population. This would have destroyed the morale of the country and all faith they had in their government. The resulting civil war would have completely prevented the other government from even thinking about "jumping the fence". Not only that, if they were interested in jumping the fence themselves, it would have provided a really good opportunity to do so as the other country would ahve been too involved in the ensuing civil and political disruption to do any thing about it.

So in light of that: It is unlikely that during the Cold War, Russia and America would have trusted each other enough to collaborate on such a huge conspiracy.

Do you know anything about politics?
Everyday household experimentation.

Re: Proof of Conspiracy
« Reply #174 on: November 12, 2008, 08:50:14 AM »
Of course, you are forgetting that the FES has denied the existence of nuclear weapons (http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=567.msg29634#msg29634 or http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=528.msg24056#msg24056) why not deny the existence of the Cold War.

Re: Proof of Conspiracy
« Reply #175 on: November 13, 2008, 07:46:00 AM »
Surely though, none of this banter is answering the original post. As I understand it, FE'ers were asked to provide evidence that the world was indeed flat.

Have to say, I'm very disappointed in the responses from those who believe in the flat earth. I expected good solid arguements, backed up by a modicum of common sense. Instead I'm greeted with 'if a plane flies over the ice wall, it is shot down'... that is simply not constructive nor does it lead to sensible debate.

I am puzzled that every question posed seems to be answered with a question, or as is becoming more apparent, the answer is unknown. I can readily accept that science has not got all the answers, but I would ask for definative answers to the following:

What was/is the purpose of a sextant?

How would a FE'er explain the magnetic poles and the invention by the Chinese of the compass?

If the world is indeed flat, which I am open-minded to at this point, but there are no definitive maps of the earth, how is this explained when FE'ers readily accept that planes fly over the earth on a regular basis?

The arguements put forward regarding the FFA may well stand in the US, but unfortunately the FFA are not absolute, nor is the US government. I do not reside in the US, and I am aware of many aviation authorities that are not controlled by government organisations.

The rocket arguements need to take into account the V rocket and the more advanced V2, both of which were the precursors towards the rocket technology we have today. Also technology such as the Paveway and Pathfinder missles need to be taken into account.

Contrary to popular belief, many civilisations long before the middle ages have sumised that the earth is oblate spheroid and have used this information for many inventions. They could be wrong, but to simply argue that this is some sort of modern day conspiracy cheapens the origins of The Flat Earth Society and its founding father.

One final point. Although I could accept that electronics can be manipulated by regulation, this arguement only stands for standard aircraft. It would not stand for instance if someone owned a microlite aircraft which has no such electronics, or for that matter a simple hand glider which has little or no mechanical or electrical parts.

Cheers, Dewi

Re: Proof of Conspiracy
« Reply #176 on: November 13, 2008, 08:53:03 AM »
Sorry... thats what I meant... got a bit carried away with myself  :-X

In all seriousness though, to prove a conspiracy, surely first it must be proved that there is something to conspire about?

As I say, I'm looking at this purely from an information point of view rather than dictating my belief one way or the other... I find it fascinating that non-believers of the flat earth theory are being branded as NASA-believers... it is the first I have heard of this. I'm also fascinated by this conspiracy theory that seems to include American and Soviet governments, but which seems to exclude all other major governments across the world and many organisations which have no direct government influence.

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Proof of Conspiracy
« Reply #177 on: November 13, 2008, 01:42:21 PM »
The Cuban Missile Crisis and every event during the Cold War were all passive preventative tactics.

I'd buy a dog to keep my neighbor from jumping the fence and breaking into my house when I'm away, despite my visiting him on the weekends for friendly house parties. That's perfectly acceptable.

There's a difference between protective measures and active aggression. During the Cold War the US and Russia worked hand-in-hand on many political, scientific, and entrepreneurial ventures as allies, partners, and friends. Throughout the Cold War commerce traded freely between the two nations and civilians were free to travel between the two countries as they wished. The two countries were never at anywhere close to "war" with each other. No one was ever expecting or planning any war. There was never any active hostility between the US and Russia.

The Cold War was really nothing more than the result of post-WWII paranoia. The countries who survived the ashes of WWII took turns buying bigger and meaner dogs for their yards in the far off unlikely chance that a neighbor would jump the fence and try to break in.
As usual, Tom Bishop and other conspiracy theorists insult millions of countrymen and others just to make a totally baseless claim.

At the very least, the dead from the wars in Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and Afghanistan (the russian invasion) are the direct consequence of the cold war. Those are several million, or a few times more dead than all the USA citizens that have died in all the other wars that the USA has participated in.

The fact that there was never a direct confrontation of troops from the USA and the USSR does not erase the fact that millions of lives were lost in the global confrontation between capitalism and communism, otherwise known as the cold war.

And by the way, we all faced probable extinction when, as part of the cold war, the USA and the USSR almost sent everything they had against each other over some missiles in Cuba.

?

Earthquakesdontbend

  • 89
  • Earthquakes don't bend.
Re: Proof of Conspiracy
« Reply #178 on: November 15, 2008, 01:01:17 PM »
Excuse me if I'm just popping up in the debate here, but I've got a few things to say regarding the stupidity of so-called "bendy light".

It was said about 5 pages ago that the sun is the proof of bendy light. Indeed, light can bend, as observed around black holes and the sun.

But why?

Let's start from the beginning. Photons, or the quantum of light as we know it, contains energy. Else, there would be no temperature, no solar energy and so forth and so on. Therefore, photons have a mass. Even though this mass is so small that it could be regarded as zero, it is yet a mass.

Let me explain to you why light bends.

The sun is in fact a very massive object composed of gas. There is so much gas that, in fact, a fusion reaction has started in the core of the sun. If you don't believe in fusion, don't read the rest of this.

The fusion reaction pretty much proves that the sun is being pulled inwards by a force that we call "gravity". Now, gravity is the reason why light bends around the sun. Since photons have a mass (even though minimal), they are attracted by the gigantic mass of the sun. Gravity pulls them around the sun, and therefore we can se stars behind it.

Assuming that "bendy light" is the reason why I, flying in an aircraft, can see the curvature of the earth, there must also be gravity pulling the light and thereby bending it. In case the earth was flat, and yet had gravity, the entire disk would collapse upon itself in a catastrophic event that would, in case the earth really was flat and it happened, make me a believer. Now, this has never happened and never will happen - since - the earth is a sphere. Density in the core reveals to us that the earth is actually being pulled inwards, but the significally lower mass of the earth means that no fusion reaction can begin.

- Earthquakes don't bend
I was thinking of putting up the "top ten shapes of the earth". I've got Pyramid Earth and Cubic Earth so far...

?

Earthquakesdontbend

  • 89
  • Earthquakes don't bend.
Re: Proof of Conspiracy
« Reply #179 on: November 16, 2008, 12:35:23 AM »
By now, the "conspiracy" involves about... what could it be?

Thousands of people, from all over the world.

What I find the most unlikely about a NASA conspiracy is that the Soviets also have pictures of a round earth. If NASA would have discovered that the earth was flat, they would probably have proven that the Soviet images were fake by taking pictures of a flat earth and then publishing them. NASA would have punched a huge hole in the Soviet space programme and the cold war would have ended 40 years earlier.

And don't you tell me that the USA and USSR were staging every single event during the cold war. Agent Orange mutations, napalm burns, the Korea War, the Berlin wall - in case those were staged, then about half south-east Asia, and all the inhabitants of Berlin, would be participants in the conspiracy.

You'll end up with the entire world participating in a gigantic conspiracy.
I was thinking of putting up the "top ten shapes of the earth". I've got Pyramid Earth and Cubic Earth so far...