Proof of Conspiracy

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.

NASA and the Soviet space programme likely came to the real conclusion around the same time as each other and decided to just keep perpetuating the Round Earth story for the sake of mutual profit.

"Mum's the word, comrade."

"Da! And ve share vealth!"

And China?

And all the other nations that have had space probes flying up there in the sky.
Are you trying to tell me that the number of conspirators just DOUBLED?

Look at historical events. As the number of conspirators rise, so does the probability of a leak. A "leak" in the NASA or Soviet space programme, in the GPS industry, in the private companies that would have known if the earth was flat, has yet to occur. The only thing the FE's got at the moment is speculations. And I could SPECULATE that I am only a machine, and that I am an experiment - and the whole scientific world is testing how a machine works in a gigantic conspiracy of global proportions.

Then again, is that likely? So far, I've not even been given a hint in that direction by anyone. In this case, I will have to choose between the most probable and the least probable scenario. Either I am a complex machine with fake blood, own thoughts, feelings, a skeleton which only appears to be made of organic material - or - I am in fact a human, as everybody else. I have to say, the second alternative seems most likely.

My point is, you can never be sure, but you have to consider what is the most likely case. Either NASA, in a true conspiracy-book fashion, never went to space, staged all the launches, hid the space shuttle, took the astronauts away from the launch pad at the final hour, sent a fake-lander to the moon and faked hundreds of tons of photographs. Or, NASA went to space, using rockets based on hundreds of years of science, took real and practical photographs, sent a by modern-day technology fully possible robot to Mars and landed humans on the moon.

Again, the second is the most likely.

And - you have yet to "break down" one of the moon-landing photographs and explain to the RE-supporters what is so incredibly fake with it.

Quote from: Earthquakesdontbend on November 16, 2008, 12:35:23 AM

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.

NASA and the Soviet space programme likely came to the real conclusion around the same time as each other and decided to just keep perpetuating the Round Earth story for the sake of mutual profit.

"Mum's the word, comrade."

"Da! And ve share vealth!"

Actually if you have ever studied Economics, Money does not have nay intrinsic value. Money only reflects the value we place in what you can do with it. The current economic crisis is a good example of this. The value of the money is only what we place in it. If we, for some reason, loose that value we place in it (because we don't trust it), the value of that currency can fall fast.

So, you have to ask yourself, what is it that these conspirators value? It has been suggested that Money is what they value (that the conspiracy exists for the sake of making money), but as anybody who know even a little about economic knows, Money by itself is not really valuable.

What is important if you are going to ahve a conspiracy to make money on such a large (global) scale is that you need trust. But Trust is exactly what a conspiracy can not have. To trust them you first have to know them and then they have to be trustworthy and someone who constantly lies to you is not trust worthy.

So conspiracies on such global scale are self defeating (ie do not exist).

The other thing is it is absolutely TRIVIAL to disprove the Earth is Round, if it is indeed Flat.

Remember, the time-scales that this conspiracy has gone on for would mean that the technological know-how that the conspirators used to p[rove the Earth was flat (to themselves) would be available in any high school textbook and probably available at the local hardware stores.

Basic geometry can be used to prove that the Earth is either Flat or Round. If a person could do this in a couple of weekends with only a small budget, then how could such a conspiracy last? Remember the only reason they they could make wealth out of this conspiracy is if they had enough trust. But as ANYBODY could disprove the conspiracy so easily, then they could not retain that trust.

The only conclusions are that if a conspiracy was so easily broken, then either everybody (but you) is in on this, or that the conspiracy does not exist.

Given four clear nights, some simple tools and a car I (or anybody else) could blow this conspiracy wide open. The question is, why haven't they?

And, here it is:

At the first location, at a preset time, measure the angle of several stars from your position as compared to the horizontal. Repeat this at 3 other locations (4 in total) as far apart as you can get and measure the distances travelled over the ground to get there (work out the straight line distance).

You now have the data needed to map the changes of angle to the stars as a distance on the surface of the Earth.

This base line data (and an understanding of geometry that any high school student should know) can be used to confirm any map's accuracy. So if that any conspiracy exists that is falsifying the maps, then you can go out and check the accuracy of them. Using this data you can confirm that at the same latitude/distance from the "Equator" (where the sun is over head at the equinoxes) has the same ground distances for a given longitude (angle around the north pole).

On a flat Earth this is impossible. On a round Earth this is expected.

No amount of bendy light, fiddled with GPS receivers, etc can explain this away. The further out from the north pole that you go on a flat earth the further the ground distance you have to travel for a given angle around the north pole. On a round earth, the distance increases the closer you get to the Equator and decreases towards either pole.

This conspiracy is bunk simply because it is so trivial to break it that any high school student could do it in a couple of weekends.

(oh, and to make ground distance measurements easier use one of these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trundle_wheel )

Basic geometry can be used to prove that the Earth is either Flat or Round. If a person could do this in a couple of weekends with only a small budget, then how could such a conspiracy last? Remember the only reason they they could make wealth out of this conspiracy is if they had enough trust. But as ANYBODY could disprove the conspiracy so easily, then they could not retain that trust.

Have you read Earth Not a Globe or any of the other Flat Earth literature in my signature link?

Have you read Earth Not a Globe or any of the other Flat Earth literature in my signature link?

The literature in your signature is all well and good, but we've yet to see a single experiment done that suggests a FE model over a RE model.

Also worthy of note is that not all of the stuff in your signature supports a FE viewpoint. I recently came across a copy of 'Flat Earth: The history of an Infamous Idea' in the library of the university I attend, and noticed that it claimed to disprove the FE model, according to the blurb inside the front cover.

Have you read Earth Not a Globe or any of the other Flat Earth literature in my signature link?

Have you tried the experiments that I have posted?

According to the Links you told me about (in your sig),

Zetetic Astronomy: http://books.google.com/books?id=oTUDAAAAQAAJ&printsec=titlepage#PPA3,M1
Page 3
None can doubt that by making special experiments and collecting manifest and undeniable facts, arranging them in logical order, and observing what is naturally and fairly deductible, the result will be far more consistent and satisfactory than by framing a theory or system and assuming the existence of causes for which there is no direct evidence, and which can only be admitted "for the sake of argument".

This is the opening statement of that book, but for FE to be accepted we have to accept that there is a Conspiracy for which there is no direct evidence, and which can only be admitted "for the sake of argument".

So to claim that there is a conspiracy is directly in opposition to the material that you supplied. If we are to accept the philosophy that you ahve direct us to, then we have to reject the concept of a conspiracy as there is no direct evidence. (and actually there is evidence against it    - specifically, economics).

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

Read up on the electromagnetic accelerator.

Read up on the electromagnetic accelerator.

Abstract. An electromagnetic accelerator employing a capacitor bank is described, which can be used to accelerate masses up to 1 g to velocities between 10 m s-1 and 300 m s-1. The theoretical model is compared with experimental results and photographs of the acceleration process are shown. The results indicate that the electromagnetic accelerator is a highly reliable device; the operation is reproducible. It can be used to accelerate all kinds of mases (dust, liquids, organic material, etc.) in any environment (vacuum, atmospheric pressure, high pressure, or liquids).

So what do electromagnetic accelerators have to do with bendy light?

This is the opening statement of that book, but for FE to be accepted we have to accept that there is a Conspiracy for which there is no direct evidence, and which can only be admitted "for the sake of argument".

So to claim that there is a conspiracy is directly in opposition to the material that you supplied. If we are to accept the philosophy that you ahve direct us to, then we have to reject the concept of a conspiracy as there is no direct evidence. (and actually there is evidence against it    - specifically, economics).

I could grow to like this guy.   You don't actually expect the FEers to conform to the ideas of Rowbotham do you? 

When his experiments are done, and don't give the results that the FEers want, then they drop him like a hot potato.  Look at "bendy light."  Observations of the Sun can't be rectified with the experiments of Rowbotham, so they had to make up "bendy light" to explain the position of the Sun in the sky and sunrise/sunset.

Read up on the electromagnetic accelerator.

I have. I have even made one (it is not all that hard, the trick is in the timing of turning on and off of the electromagnets, and I did it by hand  ). And it does not do what you think it does.

An electromagnetic accelerator accelerates conductive objects by inducing and electric current in the object to be accelerated by creating an oscillating magnetic field. According to the electromagnetic theory (which has been confirmed by experiment), when you have an oscillating magnetic field, it induces an electric current in nearby conductors (sometimes called eddy currents as the flow of current in the conductor is in eddies). When you have an electric current, it crates a magnetic field (this is what an electro magnet does).

However, the magnetic field that is induced this way in the conductor is in the opposite direction to the initial magnet. this means that a North pole in the initial field will have the north pole in the conductor so close to it. This sets up a repulsion and gives a "push" to the conductor.

Why timing is important is that to get faster acceleration you need to have several electro magnets placed along the path of acceleration and switch them on or off as the object that is being accelerated passes them. Also, you want to turn on the electro magnets at the best possible time (when the accelerating object just passes it) so as to give it the maximum push that you can.

So yes, I really do know what an electromagnetic accelerator is. And it does not do what you think it does.

So basically 11 pages and no reasons to debunk FE theory....

another victory.... for FE!

Japan found out the hard want that the earth is Flat.  Imagine all the gas they burned up controlling all that territory between New Zeland, Wake, Coral Midway and Pearl Harbor.

So basically 11 pages and no reasons to debunk FE theory....

another victory.... for FE!

You could write 11 thousand pages and not debunk the claim that I have an invisible unicorn in my back yard. This does not mean that there is an invisible unicorn in my back yard.

According to the rules of logic and debate, you can never disprove a positive. So it would be impossible to disprove that there is a conspiracy. But this does not mean that there is a conspiracy.

However, according to the rules of logic and debate, you can disprove a negative. So the claim that there is not a conspiracy can be easily disproved with a singe piece of reliable evidence for the conspiracy.

But there has not been one single piece of evidence.

The only logical conclusion is that there is no conspiracy.

Now for someone who is not irrational to come to the conclusion that there is a conspiracy, it means that they have evidence for a conspiracy. As there a a lot of people on these boards that accept that there is a conspiracy, then there must be some evidence that you have somewhere. Or are you all irrational (and bordering on paranoid delusional).

Quote from: Johannes Kepler on November 21, 2008, 10:05:24 AM

So basically 11 pages and no reasons to debunk FE theory....

another victory.... for FE!

You could write 11 thousand pages and not debunk the claim that I have an invisible unicorn in my back yard. This does not mean that there is an invisible unicorn in my back yard.

According to the rules of logic and debate, you can never disprove a positive. So it would be impossible to disprove that there is a conspiracy. But this does not mean that there is a conspiracy.

However, according to the rules of logic and debate, you can disprove a negative. So the claim that there is not a conspiracy can be easily disproved with a singe piece of reliable evidence for the conspiracy.

But there has not been one single piece of evidence.

The only logical conclusion is that there is no conspiracy.

Now for someone who is not irrational to come to the conclusion that there is a conspiracy, it means that they have evidence for a conspiracy. As there a a lot of people on these boards that accept that there is a conspiracy, then there must be some evidence that you have somewhere. Or are you all irrational (and bordering on paranoid delusional).

Um no. We don't need to prove that NASA is lying. You need to prove that NASA is telling the truth. Manned space travel is your claim, not ours. You're the one making all of these claims. We're the skeptics here. You're the one claiming that the government can send 100,000 tons of matter straight upwards at 7 miles a second, land men on the moon, and send robots to mars. You're the only one here claiming a bunch of extraordinary 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 think space travel is simpler than a conspiracy of the dimension fe needs. even watergate couldn?t be kept covered up. i think it was a former us president who once said (as i already posted earlier): a maximum of three people can keep a secret. if two of them are dead.

"a bunch of extraordinary never before done things."

everything that is done for the first time is extraordinary and has never been done before. interestinly this applies to all things mankind ever did.

i think space travel is simpler than a conspiracy of the dimension fe needs.

Either NASA invented robots and rocket ships and sent them into space or NASA did not invent robots and rocket ships and send them into space. The simplest explanation is that they did not.

even watergate couldn?t be kept covered up. i think it was a former us president who once said (as i already posted earlier): a maximum of three people can keep a secret. if two of them are dead.

What the hell are you talking about? The government can keep secrets just fine. If the government had a problem keeping secrets then it would be easy for you to find us some classified or top secret data available to the public.

everything that is done for the first time is extraordinary and has never been done before. interestinly this applies to all things mankind ever did.

Either NASA did the extraordinary, or NASA did not do the extraordinary. The simplest explanation is that they did not.

It seems that the burden of proof is still on you.

Quote

i think space travel is simpler than a conspiracy of the dimension fe needs.

Either NASA invented robots and rocket ships and sent them into space or NASA did not invent robots and rocket ships and send them into space. The simplest explanation is that they did not.

The simplest explanation is not always the correct one. 

Quote

everything that is done for the first time is extraordinary and has never been done before. interestinly this applies to all things mankind ever did.

Either NASA did the extraordinary, or NASA did not do the extraordinary. The simpelest explanation is that they did not.

The simplest explanation is not always the correct one.  I would contend that the things that NASA does are extraordinary precisely because they are not simple.

The simplest explanation is not always the correct one. 

Yes, it is.

The simplest explanation is not always the correct one.

Should the burden of proof be on the group promoting the simplest and easily observable explanation, or should the burden of proof be on the group promoting the most complicated and unobservable explanation?

Should the burden of proof be on those who believe that time travel exists and that people have traveled through time, or should the burden of proof be on everyone else to prove that time travel is *not* possible?

Quote

The simplest explanation is not always the correct one.

Should the burden of proof be on the group promoting the simplest and easily observable explanation, or should the burden of proof be on the group promoting the most complicated and unobservable explanation?

Should the burden of proof be on those who believe that time travel exists and that people have traveled through time, or should the burden of proof be on everyone else to prove that time travel is *not* possible?

Time travel and space travel are not the same thing.  There is plenty of evidence that space travel is real.  Whether you choose believe that evidence or not is up to you.  We can only present the evidence, we can't make you believe it.

Should the burden of proof be on the group promoting the simplest and easily observable explanation, or should the burden of proof be on the group promoting the most complicated and unobservable explanation?

It seems like the burden of proof should be on the group claiming that the rocket that is launched and observed by thousands of people as it takes off isn't what it seems.  You are the ones with the claim that what is being observed isn't what it seems.

You are the one that has the alternative explanation to the observations.  I see the rocket accelerate off of the ground and see the pictures of the results.  You say to accept the more simple explanation.  Is it simpler to accept that in the last 50 years rocket technology has improved from being able to lift a few tons of explosives from Germany to England to being able to insert men and equipment into orbit; or is it simpler to say that there is a multinational conspiracy that is continuously creating new images, launching fake missions and embezzling the money?

I think that it is simpler to go with the advancement of technology.  This is something that I can observe the effects of in my daily life.  In computer technology alone, the processing and storage equipment has grown a thousand-fold since the 1980s.  We have gone from drill oil wells in tens of feet of water to drilling wells in water over a mile deep.  The depth of those wells has increased by miles.  Cars have gone from being simply made of steel to being made of exotic metals and plastics.  Portable phones have gone from bag phones that had to be carried over my shoulder to a phone with a camera that I can fit in the pocket of my pants, and if I choose I can communicate using a satellite with a portable phone.

I find it more difficult to believe in a multinational conspiracy that relies on thousands of people spread over at least six countries.  This is a time when the President of the United States can't even get a blow job in his office without the press finding out and it becoming a big scandal.

So yes, the simplest explanation is that NASA, the Soviets, the Chinese, the Indians, and the Europeans have developed the technology to lift tons (not the 100,000 tons that you claim) into space and work there effectively.

Either NASA invented robots and rocket ships and sent them into space or NASA did not invent robots and rocket ships and send them into space. The simplest explanation is that they did not.

NASA, or a contractor, created rockets and the probes inside them. People saw them being built and launched.

What's the simplest explanation: That The ships launched off to the planets as observed, or that they flew off course as soon as they left our sights, landed somewhere in the world when nobody could see it, and NASA lunched a stratellite to represent it so the groups following it would not be fooled. They then sat down and produced thousands of photo realistic images using just a handful of people and very ineffective computer software?

Quote

The simplest explanation is not always the correct one.

Should the burden of proof be on the group promoting the simplest and easily observable explanation, or should the burden of proof be on the group promoting the most complicated and unobservable explanation?

Exactly. Fully agree with you Tom.

So where is the proof of the conspiracy? If I'm understanding this thread correctly, it isn't about whether the world is flat or round. It is about the conspiracy that surrounds our belief either way.

So by your very arguement of the simplest and easily observable explanation, lets take a closer look at NASA. Why would NASA be involved in a conspiracy? The arguement again and again is profit, but unfortunately that isn't the simple and easy explanation is it?

How many government departments are there that are not as open as NASA? How much of your tax money gets spent on Black Ops where there is little or no accountability for the huge sums of money spent? There are far easier ways to profit than to try and convince the population of the world that the world is in fact not the shape we are lead to believe.

India have a space program, as does China, France, the UK, America and Russia... the Australians send satellites up into space... so they must all be in the conspiracy.

There are in excess of a million companies who make electronics and instrumentation. They would all be in on the conspiracy together. For what, profit? And why, as mentioned in another thread, if all this is done for profit, is there not another company doubling their profits by proving the world is flat? Using instrumentation to catagorically prove that we're being lied to?

By your own arguement Tom, the burden of proof for the world being round is left to the people who do not believe the world to be flat, but the burden of proof that the world's goverments, independent companies and individuals are conspiring to hide the true nature of the world lies with FE'ers... because there not being a conspiracy is the simplest and easily observed answer.

Could you provide a simple and easily observed answer to how this conspiracy could have come about, its purpose and provide proof that is indisputable?

Quote

The simplest explanation is not always the correct one.

Should the burden of proof be on the group promoting the simplest and easily observable explanation, or should the burden of proof be on the group promoting the most complicated and unobservable explanation?

Should the burden of proof be on those who believe that time travel exists and that people have traveled through time, or should the burden of proof be on everyone else to prove that time travel is *not* possible?

The problem is that FE is not the simplest explanation. For FE to work (ie so that we observer the behaviours in the world that we do), FE needs exotic materials that are so strong that they defy the known laws of physics, require exotic forces that although have massive effects, have never been observed (eg: FE type Dark energy, Bendy light, etc), giant conspiracies that is claimed to exist to make profit, but no reasonable method for them to do so (ie one that fits with maths and economics), that there can be more money made with the conspiracy than can be made without the conspiracy, that nobody that might have wanted to break the conspiracy ever fooled the members of the conspiracy into thinking that they accepted the conspiracy so as to gather proof of the conspiracy, that nobody ever worked for the conspiracy that became disgruntled with them (bad pay, personality conflicts with co-workers, etc), unlikely events like Fish just swimming in the right direction and with the right speed to boost the speed of ships so as to make travel times appear to be that of a round earth, that the speed of these boosted ships goes unnoticed despite the easy method of checking your speed based on the changes of angles of stars as you move (this also works if bendy light is real too).

See, a conspiracy to fake a round earth even though the earth was flat would have to address all these (and much more besides). Where as a RE has none of these complexities. So which is actually simpler?