Why is the Ice Wall kept secret?

What motivation is there to keep the Ice Wall secret? what harm could come from knowing that the Earth is flat?

What motivation is there to keep the Ice Wall secret? what harm could come from knowing that the Earth is flat?

Some say that if it's discovered to be an actual edge or infinite snowy plane then this rumbles what Governments around the Earth have been doing with the tax payer's money(us) via pocketing it rather than going up into space. So I concur with Round_Earth(No, flat)'s one word answer of profit.

That makes no sense. Moreover, what about the Russian, European, and Chinese space programs? Also, why start investing in a space program in the first place? And what about satellites that sometimes malfunction and fall out of the sky?

Moreover, many of the solutions proposed by FES seem to go against Occam's Razor and therefore are most likely faulty physics by reason of deduction.

The world space programs are in collaboration. Not even round earthers dispute this fact. They are "maintained" solely for profit; it's free money from the government.

I suggest you read the FAQ.

The world space programs collaborate where necessary in order to explore space, not to deceive the worlds population. They are "maintained" for space exploration and research, it's not free money because they have to actually do their job.

Hardly.

Quote from: Dasher on December 14, 2008, 12:47:07 PM

What motivation is there to keep the Ice Wall secret? what harm could come from knowing that the Earth is flat?

The ice wall isn't a secret. We're talking about it now, and I don't even know you.

Oh and Cheryl/Tom, here's a correction...

The world space programs collaborate where necessary in order to explore space, not to deceive the worlds population. They are "maintained" for space exploration and research, it's not free money because they have to actually do their job.

But if you take space exploration out of that equation, there's nothing else to conclude but that they're in collaboration to propagate the lie.  As FEers it's the only rational conclusion we can draw.

Quote from: goldstein on December 14, 2008, 02:54:40 PM

Quote from: Dasher on December 14, 2008, 12:47:07 PM

What motivation is there to keep the Ice Wall secret? what harm could come from knowing that the Earth is flat?

The ice wall isn't a secret. We're talking about it now, and I don't even know you.

Oh and Cheryl/Tom, here's a correction...

The world space programs collaborate where necessary in order to explore space, not to deceive the worlds population. They are "maintained" for space exploration and research, it's not free money because they have to actually do their job.

But if you take space exploration out of that equation, there's nothing else to conclude but that they're in collaboration to propagate the lie.  As FEers it's the only rational conclusion we can draw.

Yes IF Space Exploration is impossible, then that conclusion is quite reasonable (without looking at the fine details like the fact that NASA does not actually touch the money that the governments give them). However, if Space Exploration is possible, then those conclusions are not reasonable. It is only by assumption that you can reach that conclusions.

The Assumption that the Earth is flat. And this is an assumption because the FET says that observations will be indistinguishable from a Round Earth.

Have you even known identical Twins? I have (I used to date one of them), and the question is how can you tell them apart? If they are identical, then by casual observation you should not be able to distinguish them. But, if you have ever known identical twins, you will find that there are differences by which you can distinguish them apart. They are usually subtle and not obvious, but there are differences.

For instance (as was in my case), one could have a scar above one eye near their hair line (she got it when as a toddler she pulled a draw open and it hit her). It was not an obvious scar, and if she was wearing make-up it was almost impossible to see.

So, if you want to determine which twin is which, you ahve to look for things that are different between them. This is the same for any theory.

If two theories are almost identical in their claimed observations, then it is utterly pointless to only concentrate your observations and arguments for or against a theory based only on the similarities. What you have to do is look for the differences.

This means that all the: " I look out my window and see it is flat, there fore it is flat" talk is just the FEers who states these thing poor attempts to justify a baseless belief. If however, they can state where FET and RET differ, and then provide an experiment to demonstrate this difference, then this would go a long way to supporting their position. Until they do this, it is almost an admission that there really is no evidence for their beliefs (and for those that claim to be Zetetics, this is a problem).

Imagine the trouble I would be in when I when out on a date with the twin I know,and because I only looked at the similarities between them, mistook the sister for my girlfriend? This is what FEers are doing. By only looking at the similarities between FE and RE theories, and then only looking that the data that could be alternatively interpreted so as to allow the Earth to be flat, then they are quite possibly "mistaking the Sister for the Girlfriend".

Quote from: Doc Brownbottom on December 14, 2008, 02:58:34 PM

Quote from: goldstein on December 14, 2008, 02:54:40 PM

Quote from: Dasher on December 14, 2008, 12:47:07 PM

What motivation is there to keep the Ice Wall secret? what harm could come from knowing that the Earth is flat?

The ice wall isn't a secret. We're talking about it now, and I don't even know you.

Oh and Cheryl/Tom, here's a correction...

The world space programs collaborate where necessary in order to explore space, not to deceive the worlds population. They are "maintained" for space exploration and research, it's not free money because they have to actually do their job.

But if you take space exploration out of that equation, there's nothing else to conclude but that they're in collaboration to propagate the lie.  As FEers it's the only rational conclusion we can draw.

Yes IF Space Exploration is impossible, then that conclusion is quite reasonable (without looking at the fine details like the fact that NASA does not actually touch the money that the governments give them). However, if Space Exploration is possible, then those conclusions are not reasonable. It is only by assumption that you can reach that conclusions.

The Assumption that the Earth is flat. And this is an assumption because the FET says that observations will be indistinguishable from a Round Earth.

Since when?  I suggest you consult the recognized Flat Earth literature because you seem to have a weak grasp of our theory.

Antarctica is a secret?!

Feel free to cite where NASA employees have personally pocketed profit at the expense of its public duty.

Even if NASA was conducting actual science, the purpose of its employees and managers is still to milk as much money from the government as possible.

We're just saying that they went that extra step.

Feel free to cite where NASA employees have personally pocketed profit at the expense of its public duty.

Whether the work they do is actual scientific research or not, every paycheck NASA employees get is direct profit from the government. NASA employees deliberately try to milk as much money as possible.

Every paycheck is direct profit from their duty.

It's only a matter on how much real work and effort they put into getting that profit.

Feel free to cite where NASA employees have personally pocketed profit at the expense of its public duty. Tick tock, Tom. Tick tock.

You don't believe that NASA employees take home paychecks? 

No I'm asking you to cite your claims.

You want me to cite my claim that NASA employees take home paychecks? 

Quote

No I'm asking you to cite your claims.

You want me to cite my claim that NASA employees take home paychecks? 

First off to quote you to yourself Tom

Quote

But since that is the case why should we post any data?

You guys need to post your data because you constantly either claim to have it, or claim that if it were collected it would support your model. That's called a blind assumption. You'll need to provide some evidence for your blind contentions.

While data from a single source isn't conclusive enough for us to come to a conclusion, it will help build your case as additional parties verify the data through peer review.

Just assuming that your data would support your model and refusing to collect or present hard data means nothing, isn't worth mentioning, and is not evidence for your model at all.

His point is (I believe) that the the implied FE'er claim is that NASA employees (or someone) are drawing profits vast enough to justify the vast effort required to perpetuate the conspiracy  not merely a steady sinecure paycheck.

goldstein is obeying the old journalistic cliche of follow the money, if the money is not going to research/space flight it IS going somewhere else and is in theory traceable.

Antarctica is a secret?!

Shhhh!


An annoyed
Cinlef

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 15, 2008, 02:41:37 AM

Whether the work they do is actual scientific research or not, every paycheck NASA employees get is direct profit from the government. NASA employees deliberately try to milk as much money as possible.

Feel free to cite where NASA employees have personally pocketed profit at the expense of its public duty.

But Tom, for them to have motive to perpetuate the Conspiracy, there must be a reason they work for NASA rather than some other aerospace company like making better aeroplanes or something. In fact, most of them could be better paid in private companies than at NASA, so why do they work at NASA and promote the conspiracy for profit for less money, and more effort and risk than instead discarding the conspiracy and for less effort and risk make more money in the private sector?

If the Aim of the conspiracy is to make money, and they make less money than the private sector, how on Earth are the able to justify their efforts (if only to themselves)?

That's not your claim.

Feel free to cite where NASA employees have personally pocketed profit at the expense of its public duty.

Every paycheck is a profit. It's certainly not a loss.

Quote from: goldstein on December 15, 2008, 04:23:02 AM

That's not your claim.

Feel free to cite where NASA employees have personally pocketed profit at the expense of its public duty.

Every paycheck is a profit. It's certainly not a loss.

It's also well documented.  Not very useful if you are trying to hide a conspiracy.

It's also well documented.  Not very useful if you are trying to hide a conspiracy.

I didn't say anything about a conspiracy. I just said that NASA employees and managers are profiting off of the government whether they are legit or not.

Quote from: markjo on December 15, 2008, 02:45:50 PM

It's also well documented.  Not very useful if you are trying to hide a conspiracy.

I didn't say anything about a conspiracy. I just said that NASA employees and managers are profiting off of the government whether they are legit or not.

Fair enough, however if all of the money, or at least most of it (presumably some of NASA's budget is legit, building maintenance etc, and some must go to maintaining the conspiracy) is pocketed by the conspiracy then this would be a considerable sum. This money is at least theoretically traceable and considering the large sums involved should simply the tracing process. Do you have any theories at all of where this money is going? Those theories would be testable. In fact following a paper trail is something is something our Forum full of people who spend hours a day on the internet, are extremely stubborn and used to reading large amounts of text and honing in on any innacuracies is ideally suited for.

Post your theory and we'll pursue it

A challenging
Cinlef

Do you have any theories at all of where this money is going?

Nope.

Quote

Do you have any theories at all of where this money is going?

Nope.

It must be going somewhere

A puzzled
Cinlef

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 15, 2008, 04:31:26 PM

Quote

Do you have any theories at all of where this money is going?

Nope.

It must be going somewhere

A puzzled
Cinlef

Right over the ice wall.

Quote from: Cinlef on December 15, 2008, 04:32:46 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 15, 2008, 04:31:26 PM

Quote

Do you have any theories at all of where this money is going?

Nope.

It must be going somewhere

A puzzled
Cinlef

Right over the ice wall.

Except that wold profit no one.
One of the more common goals is that someone somewhere is profiting from the conspiracy. If that takes the form of financial gain it is in theory traceable, more so if it is huge financial gain for a small group of individuals

As a wise man said on these very forums

You guys need to post your data because you constantly either claim to have it, or claim that if it were collected it would support your model. That's called a blind assumption. You'll need to provide some evidence for your blind contentions.

While data from a single source isn't conclusive enough for us to come to a conclusion, it will help build your case as additional parties verify the data through peer review.

Just assuming that your data would support your model and refusing to collect or present hard data means nothing, isn't worth mentioning, and is not evidence for your model at all.

In this case the data being assumed is that someone is profiting from the conspiracy financially. I'd like to see some data that supports this. Financial paper trails are even better data to post than experimental results since it can often be checked from one's own computer.

An explanatory and data awaiting
Cinlef

It must be going somewhere

A puzzled
Cinlef

What do I look like? NASA's accountant?

Quote

It must be going somewhere

A puzzled
Cinlef

What do I look like? NASA's accountant?

See my post immediatly above yours. Also Tom we could use your help in this thread (seriously)

An explanatory
Cinlef

As a wise man said on these very forums

Quote

You guys need to post your data because you constantly either claim to have it, or claim that if it were collected it would support your model. That's called a blind assumption. You'll need to provide some evidence for your blind contentions.

While data from a single source isn't conclusive enough for us to come to a conclusion, it will help build your case as additional parties verify the data through peer review.

Just assuming that your data would support your model and refusing to collect or present hard data means nothing, isn't worth mentioning, and is not evidence for your model at all.

In this case the data being assumed is that someone is profiting from the conspiracy financially. I'd like to see some data that supports this. Financial paper trails are even better data to post than experimental results since it can often be checked from one's own computer.

I don't need to provide proof for the assumption that NASA is dishonest. In a debate it's never anyone's responsibility to prove a negative. It's always the claimant's responsibility to prove a positive. I don't need to prove that NASA is lying. It's your responsibility to prove your claim that they are telling the truth.

A group of people claim to have traveled through time and made a website about it on the internet. Is the burden of proof those claiming that the group really traveled through time, or is the burden of proof on everyone else to prove that they *didn't* travel through time?

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?

Just like the Moller example, the burden in on you to prove NASA's honesty. You're the one making that claim. We don't need to "prove you wrong." In debate you're already wrong by pretense. You need to prove your own self right.

Quote from: Perfect Circle on December 15, 2008, 06:27:37 PM

Quote from: Cinlef on December 15, 2008, 04:32:46 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 15, 2008, 04:31:26 PM

Quote

Do you have any theories at all of where this money is going?

Nope.

It must be going somewhere

A puzzled
Cinlef

Right over the ice wall.

Except that wold profit no one.

I'm not sure you can make that assessment.  Who knows what resources, power, etc lies beyond the rim.

Quote

In this case the data being assumed is that someone is profiting from the conspiracy financially. I'd like to see some data that supports this. Financial paper trails are even better data to post than experimental results since it can often be checked from one's own computer.

An explanatory and data awaiting
Cinlef

I don't need to provide proof for that assumption. In a debate it's never anyone's responsibility to prove a negative. It's always the claimant's responsibility to prove a positive. I don't need to prove that NASA is lying. It's your responsibility to prove your claim that they are telling the truth.

A group of people claim to have traveled through time. Is the burden of proof on someone who believes that the group really traveled through time, or is the burden of proof on everyone to prove that they *didn't* travel through time?

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?

The burden of you is to prove NASA's honesty. You're the one making the claim. We don't need to "prove you wrong." You're already wrong by pretense. You need to prove your own self right.

Tom your the one asking me to prove a negative, to prove that NASA is not engaged in a cover-up from which someone or some group profits immensely. Your correct that is impossible to do, that's why I'm asking you to provide some data that proves or at least suggests that NASA is engaged in a cover-up from which someone or some group profits immensely. I was assuming that you would not assert that a massive embezzlement and laundering of funds a sizable portion of the worlds Space program budgets which is approx $251.6 billion ( in 2007) without any evidence whatsoever.

Your lack of this evidence does not of course prove NASA's honesty, whoever it should make FE'ers hesitant to attribute "financial profit" as the motive of the "Conspiracy"


An annoyed
Cinlef

PS As the Forum's recognized expert on Rowbotham please assist us in clearing up the confusion in this thread

Quote

As a wise man said on these very forums

Quote

You guys need to post your data because you constantly either claim to have it, or claim that if it were collected it would support your model. That's called a blind assumption. You'll need to provide some evidence for your blind contentions.

While data from a single source isn't conclusive enough for us to come to a conclusion, it will help build your case as additional parties verify the data through peer review.

Just assuming that your data would support your model and refusing to collect or present hard data means nothing, isn't worth mentioning, and is not evidence for your model at all.

In this case the data being assumed is that someone is profiting from the conspiracy financially. I'd like to see some data that supports this. Financial paper trails are even better data to post than experimental results since it can often be checked from one's own computer.

I don't need to provide proof for the assumption that NASA is dishonest. In a debate it's never anyone's responsibility to prove a negative. It's always the claimant's responsibility to prove a positive. I don't need to prove that NASA is lying. It's your responsibility to prove your claim that they are telling the truth.

A group of people claim to have traveled through time and made a website about it on the internet. Is the burden of proof those claiming that the group really traveled through time, or is the burden of proof on everyone else to prove that they *didn't* travel through time?

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?

Just like the Moller example, the burden in on you to prove NASA's honesty. You're the one making that claim. We don't need to "prove you wrong." In debate you're already wrong by pretense. You need to prove your own self right.

As Robotham says, Tom, you can not make assumptions, and you need evinced for your conclusions. As you also say, there is no evinced that you have that they are profiting from the conspiracy. This means that you have no evidence (violates Zetetic philosophy) and that you are making assumption (another violation of Zetetic philosophy), so if you do believe in the Zetetic philosophy, then you can not conclude that they re making a profit from the conspiracy.

And if they are not making a profit, what is the point of the conspiracy?