don't understand the conspiracy logic

Quote

youre wrong, they can defend against a rocket fired from space the exact same way they could shoot down an airplane or shoot down a rocket fired from a warship or bunker.  a surface to air missile doesn't care what it hits or where it originated from its going to blow it up.

ICBM's are moving several times faster than airplanes and surface rockets.

they are certainly moving faster than airplanes i'll agree there, and i guess they could be moving a little faster than surface rockets but i dont know that for sure, either way they will be picked up on radar and shot down if the other country has the technology to do so.  do you have any proof that rockets fired from space move several times faster than those fired from the surface or is that opinion?

Quote from: markjo on January 01, 2009, 07:32:51 AM

Tom, you still don't get it.  ICBMs do not require the earth to be round.  If throwing a football works on a flat earth and firing an artillery shell works on a flat earth then launching an ICBM will work on a flat earth.  They all use the same basic concept of a ballistic trajectory.

Wrong. Long range ICBM's are a space weapon which require the earth's orbit to exist.

Tom, what part of the word ballistic is confusing you?  ICBMs are sub-orbital.  Granted, that sub-orbital trajectory can be described in terms of an elliptical orbit, but at no point does the ICBM achieve a sustainable orbital velocity.

*sigh*  I just wasted my 3000th post for this? 

they are certainly moving faster than airplanes i'll agree there, and i guess they could be moving a little faster than surface rockets but i dont know that for sure, either way they will be picked up on radar and shot down if the other country has the technology to do so.  do you have any proof that rockets fired from space move several times faster than those fired from the surface or is that opinion?

Rockets fired from the surface certainly aren't approaching their target at a terminal velocity between 15,000 and 17,000 knots.

Tom, what part of the word ballistic is confusing you?  ICBMs are sub-orbital.  Granted, that sub-orbital trajectory can be described in terms of an elliptical orbit, but at no point does the ICBM achieve a sustainable orbital velocity.

*sigh*  I just wasted my 3000th post for this? 

Where did I say that ICBM's achieved a sustained orbit?

A sustained orbit would be counter-intuitive to the purpose of an ICBM.

tom...do you have proof that rockets fired from satellites travel at 15,000-17,000 knots?

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on December 31, 2008, 01:46:13 PM

Quote from: markjo on December 31, 2008, 09:09:19 AM

At least Roundy is honest enough to admit that Tom's statement is a straw man.

I was saying that avs's statement was a straw man, not Tom's.

Then you didn't recognize Tom's straw man?    Tsk, tsk.  It's kind of funny how you can recognize RE straw men, but be oblivious to FE straw men.

Tom's statement was not a straw man.  It's been completely misinterpreted.  Tom knows that the Greeks weren't wrong about everything; his point was that there were some things of a scientific nature of which they were quite sure, about which they were demonstrably wrong.  Because of certain advances they made in certain disciplines modern people who are unclear about actual history are ready to put the ancient Greeks up on a pedestal as practically infallible.  It's useless to proclaim that the Greeks proved the earth was round because in reality they didn't understand the scientific method and therefore cannot be said to have proven anything, outside of mathematics in the abstract, to our modern standards.  It's an argument I've made myself about the bias we've had towards a round earth since ancient times so I'm quite sympathetic to his point.  If you think Tom stated a straw man there you didn't understand what he was trying to get across; it's a valid point, in no way irrelevant to the discussion.

Tom...i read on wikipedia ICBMs have an impact velocity of 4km/s which is about 8900 mph, 15,000-17,000 knots is 17,261-19,563 mph.  you may want to recalculate tom.  you're only off by about 10,000 mph.  and jsut so you know ICBMs can be launched from bunkers and warships and submarines as well as satellites

Quote

Tom, what part of the word ballistic is confusing you?  ICBMs are sub-orbital.  Granted, that sub-orbital trajectory can be described in terms of an elliptical orbit, but at no point does the ICBM achieve a sustainable orbital velocity.

Where did I say that ICBM's achieved a sustained orbit?

A sustained orbit would be counter-intuitive to the purpose of an ICBM.

Wrong. Long range ICBM's are a space weapon which require the earth's orbit to exist.

Why does an ICBM require earth orbit to be possible?  Please describe to me how you think an ICBM works.  And use small words as I seem to be pretty dense.

Quote from: markjo on December 31, 2008, 09:28:28 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on December 31, 2008, 01:46:13 PM

Quote from: markjo on December 31, 2008, 09:09:19 AM

At least Roundy is honest enough to admit that Tom's statement is a straw man.

I was saying that avs's statement was a straw man, not Tom's.

Then you didn't recognize Tom's straw man?    Tsk, tsk.  It's kind of funny how you can recognize RE straw men, but be oblivious to FE straw men.

Tom's statement was not a straw man.  It's been completely misinterpreted.  Tom knows that the Greeks weren't wrong about everything; his point was that there were some things of a scientific nature of which they were quite sure, about which they were demonstrably wrong.  Because of certain advances they made in certain disciplines modern people who are unclear about actual history are ready to put the ancient Greeks up on a pedestal as practically infallible.  It's useless to proclaim that the Greeks proved the earth was round because in reality they didn't understand the scientific method and therefore cannot be said to have proven anything, outside of mathematics in the abstract, to our modern standards.  It's an argument I've made myself about the bias we've had towards a round earth since ancient times so I'm quite sympathetic to his point.  If you think Tom stated a straw man there you didn't understand what he was trying to get across; it's a valid point, in no way irrelevant to the discussion.

I never implied that Tom said that the Greeks were wrong about everything.  However, in his statement in question, he distinctly said that the Greeks were wrong about the earth being round in the same way that they were wrong about some other things.  How is that not a straw man?  At the very least it's a non sequitur.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on January 01, 2009, 12:34:55 PM

Quote from: markjo on December 31, 2008, 09:28:28 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on December 31, 2008, 01:46:13 PM

Quote from: markjo on December 31, 2008, 09:09:19 AM

At least Roundy is honest enough to admit that Tom's statement is a straw man.

I was saying that avs's statement was a straw man, not Tom's.

Then you didn't recognize Tom's straw man?    Tsk, tsk.  It's kind of funny how you can recognize RE straw men, but be oblivious to FE straw men.

Tom's statement was not a straw man.  It's been completely misinterpreted.  Tom knows that the Greeks weren't wrong about everything; his point was that there were some things of a scientific nature of which they were quite sure, about which they were demonstrably wrong.  Because of certain advances they made in certain disciplines modern people who are unclear about actual history are ready to put the ancient Greeks up on a pedestal as practically infallible.  It's useless to proclaim that the Greeks proved the earth was round because in reality they didn't understand the scientific method and therefore cannot be said to have proven anything, outside of mathematics in the abstract, to our modern standards.  It's an argument I've made myself about the bias we've had towards a round earth since ancient times so I'm quite sympathetic to his point.  If you think Tom stated a straw man there you didn't understand what he was trying to get across; it's a valid point, in no way irrelevant to the discussion.

I never implied that Tom said that the Greeks were wrong about everything.  However, in his statement in question, he distinctly said that the Greeks were wrong about the earth being round in the same way that they were wrong about some other things.  How is that not a straw mjavascript:void(0);an?  At the very least it's a non sequitur.

In the context presented it wasn't a straw man.  Somebody said that if the ancient Greeks weren't part of the Conspiracy then they were just "wrong, somehow", as if this is a far-fetched concept.  Tom was pointing out why it's not so far-fetched that the ancient Greeks were wrong by bringing up parallel examples of Greek scientific inquiry where they were, in fact, wrong (look back yourself and tell me where I'm wrong).  I expect this from people like goldstein and Edtharan but I thought you were past the "Everything a FEer does is wrong by association" stage, markjo.  I'm a little disappointed.

ICBM's are moving several times faster than airplanes and surface rockets.

Unless they can move faster than the speed of light, they aren't getting past an anti-missile laser.

In the context presented it wasn't a straw man.  Somebody said that if the ancient Greeks weren't part of the Conspiracy then they were just "wrong, somehow", as if this is a far-fetched concept.  Tom was pointing out why it's not so far-fetched that the ancient Greeks were wrong by bringing up parallel examples of Greek scientific inquiry where they were, in fact, wrong (look back yourself and tell me where I'm wrong). 

The Ancient Greeks were wrong about the shape of the earth just like they were wrong in thinking that flies spontaneously generated from rotting meat and that epilepsy was a curse of the gods.

The ancient Greeks were right about a lot of things too.  Why couldn't they have been right about the shape of the earth? 

I expect this from people like goldstein and Edtharan but I thought you were past the "Everything a FEer does is wrong by association" stage, markjo.  I'm a little disappointed.

First of all, when did I imply that "Everything a FEer does is wrong by association"? 

Second, how is that any different than FE'ers saying that everything that NASA/government contractors do is wrong by association?

Quote

Oh Good God.

Do a Google search for ICBM + Orbit

The Saturn V rockets used in the Apollo missions were 98% identical to an ICBM. It's no secret that NASA was just a face for the military's ICBM research. That's the entire reason NASA was established.

Tom, an ICBM does not require an Orbit to function. They are Inter Continental Ballistic Missiles. Not Intercontinental Orbital Missiles. They use a ballistic trajectory (that is one that does not use constant thrust) to travel. To achieve inter continental distances, the ballistic trajectory requires them to leave the Earth's atmosphere.

So, ICBMs are perfectly possible under FET and NASA is not needed to fake their existence. As the argument was that the original purpose of NASA was to keep the pubic ignorant of the fact that ICBMs are impossible on a Flat Earth, then that argument falls apart because they are possible on a Flat Earth.

The problem is that the calculations for ICBMs account for a Round Earth, so either these calculations (Time and point of impact) are wrong, or we really do live on a Round Earth.  However, the existence or not of a FE or RE do not effect the existence of ICBMs (just the calculations used to determine Time to and Point of Impact). As it was posited the original purpose of NASA was to fake the existence of ICBMs and this was presented as a proof of FET, then this "proof" is disproved and so the counter argument presented (that it is an irrelevancy) stands.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on January 01, 2009, 08:41:44 PM

In the context presented it wasn't a straw man.  Somebody said that if the ancient Greeks weren't part of the Conspiracy then they were just "wrong, somehow", as if this is a far-fetched concept.  Tom was pointing out why it's not so far-fetched that the ancient Greeks were wrong by bringing up parallel examples of Greek scientific inquiry where they were, in fact, wrong (look back yourself and tell me where I'm wrong). 

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 30, 2008, 05:51:49 AM

The Ancient Greeks were wrong about the shape of the earth just like they were wrong in thinking that flies spontaneously generated from rotting meat and that epilepsy was a curse of the gods.

The ancient Greeks were right about a lot of things too.  Why couldn't they have been right about the shape of the earth? 

They could have been, but it doesn't matter.  They weren't right about everything and that's the point.

Quote

I expect this from people like goldstein and Edtharan but I thought you were past the "Everything a FEer does is wrong by association" stage, markjo.  I'm a little disappointed.

First of all, when did I imply that "Everything a FEer does is wrong by association"? 

Well, you are attacking Tom for no real reason.

Second, how is that any different than FE'ers saying that everything that NASA/government contractors do is wrong by association?

Where do we say that?  Full quotes please, I want to see what you're talking about.

The ancient Greeks were right about a lot of things too.  Why couldn't they have been right about the shape of the earth? 

They could have been, but it doesn't matter.  They weren't right about everything and that's the point.[/quote]

Even you have admitted that Rowbotham wasn't right about everything either.  So how is Rowbotham a more reliable source than the ancient Greeks?

Quote

Quote

I expect this from people like goldstein and Edtharan but I thought you were past the "Everything a FEer does is wrong by association" stage, markjo.  I'm a little disappointed.

First of all, when did I imply that "Everything a FEer does is wrong by association"? 

Well, you are attacking Tom for no real reason.

Quote

Second, how is that any different than FE'ers saying that everything that NASA/government contractors do is wrong by association?

Where do we say that?  Full quotes please, I want to see what you're talking about.

How many times has Tom dismissed Scaled Composites, SpaceX, Lockheed-Martin and others for being a government contractors?  Sounds like guilt by association to me.  Do I really need to dig up quotes for that?

Quote

So people smart enough to run this whole conspiracy couldn't have chosen the more logical path in the first place?

NASA was originally created as a military organization with one purpose: To get to the moon at all costs, even if it meant faking it. Creating rocket technologies, or at least creating the illusion of them, was a matter of national security.

But round Earth theory was in place way before NASA.

Quote

How was it matter of national security if the flight to the moon was impossible?

In the 40's and 50's the nations of the world knew that the first nation to master space travel and build the rocket technology necessary to get nuclear payloads into orbit would become the dominating super power. That's the sole and only reason NASA was created.

Creating the illusion of global military superiority was and remains to this day more important than anything. It didn't matter if the technology was impossible or too difficult to create, what mattered is whether everyone else believed that the technology was possible.

Everyone knew that ICBM's would change everything about warfare. Suddenly your country can win wars without losing a single human life on your end. When you can intimidate your enemy with total annihilation at the push of a button, you are untouchable.

But it's been stated on this website that other countries know about the round Earth conspiracy.

But it's been stated on this website that other countries know about the round Earth conspiracy.

Fifty years ago it was just NASA and the Soviets. Today it's NASA, the ESA, RSA, JSA, and the ISA. They are all close allies sharing technology making billion dollar deals behind closed doors. They all work on the ISS together and get technology from NASA.

What's interesting is that the Chinese Space Agency doesn't seem to be part of the NASA cartel (NASA is not interested in working with them) and is instead operating its own separate independent space hoax:



http://en.epochtimes.com/n2/china/shenzhou-vii-fake-spacewalk-5809.html

So is China not part of the round Earth conspiracy?

Also (sorry for not putting this in my other post) is the NASA space conspiracy an integral part of the FET?  I noticed that many time (especially in this thread), questions about FET theory are answered with facts about space program conspiracy.

So is China not part of the round Earth conspiracy?

What round earth conspiracy? It's just a space hoax. They don't particularly care what shape the earth is. The space hoax depicts the earth as round because that is what has been believed for the last five thousand years.

Oh.  My appologies.  I mistakenly thought you were an FET subscriber.

What round earth conspiracy? It's just a space hoax. They don't particularly care what shape the earth is. The space hoax depicts the earth as round because that is what has been believed for the last five thousand years.

I believe that the RE model only really began to be considered about 2,300 years ago. A FE model was mainly held before that, but was dropped as people explored larger areas of the world, especially by sea.

Quote from: Bob28 on January 01, 2009, 09:55:44 AM

Tom...you never answered my question, why would politicians who always want more money, be throwing away billions to NASA top officials to continue this coverup of weapons in space when everyone in the world knows we have those same weapons on the ground that can be fired from an airplane, warship or bunker?  people dont fear weapons because of where they are launched from, they fear the weapon.  so again i ask, why sink money into NASA to keep up this "lie" that we have weapons in space when everyone knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that we have those weapons on the ground?

Airplanes, warships, and bunkers can be defended against with traditional military. At present, space weapons cannot be defended against.   

well actually it can be defeated i mean it doesnt matter where the it is coming from there is some way to destroy the place it is shot from so what is the difference

Quote from: tre_03 on January 08, 2009, 04:32:08 AM

So is China not part of the round Earth conspiracy?

What round earth conspiracy? It's just a space hoax. They don't particularly care what shape the earth is. The space hoax depicts the earth as round because that is what has been believed for the last five thousand years.

Tom why have people believed the Earth is round for the last 5000 years? Seriously what is it that caused people to diverge from the FET which you've frequently maintained is essentially self evident, [look out the window see the Earth is flat] or at least would be if we were truly open minded. What caused people to make the mistake?

A curious
Cinlef

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 08, 2009, 04:59:26 AM

Quote from: tre_03 on January 08, 2009, 04:32:08 AM

So is China not part of the round Earth conspiracy?

What round earth conspiracy? It's just a space hoax. They don't particularly care what shape the earth is. The space hoax depicts the earth as round because that is what has been believed for the last five thousand years.

Tom why have people believed the Earth is round for the last 5000 years? Seriously what is it that caused people to diverge from the FET which you've frequently maintained is essentially self evident, [look out the window see the Earth is flat] or at least would be if we were truly open minded. What caused people to make the mistake?

A curious
Cinlef

Advances in science and technology.

A logical
Bob28

Quote from: Cinlef on January 12, 2009, 04:30:12 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 08, 2009, 04:59:26 AM

Quote from: tre_03 on January 08, 2009, 04:32:08 AM

So is China not part of the round Earth conspiracy?

What round earth conspiracy? It's just a space hoax. They don't particularly care what shape the earth is. The space hoax depicts the earth as round because that is what has been believed for the last five thousand years.

Tom why have people believed the Earth is round for the last 5000 years? Seriously what is it that caused people to diverge from the FET which you've frequently maintained is essentially self evident, [look out the window see the Earth is flat] or at least would be if we were truly open minded. What caused people to make the mistake?

A curious
Cinlef

Advances in science and technology.

A logical
Bob28

Which is a perfectly good answer if you assume hold the truth of the RET, which I do. But Tom doesn't and thus I'm curious to see why despite his belief that his theory is self evident, it has not been commonly held for 5000 years (also according to Tom[see above])way before any Conspiracy (according to Tom again [see above])

Feel free to answer this whenever Tom
EDIT: It occurs to me that considering you immense number of posts you've already discussed this somewhere. If so feel free to merely provide me with a link or thread title rather than repeating yourself

A curious
Cinlef

Quote from: Bob28 on January 12, 2009, 04:35:15 PM

Quote from: Cinlef on January 12, 2009, 04:30:12 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 08, 2009, 04:59:26 AM

Quote from: tre_03 on January 08, 2009, 04:32:08 AM

So is China not part of the round Earth conspiracy?

What round earth conspiracy? It's just a space hoax. They don't particularly care what shape the earth is. The space hoax depicts the earth as round because that is what has been believed for the last five thousand years.

Tom why have people believed the Earth is round for the last 5000 years? Seriously what is it that caused people to diverge from the FET which you've frequently maintained is essentially self evident, [look out the window see the Earth is flat] or at least would be if we were truly open minded. What caused people to make the mistake?

A curious
Cinlef

Advances in science and technology.

A logical
Bob28

Which is a perfectly good answer if you assume hold the truth of the RET, which I do. But Tom doesn't and thus I'm curious to see why despite his belief that his theory is self evident, it has not been commonly held for 5000 years (also according to Tom[see above])way before any Conspiracy (according to Tom again [see above])

Feel free to answer this whenever Tom
EDIT: It occurs to me that considering you immense number of posts you've already discussed this somewhere. If so feel free to merely provide me with a link or thread title rather than repeating yourself

A curious
Cinlef

Tom would probably point you to the Christine Garwood book that is referenced in his sig.