Sorry, hate to interrupt this interesting "debate", but I just wanted to interject a little bit of actual logic into the equation. I've seen every other poster here commit one or two minor fallacies, but this one just struck me as so obvious it had to be pointed out again. Keep in mind, this is basic argumentitive fact.
We know the Earth is flat.
We observe them telling us that it is round.
Therefore based on what we know they must be lying.
Great syllogism. But the problem is, you're trying to use a deductive argument. When a deductive argument is used, it has to be pretty much perfect, otherwise it ends up having a low probability of being correct.
Obviously, your conclusion can be correct without premises being correct, but if you want to prove anything with the argument, all premises have to be correct. P1: "We know the earth is flat". P2: "We observe [authority figures] telling us that [the earth] is round" C: "Therefore, based on what we know, they must be lying."
P1 is a false premise. We do not
know that the earth is flat.
Sadly the way this is worded makes it difficult to put into a categorical syllogism, but let's play with the wording to at least make the form more decent eh?
We believe, with a high degree of certainty based on our empirical findings and the findings of others along our belief system that the earth is flat. (See, there's P1. A little less severe, kinda wordy, but it still gets the point accross)
We are reassured that the earth is round by authority figures, including the general scientific community.
It is thus believed with a high degree of certainty that these authority figures are engaged in a cover-up regarding our view of the earth's physical characteristics.
I could go on and offer more possibilities to put your point forward with a more dignified aire, but I think I've gone on long enough.
As for the true skeptics out there, keeping to the original meaning of the word (A skeptic was originally someone adhering to the idea that nothing can be known), here's a nice little idea for you. In logic, there is an interesting point. Two claims, A claims and E claims are contradictory. Let's say "All P are Q". That's an A claim. Now, let's say "No P are Q". That would be an E claim. Well hell, we know something now don't we? Both claims cannot be true. There ya go, something you can know without even having to study rocks or watch the skies.
The same goes for "some" claims, which are I and O. "Some S are P" and "Some S are not P". These two cannot both be false at the same time, BTW. For example: "Some planetary bodies are flat" and "Some planetary bodies are not flat". Both can't be false. You know two things now!
What am I getting at? The repeated argument that "we can never really know anything, everything's possible" is silly. Argumentation works on certainties and probabilities. Most arguments I see daily are inductive, as should be all the arguments here. But let's be relatively sane about it.
You believe that the earth is flat, despite the probability being fairly low. That's fine. I believe there could be a God, despite the fact that the probability of his existence is extremely low. Nice to think there's something watching out for us. I do not, however, claim that there is substantial evidence of a God's existence. I suppose I could be agnostic about the whole flat earth thing too. Sure, why not? I certainly allow for the possibility of the earth being flat. I even allow for the remote possibility that the government is hiding the fact that it is. But unless I feel like testing my argument capabilities, I'm not giong to try to further that theory.
What's happening here is a wonderful exchange of ideas. Well, some of it is a wonderful exchange of ideas. A lot of it is name-calling and piety. Part of why I can't see arguing for a FE is that a lot of the facts are muddy, and in more than one case I've seen contradictions or complete non-sequitors. The same can be said about RE arguers. If you're going to argue, pick a stance and stand on it. Is there gravity? Is there an "ice wall"? Are our most visible celestial bodies spherical or disk-shaped? Must religion play a key role in the FE system? (Though, it'd be hard for it not to if you remove gravity from the equation entirely. That much acceleration would require more energy than the sun has put out in its entire life, from what I understand)
A theory is a complex set of explainations based on empirical and mathematical data which is used to make the best approximation of facts to explain a phenomenon. Maybe not the *best* definition of "theory" you've ever heard, but it's probably pretty close to what the dictionary will tell you. Now, I would say that the FE theory is a lesser one, but still classifiable as a theory. Intelligent Design, on the other hand, is hardly a theory. It is a belief system structured upon pure speculation without much real observation. I drop a bowl of alphabet cereal on the ground and it ends up creating a complex and deep series of words. Does that mean something purposely put those words there? I didn't. You didn't. I don't see anyone else around who did it. So I'm going to bet it was just coincidence. But enough creation bashing.
The FE theory, or at least the bulk of it, involves a good amount of observation and conclusion. It just turns out that the RE theory is almost entirely comprised of observation and conclusion with a more plausible answer.
And the more steps you have to take to explain something, based on observation, the less likely it is to be true. RE theory: Satellites reflect signals from one place on earth to another. FE theory: Radio stations direct signals omnidirectionally and are covered up by the government to hide the truth about how they operate. They would have to be disguised and work pretty strangely.
Why? My parents and I have used satellite TV for ages, as we have never been able to get cable television (we live too far out of town). Now, modern satellite dishes have to be positioned once by a professional who has to zero in a signal. Okay, so he's gotta find the right radio tower and get through the line of sight. I'll buy it. But then there's our old dish, which had a huge motor in it. Why? Because we had to manually tune in different satellites. Bloody thing was hard to tune because, well, here's the strange part: The direction was important, but so was the inclination! Yep. You point it straight to the side, you get nothing. You find a satellite signal in one part of the sky, and rotate the satellite without changing inclination, you're unlikely to find bupkis. Adjust the inclination a bit, BAM, you've found yourself a brand new station!
Ironically, the first station we ever found was the Sci-Fi channel, and it hadn't even begun airing yet. We sat and watched the countdown, and the first thing shown was Star Wars. The original movie. But the point is, 1 degree off, inclination or otherwise, and your signal was gone, or at least damn near impossible to see.
Now, tell me, why on round earth (even more puzzling on flat earth) would a radio/TV style antenna be sensitive to the inclination of a satellite dish? Oh oh, I know. It has to do with what CB operators call "skip", which is- oh no wait, that has to do with distant signals that are beyond the horizon being reflected off the earth's upper atmosphere back down, thus allowing for someone in California to actually talk to someone in Australia. Wouldn't be necessary if you had a clear line of sight and a powerful enough radio.
The transmission is spotty, and works best when certain weather exists in just the right area. It could be an exact science, but most of the time it's just luck. BTW, that "correct weather" is usually cloudy, so don't think that clear weather makes the air easier to pass radio waves through or anything. Damn, the FCC is in on it too.
Oh, and for the "money" aspect of the conspiracy? Wouldn't it just be easier for the government to go to war on false pretenses, shovel up billions in taxes and filter down only a small percentage to the actual war effort? It's certainly easier to explain than the government created a space exploration division to pull in billions only to have most of the money go to a select few overseeing it all. Oh, and making sure the satellite companies are pointing to antennas. And spending a bunch of that money to post guards or (more likely) set up defense systems around the ice wall.
Man, I gotta talk to the conspiracy guys. I could save them billions and we could all know the truth behind the shape of our... uh... the place we all live.
That blasted Cheney is in on this, I know it.