Why should we believe the unobservable conspiracy

Quote

Tom what exactly would constitute evidence for you. This a totally serious question please make explicit the criteria you use to evaluate the plausibility of evidence so that we can provide some that meets your standards

A curious
Cinlef

A peer review of the existence of NASA's space machines and technological claims would be a start.

Main Entry:    peer review
Function:    noun
Date:    1969
: a process by which something proposed (as for research or publication) is evaluated by a group of experts in the appropriate field

OK Tom, name some of NASA's peers that you would accept reviews from and we'll see what we can do.  Or would all of NASA's peers be in on the conspiracy too?

It is nice to get supporting evidence that NASA went to the moon from a fellow Conspiracy Theorist

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/luna/luna_darkmission.htm

Quote from: grogberries on January 24, 2009, 07:14:08 PM

Tom, I gave a pretty good reason why those photographs behaved like they did. I don't think you can use that as proper evidence now.

What reason did you give to cause the sun to look exactly like a spotlight? Some odd distortion in the camera film which manifests in perfect doughnut shapes? 

You were given change to see the evidence, that the same effect can be seen on pictures taken on earth with polaroid cameras,
but you just ignored it.

Fail. 

And please answer my original question. Can you give me a one good reason to believe the global re conspiracy?

OK Tom, name some of NASA's peers that you would accept reviews from and we'll see what we can do.  Or would all of NASA's peers be in on the conspiracy too?

I don't care who peer reviews NASA, just so long as they are an unconnected person or organization.

You were given change to see the evidence, that the same effect can be seen on pictures taken on earth with polaroid cameras, but you just ignored it.

Really? Please show me where the same effect is seen in Polaroid cameras.

Quote

You were given change to see the evidence, that the same effect can be seen on pictures taken on earth with polaroid cameras, but you just ignored it.

Really? Please show me where the same effect is seen in Polaroid cameras.

Grogberries offered to show them to you if you just asked him. If you are too lazy reply his message with 5 words then it is  an even bigger fail for you. With same logic I could ignore your flat earth literature list because I am too lazy to click the links.

It is nice to get supporting evidence that NASA went to the moon from a fellow Conspiracy Theorist

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/luna/luna_darkmission.htm

Here you go tom a fellow conspiracy theorist that supports the fact that we have landed on the moon

Grogberries offered to show them to you if you just asked him. If you are too lazy reply his message with 5 words then it is  an even bigger fail for you. With same logic I could ignore your flat earth literature list because I am too lazy to click the links.

If he had something which demonstrated that the effect was seen elsewhere he would have posted it. As it is you have absolutely no explanation for why the sun in the Apollo images looks like a spotlight. No amount of lame excuses will resolve the fact that the Apollo sun is an artificial spotlight.

Here you go tom a fellow conspiracy theorist that supports the fact that we have landed on the moon

Where does he prove that NASA has been to the moon? 

Quote from: jargo on January 25, 2009, 12:49:11 AM

Grogberries offered to show them to you if you just asked him. If you are too lazy reply his message with 5 words then it is  an even bigger fail for you. With same logic I could ignore your flat earth literature list because I am too lazy to click the links.

If he had something which demonstrated that the effect was seen elsewhere he would have posted it.

I would brother to write a 5 word response, if the opposing side would claim to have evidence and would present it to me if I just asked for it.  The fact that you refuse doing this miniscule task proves that you believe that the opposing side has evidence that demonstrates that the effect was seen elsewhere and you are just afraid to ask for it. After all only thing you would need to do to prove the opposing side wrong is to write a 5 word response where you ask to see the evidence. If I were offered such an opportunity I would surely do what the opposing side was asking me to do unless I was afraid that opposing side actually had the evidence to support their claim.   

I would brother to write a 5 word response, if the opposing side would claim to have evidence and would present it to me if I just asked for it.  The fact that you refuse doing this miniscule task proves that you believe that the opposing side has evidence that demonstrates that the effect was seen elsewhere and you are just afraid to ask for it. After all only thing you would need to do to prove the opposing side wrong is to write a 5 word response where you ask to see the evidence. If I were offered such an opportunity I would surely do what the opposing side was asking me to do unless I was afraid that opposing side actually had the evidence to support their claim.   

What are you mumbling about? Either post evidence if you have it or get the hell out of here if you don't.

Quote from: jargo on January 25, 2009, 03:14:31 AM

I would brother to write a 5 word response, if the opposing side would claim to have evidence and would present it to me if I just asked for it.  The fact that you refuse doing this miniscule task proves that you believe that the opposing side has evidence that demonstrates that the effect was seen elsewhere and you are just afraid to ask for it. After all only thing you would need to do to prove the opposing side wrong is to write a 5 word response where you ask to see the evidence. If I were offered such an opportunity I would surely do what the opposing side was asking me to do unless I was afraid that opposing side actually had the evidence to support their claim.   

What are you mumbling about? Either post evidence if you have it or get the hell out of here if you don't.

You need to ask grogberries the same question and you will have your evidence.

Only thing you would need to do to prove the opposing side wrong is to write a 5 word response where you ask to see the evidence.
 
So why do you not ask to see the evidence?

The only ansver I can come up it is that you are afraid that the opposing side have the evidence supporting their claim.

What point do you no understand?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 24, 2009, 07:27:59 PM

Quote from: grogberries on January 24, 2009, 07:14:08 PM

Tom, I gave a pretty good reason why those photographs behaved like they did. I don't think you can use that as proper evidence now.

What reason did you give to cause the sun to look exactly like a spotlight? Some odd distortion in the camera film which manifests in perfect doughnut shapes? 

I thought that the sun was a spotlight

I believe that was his point.

So why do you not ask to see the evidence?

Two out of every three of my posts on this forum consist of me asking you guys for evidence. Obviously I want it.

Quote

So why do you not ask to see the evidence?

Two out of every three of my posts on this forum consist of me asking you guys for evidence. Obviously I want it.

And as I have told you several times you need to ask grogberries he has the evidence and he has said that he will show it to you if you only ask.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=26006.100

And as I have told you several times you need to ask grogberries he has the evidence and he has said that he will show it to you if you only ask.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=26006.100

If he had evidence he would have posted it. Continuing to withhold evidence you guys claim to have isn't a very convincing tactic. Why don't you go deliberate for a while and PM me when you guys actually have something to present. If you're talking to me about evidence and you don't have any you're just wasting my time and digging yourself deeper into fail.

Quote

So why do you not ask to see the evidence?

Two out of every three of my posts on this forum consist of me asking you guys for evidence. Obviously I want it.

And you have received it many times.  The fact that you choose to dismiss it is your problem, not ours.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

Long-exposure photo taken from the surface of the Moon by Apollo 16 using a special ultraviolet camera. It shows the Earth with the correct background of stars.

    * December 21, 1968 - 18:00 UT - Amateur astronomers (H.R. Hatfield, M.J. Hendrie, F. Kent, Alan Heath, and M.J. Oates) in the UK photographed a fuel dump from the jettisoned S-IVB stage.[14]
    * Pic du Midi Observatory (in the French Pyrenees); the Catalina Station of the Lunar and Planetary Laboratory (University of Arizona); Corralitos Observatory, New Mexico, then operated by Northwestern University; McDonald Observatory of the University of Texas; and Lick Observatory of the University of California all filed reports of observations.[15]
    * Dr. Michael Moutsoulas at Pic du Midi reported an initial sighting around 17:10 UT on December 21 with the 1.1-meter reflector as an object (magnitude near 10, through clouds) moving eastward near the predicted location of Apollo 8. He used a 60-cm refractor to observe a cluster of objects which were obscured by the appearance of a nebulous cloud at a time which matches a firing of the service module engine to assure adequate separation from the S-IVB. This event can be traced with the Apollo 8 Flight Journal, noting that launch was at 0751 EST or 12:51 UT on December 21.[16]
    * Justus Dunlap and other at Corralitos Observatory (then operated by Northwestern University) obtained over 400 short-exposure intensified images, giving very accurate locations for the spacecraft.[citation needed]
    * The 2.1 m Struve telescope at McDonald, from 01:50-2:37 UT observed the brightest object flashing as bright as magnitude 15, with the flash pattern recurring about once a minute.[citation needed]
    * The Lick observations during the return coast to Earth produced live TV pictures broadcast to West Coast viewers via KQED-TV in San Francisco.
    * An article in the March 1969 issue of Sky & Telescope.[17]
    * The first post-launch sightings were from the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (SAO) station on Maui, and observed the TLI burn near 15:44 UT on December 21. (The Smithsonian Institute is funded by the US government).
    * Table Mountain, a Deep Space Network station, reports that they tracked all the Apollo lunar missions except 17.
    * Bernard Scrivener (at Honeysuckle Creek) personally recorded forty-five to fifty hours of the radio conversation between Houston and Apollo 8. These are recordings of the raw audio, not what was released to the public through NASA. [18]

Quote from: jargo on January 25, 2009, 05:39:19 AM

And as I have told you several times you need to ask grogberries he has the evidence and he has said that he will show it to you if you only ask.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=26006.100

If he had evidence he would have posted it. Continuing to withhold evidence you guys claim to have isn't a very convincing tactic. Why don't you go deliberate for a while and PM me when you guys actually have something to present. If you're talking to me about evidence and you don't have any you're just wasting my time and digging yourself deeper into fail.

He has clearly stated that he will present it when you ask for it from him. You have failed to do that.

So why do you not ask grogberries this simple question?

The only ansver I can come up it is that you are afraid that the opposing side have the evidence supporting their claim.

You have asked me for evidence but I don't have it grogberries has as I have said many times.

And you have received it many times.  The fact that you choose to dismiss it is your problem, not ours.

So your evidence that man has been to the moon is an image from NASA and a few post-launch sightings of the Saturn-IV in the sky? 

He has clearly stated that he will present it when you ask for it from him. You have failed to do that.

So why do you not ask grogberries this simple question?

The only ansver I can come up it is that you are afraid that the opposing side have the evidence supporting their claim.

You have asked me for evidence but I don't have it grogberries has as I have said many times.

I don't see any evidence from either of you. Maybe if you stop mumbling that you guys have evidence and actually post some we can proceed with the discussion. As of this moment there is absolutely no evidence to support your contentions.

Quote from: grogberries on January 24, 2009, 07:14:08 PM

Tom, I gave a pretty good reason why those photographs behaved like they did. I don't think you can use that as proper evidence now.

What reason did you give to cause the sun to look exactly like a spotlight? Some odd distortion in the camera film which manifests in perfect doughnut shapes? 

Do your same tricksies to this photograph taken from earth. You'll find it behaves much like the Apollo photos.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 24, 2009, 07:27:59 PM

Quote from: grogberries on January 24, 2009, 07:14:08 PM

Tom, I gave a pretty good reason why those photographs behaved like they did. I don't think you can use that as proper evidence now.

What reason did you give to cause the sun to look exactly like a spotlight? Some odd distortion in the camera film which manifests in perfect doughnut shapes? 

Do your same tricksies to this photograph taken from earth. You'll find it behaves much like the Apollo photos.

Your Image: http://www.screencast.com/users/tbishop/folders/Jing/media/f77afe7f-6cfe-4278-83cf-14ece77e4d17

Apollo Sun Image: http://www.screencast.com/users/tbishop/folders/Jing/media/d5784ce2-2348-40a0-8f9b-0ddf37763b6e

Nope. They don't look anything alike when I adjust the levels for intensity.

bah I'll show you what I did to the photo to get the donut shape. But tomarrow I am sleepy.

anywho in the mean time, this one actually does it. But it is less drastic than the Apollo one.

Quote

And you have received it many times.  The fact that you choose to dismiss it is your problem, not ours.

So your evidence that man has been to the moon is an image from NASA and a few post-launch sightings of the Saturn-IV in the sky? 

Apparently you missed this part:

* Bernard Scrivener (at Honeysuckle Creek) personally recorded forty-five to fifty hours of the radio conversation between Houston and Apollo 8. These are recordings of the raw audio, not what was released to the public through NASA. [18]

http://www.honeysucklecreek.net/msfn_missions/Apollo_8_mission/index.html

These recordings are what was heard on the Manned Space Flight Network circuits, rather than the Public Affairs (?Voice of Apollo?) audio released at Houston. This means that they are probably the ?most authentic? surviving recordings of the communications between Houston and the spacecraft on the historic first voyage from the Earth to the Moon.

Plus the whole rest of the Wikipedia page where they talk about things like independent analysis of the moon rocks, and how other countries (including the Soviet Union) tracked the space craft:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

But go ahead and dismiss the evidence like you always do.  What fun would it be if you did ever accept any of it as true?

Markjo, it has long been established that NASA and the Soviet space program worked in conjunction. Hardly an "independent observer".

Markjo, it has long been established that NASA and the Soviet space program worked in conjunction. Hardly an "independent observer".

I'm sorry, but I must have missed where NASA and the Soviet space announced that the Apollo moon missions were a joint program.  Oh, that's right, they weren't. 

Quote from: Proleg on January 26, 2009, 11:41:51 AM

Markjo, it has long been established that NASA and the Soviet space program worked in conjunction. Hardly an "independent observer".

I'm sorry, but I must have missed where NASA and the Soviet space announced that the Apollo moon missions were a joint program.  Oh, that's right, they weren't. 

NASA allowed Yuri Gagarin to be the "first man in space". In return, the Soviets didn't expose the moon hoax. Quite simple, even for an REer.

Quote from: markjo on January 26, 2009, 12:06:30 PM

Quote from: Proleg on January 26, 2009, 11:41:51 AM

Markjo, it has long been established that NASA and the Soviet space program worked in conjunction. Hardly an "independent observer".

I'm sorry, but I must have missed where NASA and the Soviet space announced that the Apollo moon missions were a joint program.  Oh, that's right, they weren't. 

NASA allowed Yuri Gagarin to be the "first man in space". In return, the Soviets didn't expose the moon hoax. Quite simple, even for an REer.

So why didn't NASA allow the Soviets to be second to the moon?  Oh, that's right, their moon rocket kept blowing up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N1_rocket#Launch_history

I don't know why I keep expecting you to have a point...

The hypothesis that the Earth is round pre-dates NASA by some way. Though its true that the hypothesis that the world is flat pre-dates it by more. I would argue that there is enough evidence to argue this point without using satelite photos, space travel etc. The flat earth hypothesis deviates most obviously from the spherical earth hypothesis in the geometry of the Earth's surface. There are I believe many commercial flights per day around he southern hemisphere, in planes with well characterized performance capabilities, even if these were being lied about we can trivially tell that their maximum speed is less than that of sound. Yet the time taken to travel between say Buenos Aeries and Sydney  is not compatiable with the FE geometry. Also someone looking out of the window would probably have questioned the route by now as in the FE world the shortest route from Australia to South America is via the North Pole.

Though I would argue the strongest evidence comes from the fact the the world is not as opaque is people often think. As I pointed out in a previous post, the Earth is almost transparent to Neutrino's. By detecting neutrinos we can see straight through the Earth. Indeed artificial beams of neutrinos are routinely fired into the Earth an detected where they re-emerge. All things considered I would conclude that the RE hypothesis is more consistent with data that I have observed.

I don't know why I keep expecting you to have a point...

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you...

NASA allowed Yuri Gagarin to be the "first man in space". In return, the Soviets didn't expose the moon hoax. Quite simple, even for an REer.

We know you FEers are very capable of makings stuff up, but this discussion really has no place for it.

Oh, and don't forget your tin foil hat.