« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

The age of the conspiracy

  • 36 Replies
  • 6385 Views
?

brutsi

  • 69
  • +0/-0
  • RE
The age of the conspiracy
« on: February 25, 2009, 11:23:15 PM »
How old is the conspiracy ???
Logged
?

Proleg

Re: The age of the conspiracy
« Reply #1 on: February 26, 2009, 12:15:54 AM »
The conspiracy as we know it today (devised once the truth was actually discovered) is at least sixty years old. Personally, I believe the Nazis pioneered it and the US incorporated the system with the info and assistance of Wernher von Braun and others. It is conceivable that it could even date as far back as the twenties.
Logged
?

brutsi

  • 69
  • +0/-0
  • RE
Re: The age of the conspiracy
« Reply #2 on: February 26, 2009, 12:42:59 AM »
Ok, so that means newton wasnt a part of the conpiracy he was just plain wrong? does this mean that the greeks were also just wrong? what about the vikings of scandinavia they also thought/knew that the earth was round that wasnt a conspiracy either?  :o
Logged
?

Proleg

Re: The age of the conspiracy
« Reply #3 on: February 26, 2009, 02:13:24 AM »
What can I say? People back then believed stupid things. Hell, people nowadays still do.
Logged
?

brutsi

  • 69
  • +0/-0
  • RE
Re: The age of the conspiracy
« Reply #4 on: February 26, 2009, 02:26:12 AM »
Was the catholich church then an early part of the conspiracy perhaps or does the governments of today have nothing to do with the catholics?
Logged
?

Proleg

Re: The age of the conspiracy
« Reply #5 on: February 26, 2009, 02:30:12 AM »
The Catholic Church and world governments have little to nothing to do with the conspiracy.
Logged
*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12086
  • +3/-3
Re: The age of the conspiracy
« Reply #6 on: February 26, 2009, 02:31:59 AM »
Quote from: brutsi on February 26, 2009, 12:42:59 AM
Ok, so that means newton wasnt a part of the conpiracy he was just plain wrong? does this mean that the greeks were also just wrong? what about the vikings of scandinavia they also thought/knew that the earth was round that wasnt a conspiracy either?  :o


Newton was wrong. That's why Einstein's theories displaced his. The Greeks were wrong. They didn't even know that the Americas existed.

And all the Vikings did was a bit of sailing; I'm not sure why you brought them into it.
Logged
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord
?

brutsi

  • 69
  • +0/-0
  • RE
Re: The age of the conspiracy
« Reply #7 on: February 26, 2009, 03:06:46 AM »
Quote from: NEEMAN on February 26, 2009, 02:31:59 AM
Quote from: brutsi on February 26, 2009, 12:42:59 AM


And all the Vikings did was a bit of sailing; I'm not sure why you brought them into it.

The vikings concluded that the earth was round becuase of the ship in the horizon.
Logged
?

user99

  • 282
  • +0/-0
Re: The age of the conspiracy
« Reply #8 on: February 26, 2009, 05:00:07 AM »
Quote from: Proleg on February 26, 2009, 12:15:54 AM
The conspiracy as we know it today (devised once the truth was actually discovered) is at least sixty years old. Personally, I believe the Nazis pioneered it and the US incorporated the system with the info and assistance of Wernher von Braun and others. It is conceivable that it could even date as far back as the twenties.

Bavarian Globe Makers Guild

lrn2feconspiracytheory
Logged
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45161
  • +98/-138
Re: The age of the conspiracy
« Reply #9 on: February 26, 2009, 06:41:29 AM »
Quote from: NEEMAN on February 26, 2009, 02:31:59 AM
Quote from: brutsi on February 26, 2009, 12:42:59 AM
Ok, so that means newton wasnt a part of the conpiracy he was just plain wrong? does this mean that the greeks were also just wrong? what about the vikings of scandinavia they also thought/knew that the earth was round that wasnt a conspiracy either?  :o


Newton was wrong incomplete. That's why Einstein's theories displaced his. The Greeks were wrong knowledge of the world was incomplete. They didn't even know that the Americas existed.

And all the Vikings did was a bit of sailing; I'm not sure why you brought them into it.

Fixed that for you.  He probably brought up the vikings because they landed in North America about 500 years before Columbus did.  Some say that the Chinese landed in North America even earlier than that.
Logged
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.
?

brutsi

  • 69
  • +0/-0
  • RE
Re: The age of the conspiracy
« Reply #10 on: February 26, 2009, 06:57:01 AM »
Quote from: markjo on February 26, 2009, 06:41:29 AM
Quote from: NEEMAN on February 26, 2009, 02:31:59 AM
Quote from: brutsi on February 26, 2009, 12:42:59 AM
Ok, so that means newton wasnt a part of the conpiracy he was just plain wrong? does this mean that the greeks were also just wrong? what about the vikings of scandinavia they also thought/knew that the earth was round that wasnt a conspiracy either?  :o


Newton was wrong incomplete. That's why Einstein's theories displaced his. The Greeks were wrong knowledge of the world was incomplete. They didn't even know that the Americas existed.

And all the Vikings did was a bit of sailing; I'm not sure why you brought them into it.

Fixed that for you.  He probably brought up the vikings because they landed in North America about 500 years before Columbus did.  Some say that the Chinese landed in North America even earlier than that.

no no no, i brought up the vikings becuase they knew/believed that the earth was round, there are however only few documentation of this as the vikings didnt have a strong tradition in writing things down, mostly everything was told from mouth to mouth in the old school way.
Logged
*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12086
  • +3/-3
Re: The age of the conspiracy
« Reply #11 on: February 26, 2009, 07:50:41 AM »
Quote from: markjo on February 26, 2009, 06:41:29 AM
Quote from: NEEMAN on February 26, 2009, 02:31:59 AM
Newton was wrong incomplete. That's why Einstein's theories displaced his.

Fixed that for you.  He probably brought up the vikings because they landed in North America about 500 years before Columbus did.  Some say that the Chinese landed in North America even earlier than that.

Newton's theories were not 'incomplete'. By curent standards, they were based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how the universe works. Einstein didn't fill in Newton's blanks. He created a completely new theory based on a fundamentally different concept of hwo the universe works. Newton believed in an instanteous force of attraction between objects of mass, which is contrary to the very basis of relativity (which is why Einstein had such a problem with the idea of 'entanglement' in quantum physics). And yes, I suppose the Greeks' knowledge was incomplete, in that they didn't really have a 'RET' at all.


As for the Vikings crossing the atlantic, this is (as you know) totally compatible with FET. Now, as he has said, that wasn't his reasoning. In response to the ship/horizon question, I simply advise that he searches, as there have been many discussions on the matter.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2009, 07:52:34 AM by NEEMAN »
Logged
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord
?

JoshuaZ

  • 351
  • +0/-0
Re: The age of the conspiracy
« Reply #12 on: February 26, 2009, 08:32:58 AM »
Quote from: NEEMAN on February 26, 2009, 07:50:41 AM


Newton's theories were not 'incomplete'. By curent standards, they were based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how the universe works. Einstein didn't fill in Newton's blanks. He created a completely new theory based on a fundamentally different concept of hwo the universe works. Newton believed in an instanteous force of attraction between objects of mass, which is contrary to the very basis of relativity (which is why Einstein had such a problem with the idea of 'entanglement' in quantum physics).


Newton's theories are in the limiting cases of small velocities and small mass close enough for almost all practical purposes. We can design airplanes and other complicated devices without regard to relativity issues. We can even predict planetary orbits without regard to relativity and get very good approximations. Newton's laws are good enough that we can send probes to other planets simply based off of that (but FErs will likely think that's part of the conspiracy too)  Saying that Newton was wrong is at best misleading.


I'm a bit puzzled by the claim that this conspiracy was started so late. In particular, I'm curious as to how all the major naval navigation in WWII and WWI was done if the major militaries were not part of the conspiracy. If there is a conspiracy it needs to be much larger and much more wideranging.
Logged
?

avsfan987

  • 245
  • +0/-0
Re: The age of the conspiracy
« Reply #13 on: February 26, 2009, 09:48:34 AM »
The conspiracy is basically a knee-jerk reaction to the space age. Ever since the world space agencies have been able to send up satellites and take pictures of the earth, all the flat earthers were like "oh crap, how are we going to keep existing now?" So they invented a fictional story that is now known as the conspiracy theory.

Every since FE invented the conspiracy theory, they can now answer 90% of all questions on this forum with the reply "It's part of the conspiracy".

So that's about the only important thing you need to know.
Logged
?

brutsi

  • 69
  • +0/-0
  • RE
Re: The age of the conspiracy
« Reply #14 on: February 26, 2009, 09:53:44 AM »
i am fully aware of the ship/horizon debate on this forum and i just stated that the vikings used this to conclude that the earth was round.
Logged
?

Cockmongler1337

  • 9
  • +0/-0
Re: The age of the conspiracy
« Reply #15 on: February 26, 2009, 12:14:24 PM »
Don't you think that a conspiracy this huge, would be revealed at some point? I mean, what proof do you have that there is a conspiracy anyways? Oh, and while we are at it: Why would the government try to trick us anyways? What are their motives? Personal gain? Well, I don't see how profit fits into this whole theory.

Remember Lincoln's words:
You can decieve some people all the time.
You can decieve all people, for some time.
But you can never deceive all people, all the time.
Logged
*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12086
  • +3/-3
Re: The age of the conspiracy
« Reply #16 on: February 26, 2009, 03:36:01 PM »
Quote from: JoshuaZ on February 26, 2009, 08:32:58 AM
Quote from: NEEMAN on February 26, 2009, 07:50:41 AM


Newton's theories were not 'incomplete'. By curent standards, they were based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how the universe works. Einstein didn't fill in Newton's blanks. He created a completely new theory based on a fundamentally different concept of hwo the universe works. Newton believed in an instanteous force of attraction between objects of mass, which is contrary to the very basis of relativity (which is why Einstein had such a problem with the idea of 'entanglement' in quantum physics).


Newton's theories are in the limiting cases of small velocities and small mass close enough for almost all practical purposes.

In other words, it has predictive power, but has no relation to truth. Correct? I've seen this line spouted over and over by RE'ers, and I have always won the ensuing debate. It is not misleading to say he was wrong, because his theory on how the universe works bears no relation to how the universe actually works. Predictive power does not imply truth.

Even if you're a RE'er, you have to accept that Newton's theories are totally incompatible with Einstein's. If Einstein was right, then Newton was wrong, end of story.
Logged
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45161
  • +98/-138
Re: The age of the conspiracy
« Reply #17 on: February 26, 2009, 05:37:17 PM »
Quote from: NEEMAN on February 26, 2009, 03:36:01 PM
Quote from: JoshuaZ on February 26, 2009, 08:32:58 AM
Quote from: NEEMAN on February 26, 2009, 07:50:41 AM


Newton's theories were not 'incomplete'. By curent standards, they were based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how the universe works. Einstein didn't fill in Newton's blanks. He created a completely new theory based on a fundamentally different concept of hwo the universe works. Newton believed in an instanteous force of attraction between objects of mass, which is contrary to the very basis of relativity (which is why Einstein had such a problem with the idea of 'entanglement' in quantum physics).


Newton's theories are in the limiting cases of small velocities and small mass close enough for almost all practical purposes.

In other words, it has predictive power, but has no relation to truth. Correct? I've seen this line spouted over and over by RE'ers, and I have always won the ensuing debate. It is not misleading to say he was wrong, because his theory on how the universe works bears no relation to how the universe actually works. Predictive power does not imply truth.

Even if you're a RE'er, you have to accept that Newton's theories are totally incompatible with Einstein's. If Einstein was right, then Newton was wrong, end of story.

What makes you think that Einstein's theories have any more to do with the way that the universe works than Newton's?  Relativity is just a mathematical model that has better predictive powers than Newton's model. 
Logged
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.
*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12086
  • +3/-3
Re: The age of the conspiracy
« Reply #18 on: February 26, 2009, 05:43:53 PM »
Well, I must say that I debated whether or not to put the word 'supposedly' in place of actually, but decided it was unnecessary for the purpose of this discussion. If you want my opinion, Einstein's theories are probably off the truth by a stretch, and I think that even outside FET, this will become accepted in time. Indeed, many are already asking questions of Special Relativity as a result of new perspectives with regard to quantum theory.
Logged
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45161
  • +98/-138
Re: The age of the conspiracy
« Reply #19 on: February 26, 2009, 05:51:41 PM »
Quote from: NEEMAN on February 26, 2009, 05:43:53 PM
Well, I must say that I debated whether or not to put the word 'supposedly' in place of actually, but decided it was unnecessary for the purpose of this discussion. If you want my opinion, Einstein's theories are probably off the truth by a stretch, and I think that even outside FET, this will become accepted in time. Indeed, many are already asking questions of Special Relativity as a result of new perspectives with regard to quantum theory.

Personally, I'm not sure if it will ever be possible to truly know how the universe works at the fundamentally large or small extremes.  The best we will ever be able to do is just come up with better models.
Logged
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.
?

JoshuaZ

  • 351
  • +0/-0
Re: The age of the conspiracy
« Reply #20 on: February 26, 2009, 09:31:57 PM »
Quote from: NEEMAN on February 26, 2009, 03:36:01 PM
Quote from: JoshuaZ on February 26, 2009, 08:32:58 AM
Quote from: NEEMAN on February 26, 2009, 07:50:41 AM


Newton's theories were not 'incomplete'. By curent standards, they were based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how the universe works. Einstein didn't fill in Newton's blanks. He created a completely new theory based on a fundamentally different concept of hwo the universe works. Newton believed in an instanteous force of attraction between objects of mass, which is contrary to the very basis of relativity (which is why Einstein had such a problem with the idea of 'entanglement' in quantum physics).


Newton's theories are in the limiting cases of small velocities and small mass close enough for almost all practical purposes.

In other words, it has predictive power, but has no relation to truth. Correct? I've seen this line spouted over and over by RE'ers, and I have always won the ensuing debate. It is not misleading to say he was wrong, because his theory on how the universe works bears no relation to how the universe actually works. Predictive power does not imply truth.

Even if you're a RE'er, you have to accept that Newton's theories are totally incompatible with Einstein's. If Einstein was right, then Newton was wrong, end of story.

This is a poor understanding of how science works. Science never cares about truth. It only cares about predictive power.

Moreover, theories like Newton's are related to "truth"(assuming there is a truth in any meaningful sense) in that they are approximations of that truth. Thus, Newtonian physics is closer to truth than Aristotelian physics. SR and GR is closer still, but isn't quite right.
Logged
?

reyo

  • 355
  • +0/-0
Re: The age of the conspiracy
« Reply #21 on: February 26, 2009, 09:38:49 PM »
I've got a question that pertains to the conspiracy:

Is there any proof to the existance to the conspiracy? 
If so:  Post it here please.
If not:  Why not?
Logged
?

RJM

  • 104
  • +0/-0
Re: The age of the conspiracy
« Reply #22 on: February 26, 2009, 10:00:35 PM »
Quote from: reyo on February 26, 2009, 09:38:49 PM
I've got a question that pertains to the conspiracy:

Is there any proof to the existance to the conspiracy? 
If so:  Post it here please.
If not:  Why not?

I'm sure they have "proof" Reyo.  But our definition of proof and theirs differs.
Logged
?

3GYZ1HAMA1GY1CUP

Re: The age of the conspiracy
« Reply #23 on: February 27, 2009, 03:30:51 AM »
Quote from: Proleg on February 26, 2009, 02:13:24 AM
What can I say? People back then believed stupid things. Hell, people nowadays still do.

Like the one about how the Earth is flat & there's a forum about it with idiots in it that try to tell you the Earth is flat?
Logged
*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12086
  • +3/-3
Re: The age of the conspiracy
« Reply #24 on: February 27, 2009, 05:46:52 AM »
Quote from: JoshuaZ on February 26, 2009, 09:31:57 PM
This is a poor understanding of how science works. Science never cares about truth. It only cares about predictive power.

Moreover, theories like Newton's are related to "truth"(assuming there is a truth in any meaningful sense) in that they are approximations of that truth. Thus, Newtonian physics is closer to truth than Aristotelian physics. SR and GR is closer still, but isn't quite right.

Well, I am interested in truth. This is why I support FET.
Logged
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord
*

svenanders

  • 832
  • +0/-0
  • I'm always right. If you disagree, you're wrong.
Re: The age of the conspiracy
« Reply #25 on: February 27, 2009, 05:55:47 AM »
Quote from: NEEMAN on February 27, 2009, 05:46:52 AM
Quote from: JoshuaZ on February 26, 2009, 09:31:57 PM
This is a poor understanding of how science works. Science never cares about truth. It only cares about predictive power.

Moreover, theories like Newton's are related to "truth"(assuming there is a truth in any meaningful sense) in that they are approximations of that truth. Thus, Newtonian physics is closer to truth than Aristotelian physics. SR and GR is closer still, but isn't quite right.

Well, I am interested in truth. This is why I support FET.

So you support the FET becuase it got overwhelming evidence for it?
Logged
*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12086
  • +3/-3
Re: The age of the conspiracy
« Reply #26 on: February 27, 2009, 08:01:39 AM »
Quote from: svenanders on February 27, 2009, 05:55:47 AM
Quote from: NEEMAN on February 27, 2009, 05:46:52 AM
Quote from: JoshuaZ on February 26, 2009, 09:31:57 PM
This is a poor understanding of how science works. Science never cares about truth. It only cares about predictive power.

Moreover, theories like Newton's are related to "truth"(assuming there is a truth in any meaningful sense) in that they are approximations of that truth. Thus, Newtonian physics is closer to truth than Aristotelian physics. SR and GR is closer still, but isn't quite right.

Well, I am interested in truth. This is why I support FET.

So you support the FET becuase it got overwhelming evidence for it?

Uh, sorry? I meant what I said, and no more than I said.
Logged
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord
*

svenanders

  • 832
  • +0/-0
  • I'm always right. If you disagree, you're wrong.
Re: The age of the conspiracy
« Reply #27 on: February 27, 2009, 08:42:43 AM »
Quote from: NEEMAN on February 27, 2009, 08:01:39 AM
Quote from: svenanders on February 27, 2009, 05:55:47 AM
Quote from: NEEMAN on February 27, 2009, 05:46:52 AM
Quote from: JoshuaZ on February 26, 2009, 09:31:57 PM
This is a poor understanding of how science works. Science never cares about truth. It only cares about predictive power.

Moreover, theories like Newton's are related to "truth"(assuming there is a truth in any meaningful sense) in that they are approximations of that truth. Thus, Newtonian physics is closer to truth than Aristotelian physics. SR and GR is closer still, but isn't quite right.

Well, I am interested in truth. This is why I support FET.

So you support the FET becuase it got overwhelming evidence for it?

Uh, sorry? I meant what I said, and no more than I said.

Yes, you claim that FET is truth. Why?
Logged
?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5455
  • +0/-0
Re: The age of the conspiracy
« Reply #28 on: February 27, 2009, 10:35:45 AM »
Quote from: svenanders on February 27, 2009, 08:42:43 AM
Yes, you claim that FET is truth. Why?

I know English isn't your first language, but at least give reading comprehension an honest try.
Logged
Quote from: Raist on January 22, 2009, 09:27:08 PM
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?
*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12086
  • +3/-3
Re: The age of the conspiracy
« Reply #29 on: February 27, 2009, 11:19:21 AM »
Quote from: svenanders on February 27, 2009, 08:42:43 AM
Yes, you claim that FET is truth. Why?

What I was saying is that I am less concerned with predictive power than the truth, because the former does not necessarily signify the latter. FET is concerned with truth, whereas RET has a fixation with predictive power. FET explains the world as I experience it.
Logged
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
« previous next »