"Tom Bishop Presents: Conspiracy Theatre"

Tom Bishop has challenged all of us Round Earthers to watch a couple of (rather long) videos which will prove to us that all space-flight is faked.

Whilst I did not have time to watch them today, it is probably only fair to do so at some point.

So I invite you all to get some pop-corn, and settle down to watch:

"Tom Bishop Presents: Conspiracy Theatre"

Quote from: Skeptek on June 16, 2009, 10:10:24 AM

First, you are off topic and trying to encourage others to rejoin your trashing of this thread.  Second, no matter how many times you say it is, what you present is not evidence, or argument, or debate, or proper in any scientific discussion.

Actually it is. In the " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">China video for example the author is using the Scientific Method to demonstrate inadequacies and tell-tale signs of fakery. Video is slowed and areas of contention are displayed for all to see. That constitutes an experiment. The author is manipulating China's own videos to demonstrate that the space walk was faked. The author presents a sufficient conclusion with adequate evidence and background information. There is also an article on the subject matter which provides additional discrepancies.  Now the burden is on the believers to combat the works with evidence of their own.

In the moon video the author is very thorough, invoking the interviews of government contractors, analysis of NASA data (such as Apollo 13 astronauts saying that they could see a beautiful lunar landscape when NASA said that they were on the dark side of the moon), and many other topics of discussion. The soviet space agency is also analyzed. There are many pieces of supporting evidence - scientific, catalogical, temporal - to support the initial hypothesis.

Now the burden is on you to defend your beliefs.

Please post your comments in this thread.

(I will quote the one review that we have had so far.)

Shit topics go here.

Here's review number one:

Quote

Much of the evidence is far beyond your ability to contradict. I understand. In a whirlwind of NASA's inconsistency and delusion, it's virtually impossible to stand up for them.

The problem is there's too much drivel surrounding the evidence. There's no way I could carefully refute every point the videos bring up, simply because the amount of text would be a whole topic in itself, and by the time I had created it all the topic would have moved on. In essence, the shear size of the videos is defence against counter-evidence.

I'll analyse the first couple of minutes of one of these videos:

• Starts with solar particle events. Some figures are quoted, 130 rem and 70 rem. Where do these figures come from? They're essentially meaningless. Who says the astronauts are exposed to this, and who says this will be the effect?
• Talking about an unprotected astronauts passing through space, and the Van Allen belts. Talking about the radiation levels rising and varying, but no actual figures.
• More talking about belts. Still no figures. Who said NASA did Starfish prime?
• Apparently there little agreement on the size of the belts, yet only two sources are quoted. They also said the belts vary a while back anyway, so why should the figures match?
• Talking about flares. No evidence that such things are deadly to astronauts.
• Saying that the hull of the craft was not thick enough to protect the astronauts, yet they seem to neglect to mention all the other stuff being carried in the capsule which could act as a shield.

I could go on, but it would take too long.

Quote

Stars are not lab experiments. When you play with elements in the lab you are not playing with the stars. You may come to the hypothesis that because helium have a red spectrometry, that the red spectrometry of the stars may also be indicative of helium. But that it a hypothesis. There is no test to come to the truth of the matter.

So what has to be done to determine when you have 'the truth'? Why is a result collected in the lab considered the truth and one collected from the sky not? Is is simply the fact that you can perform more experiments on the one in the lab?

Shit topics go here.

Why is reviewing Tom's evidence "shit"?

Because you took a piece out of another thread, had no original ideas, and really are contributing nothing to flat earth debate or discussion.

Because you took a piece out of another thread, had no original ideas, and really are contributing nothing to flat earth debate or discussion.

And there was I thinking that I was giving Tom's evidence a fair airing in a thread of its own.

In the original thread it's off-topic anyway, so I thought I'd put it in its own topic.

I try to be nice to a Flat Earther for once and I get told I'm being shit?

That doesn't seem right to me - any chance you can move this thread back?

The Great NASA Conspiracy is pretty much central to Flat earth claims, so it would be a decent point for discussion.

the chinese space walk does looks weird.

I think they have run out of arguements, "shit topic" is about the best they can do.

It wasn't an argument, it was a warning about starting shit topics in debate and discussion. Do you guys not understand english? My job is to keep idiots from starting threads in the wrong section. And instead of handing out bans I tell the person that they did something wrong, if they can not figure out why their topic is shitty and repeat their mistakes they probably should have read the rules.

It wasn't an argument, it was a warning about starting shit topics in debate and discussion. Do you guys not understand english? My job is to keep idiots from starting threads in the wrong section. And instead of handing out bans I tell the person that they did something wrong, if they can not figure out why their topic is shitty and repeat their mistakes they probably should have read the rules.

Well I thought it was a rather good topic and very interesting, I guess we have to accept that such things are subjective. I do of course understand your point of view though, if I was you I would want to bury topics like this in less viewed parts of the board as well.

Quote from: Raist on June 16, 2009, 05:54:27 PM

It wasn't an argument, it was a warning about starting shit topics in debate and discussion. Do you guys not understand english? My job is to keep idiots from starting threads in the wrong section. And instead of handing out bans I tell the person that they did something wrong, if they can not figure out why their topic is shitty and repeat their mistakes they probably should have read the rules.

Well I thought it was a rather good topic and very interesting, I guess we have to accept that such things are subjective. I do of course understand your point of view though, if I was you I would want to bury topics like this in less viewed parts of the board as well.

Less viewed? Flat Earth questions and clarifications is the third least viewed section of the site. I did you a favor traffic wise.

Less viewed? Flat Earth questions and clarifications is the third least viewed section of the site. I did you a favor traffic wise.

A favour trafficwise maybe, though not in terms of board integrity. ie, you've obviously decided it belongs in the "shit topics" section rather than somewhere it might be considered to be a clarification.

Yea.  Like there is ANY fucking moderation here.

Every thread is an abortion of off-topic preachers posting worthless crap from other interweb preachers about some crap that doesn't belong in the thread to begin with.

There's no order here other than declaring certain topics as shit.  Anyone that gets close to the real purpose of this site gets shunted to the shit pile.

Tom Bishop is a fraud.

many threads go off topic by the second page. almost like this one.

Yea.  Like there is ANY fucking moderation here.

Every thread is an abortion of off-topic preachers posting worthless crap from other interweb preachers about some crap that doesn't belong in the thread to begin with.

There's no order here other than declaring certain topics as shit.  Anyone that gets close to the real purpose of this site gets shunted to the shit pile.

Tom Bishop is a fraud.

Dude.  Chill.  Seriously.  Getting this worked up isn't good for you.

Yea.  Like there is ANY fucking moderation here.

Every thread is an abortion of off-topic preachers posting worthless crap from other interweb preachers about some crap that doesn't belong in the thread to begin with.

There's no order here other than declaring certain topics as shit.  Anyone that gets close to the real purpose of this site gets shunted to the shit pile.

Tom Bishop is a fraud.

We allow free discussion. Opening a topic doesn't give you carte blanche to decide what goes on within. Just like how we allow you Round Earthers to come here then scream rant and complain about the place. Funny, we allow free speech both ways and you complain constantly about being censored or shoved down in integrity.

I have a video for you to watch that supports RET. Watch mythbusters when they test whether the moon landing was fake. It happened. Are they conspirators too?

I have a video for you to watch that supports RET. Watch mythbusters when they test whether the moon landing was fake. It happened. Are they conspirators too?

No, but a couple of clowns with some high-tech equipment trying to make a few bucks out of a television show are not infallible either.

How are they any different than the videos posted? They both use scientific method as stated with as little bias as possible

How are they any different than the videos posted? They both use scientific method as stated with as little bias as possible

I didn't say they were different. Neither one provides particularly convincing evidence of anything.

I guess. The bit where they point the laser at those apparent mirror things on the moon was good and quite convincing in my opinion

I guess. The bit where they point the laser at those apparent mirror things on the moon was good and quite convincing in my opinion

Speaking of which, I found that part of Men In Black where the alien cockroach steals the guy's skin to be pretty cool.

Now I hope you didnt believe that one

Off topic for a moment your also from Australia arent you Robo?

Two videos don't disprove the possibility or reality of space travel, they simply question, or attempt to refute the events shown in two well documented accounts of space travel. To say these videos disprove the possibility of space travel is like saying Loose Change and Zeitgeist prove the proactive involvement of the Bush administration in the 9/11 attacks. To summarise, my point is "we chopped up some video footage and commented on it using 'evidence' garnered from questionable and/or uncredited sources" does not constitute proof.

Off topic for a moment your also from Australia arent you Robo?

I live in Australia, yes. I am originally from South Africa.