The "conspiracy proof"

  • 25 Replies
  • 2763 Views
The "conspiracy proof"
« on: April 14, 2010, 12:29:23 PM »
so, going through http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Conspiracy you would probably be convinced that there is a conspiracy right? /facepalm

http://blip.tv/file/3246084

so, lets take a look at that moonball that was "used for fake landings".  Notice the end videos of the real flight (or so they say it is). Notice the "string" that is somehow holding the object off its center of mass, or that other "strings" appear in the footage that seem to be there for no reason.  Notice the track that they claimed nasa used would not work to have that camera footage, the moonball is simply not large enough.

http://blip.tv/file/3246099

to someone who believes the conspiracy exists,  you could say that they did this.  however, to everyone else, you would say that the two surfaces have dont have many things in common.  One could make the argument that some earth surfaces look like moon surfaces, but that's nothing new.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3186616594425246748&q=what+happened+on+the+moon&total=51&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0#

this one is a little long and i havent gotten through all of it yet.

first thing though, a shuttle that can get as high as you can see at the speed seen, should be able to protect you from the radiation in the belts.  Also, since the radiation in the belts is mostly directional, the bottom of the shuttle should easily take care of that.  Same thing goes for the photography.  The photography can be protected by leaving it within the camera untill reaching earth.  Nobody in the missions took the photos out of the camera and look at it through the sun (that is direct radiation exposure as the other experimenter did in the video)

Also, When they attempt to say that the moon's surface is not reflective enough to light things, they show photos of rocks that are obviously uphill.  Then they show nasa's photos that were taken from concave surfaces, or downhill.  The moon's surface is simply not that uniform.

Ill get through the rest of the "proof" and post again later.  I've seen some of the mars ones and laughed to =)

*

Lorddave

  • 16029
Re: The "conspiracy proof"
« Reply #1 on: April 14, 2010, 12:41:49 PM »
Just watch the Myth Buster's episode on it.
That's pretty conclusive if you ask me.

Re: The "conspiracy proof"
« Reply #2 on: April 14, 2010, 01:00:20 PM »
The video regarding whether we could have gotten to the moon, ( and not died) due to Radiation - is a good point - but completely in vaild in terms of proof of a flat earth. It is based on the scientific knowledge we have of the sun, and the radiation belt, and general knowledge of Physics. If you are a flat earther, you could not claim the sun does such things - as they do not believe the sun is anything alike what it is claimed, nor do they believe that Physics works the way it is claimed to give evidence against AGAINST the possibility of these flights.

I am talking about this video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3186616594425246748&q=what+happened+on+the+moon&total=51&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0#

« Last Edit: April 14, 2010, 01:02:53 PM by Jyoti »

*

Lorddave

  • 16029
Re: The "conspiracy proof"
« Reply #3 on: April 14, 2010, 01:14:58 PM »
Technically speaking, according to Flat Earthers, there is no Van Allen Belt.

*

Death-T

  • 504
  • Conspiracy theories are my bread and butter.
Re: The "conspiracy proof"
« Reply #4 on: April 14, 2010, 01:16:01 PM »
Just watch the Myth Buster's episode on it.
That's pretty conclusive if you ask me.

One of my favorites- it was alos backed up with further testing by a Discovery Special... it pretty much killed a lot of the misconceptions and outright laughable theories concerning the "fake" moon landing.

The Russian are always a  card to be played in these debates - what possible reason could they have to go along with the US beating them in the Cold War when they had all the means, funds, and man power needed to disprove a fake landing. And what did the Russians do? Its pretty obvious.
" Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. " - Albert Einstein

" We are imperfect.  We cannot expect perfect government. "  ~William Howard Taft

*

Catchpa

  • 1018
Re: The "conspiracy proof"
« Reply #5 on: April 14, 2010, 01:21:01 PM »
The quote I have in my sig leads to a thread where the Van Allen belt was discussed.
The conspiracy do train attack-birds

Re: The "conspiracy proof"
« Reply #6 on: April 14, 2010, 01:27:37 PM »
If they do not believe in the Van Allen belt - how is this video then supportive of their theories ? I see that it could show the Moon Landing was a hoax - but it doesn't prove we COULDN'T do it now  ( albeit other things may prove that) - but they are using evidence they don't actually believe to exist. Is the point in posting that video to say "It couldn't have been done", or is it saying "Look at the lies fed to us here, how do you know everything else is not a lie?"

Also, if this were all faked - I would ask, yes, why didn't other countries get peeved by it ? They had the equivalent and or better techonology. Possibly a gag order with money involved ? And what is the purpose for all of this faked, is it for financial gain - or is it in an attempt to keep humanity blind to reality for Philosophical reasons ? ( Control of humanities thoughts and their influence on Government, etc)

I would have suggest that perhaps it is in the Governments interest to disprove the theories of a flat earth to hush a religious grouping - but in fact, the US Government is quite supportive of using Religion in its defence for many other things. I wonder if they just pick and choose.. "we can blow these people up for our freedom" ( ignoring that were taking away theirs) yet on the other hand, smishing the 'flat earth' idea that I think probably was in place for so long due to scripture, and also man simply not having comprehended things the way we attempt to now. So this means they can use Religion in  their defence, but Science as a control ( perhaps they believe God exists, and they fear this - or are Reptilians and don't want us to have faith in God, and instead 'bow down' to whatever they feed us ( or any other myriad of ideas out there)

Gosh it's all so detailed.

WTB the truth. PST.

Re: The "conspiracy proof"
« Reply #7 on: April 14, 2010, 01:40:03 PM »
The video regarding whether we could have gotten to the moon, ( and not died) due to Radiation - is a good point - but completely in vaild in terms of proof of a flat earth. It is based on the scientific knowledge we have of the sun, and the radiation belt, and general knowledge of Physics. If you are a flat earther, you could not claim the sun does such things - as they do not believe the sun is anything alike what it is claimed, nor do they believe that Physics works the way it is claimed to give evidence against AGAINST the possibility of these flights.

I am talking about this video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3186616594425246748&q=what+happened+on+the+moon&total=51&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0#



there is a lot of radiation yes, but the spaceship sent,and the spacesuits the astronauts are in, are more than capable of handling that radiation.

The video attempts to proove its not by saying that the ship couldnt possibly be enough to protect them from a high amount of gamma radiation.  Fortunately, that type of radiation is not contained in the belts, and the exposure they get from space is similar to what we get on earth.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: The "conspiracy proof"
« Reply #8 on: April 14, 2010, 07:02:49 PM »
Just watch the Myth Buster's episode on it.
That's pretty conclusive if you ask me.

It's anything but conclusive.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

2fst4u

  • 2498
  • High and Tighty
Re: The "conspiracy proof"
« Reply #9 on: April 14, 2010, 07:03:48 PM »
Just watch the Myth Buster's episode on it.
That's pretty conclusive if you ask me.

It's anything but conclusive.
It does prove some good points though. Like the shadow directions. That was quite fascinatingly debunked.

*

Lorddave

  • 16029
Re: The "conspiracy proof"
« Reply #10 on: April 14, 2010, 07:24:37 PM »
Just watch the Myth Buster's episode on it.
That's pretty conclusive if you ask me.

It's anything but conclusive.

how so?  They recreate the shots using miniatures to show that those shots could be real. And where there is doubt, there is no proof.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: The "conspiracy proof"
« Reply #11 on: April 14, 2010, 07:49:02 PM »
Just watch the Myth Buster's episode on it.
That's pretty conclusive if you ask me.

It's anything but conclusive.

how so?  They recreate the shots using miniatures to show that those shots could be real. And where there is doubt, there is no proof.

So they recreated the shots and showed that they could have been real, and you see that as conclusive proof?  Okay.

Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

2fst4u

  • 2498
  • High and Tighty
Re: The "conspiracy proof"
« Reply #12 on: April 14, 2010, 07:51:15 PM »
Just watch the Myth Buster's episode on it.
That's pretty conclusive if you ask me.

It's anything but conclusive.

how so?  They recreate the shots using miniatures to show that those shots could be real. And where there is doubt, there is no proof.

So they recreated the shots and showed that they could have been real, and you see that as conclusive proof?  Okay.


It certainly opens the possibility of them being real. It means there's no reason for it to be used to argue their fakeness.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: The "conspiracy proof"
« Reply #13 on: April 14, 2010, 07:56:48 PM »
Just watch the Myth Buster's episode on it.
That's pretty conclusive if you ask me.

It's anything but conclusive.

how so?  They recreate the shots using miniatures to show that those shots could be real. And where there is doubt, there is no proof.

So they recreated the shots and showed that they could have been real, and you see that as conclusive proof?  Okay.


It certainly opens the possibility of them being real. It means there's no reason for it to be used to argue their fakeness.

That's far from being conclusive proof that the moon landings weren't a hoax.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

2fst4u

  • 2498
  • High and Tighty
Re: The "conspiracy proof"
« Reply #14 on: April 14, 2010, 07:58:09 PM »
Just watch the Myth Buster's episode on it.
That's pretty conclusive if you ask me.

It's anything but conclusive.

how so?  They recreate the shots using miniatures to show that those shots could be real. And where there is doubt, there is no proof.

So they recreated the shots and showed that they could have been real, and you see that as conclusive proof?  Okay.


It certainly opens the possibility of them being real. It means there's no reason for it to be used to argue their fakeness.

That's far from being conclusive proof that the moon landings weren't a hoax.
I wasn't the one who said "Conclusive"

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: The "conspiracy proof"
« Reply #15 on: April 14, 2010, 08:00:23 PM »
Just watch the Myth Buster's episode on it.
That's pretty conclusive if you ask me.

It's anything but conclusive.

how so?  They recreate the shots using miniatures to show that those shots could be real. And where there is doubt, there is no proof.

So they recreated the shots and showed that they could have been real, and you see that as conclusive proof?  Okay.


It certainly opens the possibility of them being real. It means there's no reason for it to be used to argue their fakeness.

That's far from being conclusive proof that the moon landings weren't a hoax.
I wasn't the one who said "Conclusive"

Well, the use of the word "conclusive" is all that I've brought up in this thread.  If you agree with me why are you arguing with me?  ???
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

2fst4u

  • 2498
  • High and Tighty
Re: The "conspiracy proof"
« Reply #16 on: April 14, 2010, 08:01:19 PM »
Just watch the Myth Buster's episode on it.
That's pretty conclusive if you ask me.

It's anything but conclusive.

how so?  They recreate the shots using miniatures to show that those shots could be real. And where there is doubt, there is no proof.

So they recreated the shots and showed that they could have been real, and you see that as conclusive proof?  Okay.


It certainly opens the possibility of them being real. It means there's no reason for it to be used to argue their fakeness.

That's far from being conclusive proof that the moon landings weren't a hoax.
I wasn't the one who said "Conclusive"

Well, the use of the word "conclusive" is all that I've brought up in this thread.  If you agree with me why are you arguing with me?  ???
I don't agree with you. I think it proves the possibility of them being real. I just don't believe in them so much as to say "Conclusively"

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: The "conspiracy proof"
« Reply #17 on: April 14, 2010, 08:03:19 PM »
Just watch the Myth Buster's episode on it.
That's pretty conclusive if you ask me.

It's anything but conclusive.

how so?  They recreate the shots using miniatures to show that those shots could be real. And where there is doubt, there is no proof.

So they recreated the shots and showed that they could have been real, and you see that as conclusive proof?  Okay.


It certainly opens the possibility of them being real. It means there's no reason for it to be used to argue their fakeness.

That's far from being conclusive proof that the moon landings weren't a hoax.
I wasn't the one who said "Conclusive"

Well, the use of the word "conclusive" is all that I've brought up in this thread.  If you agree with me why are you arguing with me?  ???
I don't agree with you. I think it proves the possibility of them being real. I just don't believe in them so much as to say "Conclusively"

Oh, Christ.  I see, it's the RE propensity to just blindly argue with anything a FEer says.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

2fst4u

  • 2498
  • High and Tighty
Re: The "conspiracy proof"
« Reply #18 on: April 14, 2010, 08:07:51 PM »

Oh, Christ.  I see, it's the RE propensity to just blindly argue with anything a FEer says.
No, I just believe it brings the issue back to 'neutral'. I'm not flat out denying what you say - it doesn't prove they're real. I just think it makes it more likely that they are, that's all.

I don't argue for the sake of it, or because somebody disagrees with a major stance I have

*

Lorddave

  • 16029
Re: The "conspiracy proof"
« Reply #19 on: April 14, 2010, 08:12:23 PM »
Just watch the Myth Buster's episode on it.
That's pretty conclusive if you ask me.

It's anything but conclusive.

how so?  They recreate the shots using miniatures to show that those shots could be real. And where there is doubt, there is no proof.

So they recreated the shots and showed that they could have been real, and you see that as conclusive proof?  Okay.


It certainly opens the possibility of them being real. It means there's no reason for it to be used to argue their fakeness.

That's far from being conclusive proof that the moon landings weren't a hoax.

no. It's conclusive proof that the evidence for the hoax is not valid.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40291
Re: The "conspiracy proof"
« Reply #20 on: April 14, 2010, 08:13:02 PM »
Just watch the Myth Buster's episode on it.
That's pretty conclusive if you ask me.

It's anything but conclusive.

how so?  They recreate the shots using miniatures to show that those shots could be real. And where there is doubt, there is no proof.

So they recreated the shots and showed that they could have been real, and you see that as conclusive proof?  Okay.


It certainly opens the possibility of them being real. It means there's no reason for it to be used to argue their fakeness.

That's far from being conclusive proof that the moon landings weren't a hoax.

And you have yet to provide any evidence that the moon landings were a hoax.  
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.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: The "conspiracy proof"
« Reply #21 on: April 14, 2010, 08:16:58 PM »

Oh, Christ.  I see, it's the RE propensity to just blindly argue with anything a FEer says.
No, I just believe it brings the issue back to 'neutral'. I'm not flat out denying what you say - it doesn't prove they're real. I just think it makes it more likely that they are, that's all.

I don't argue for the sake of it, or because somebody disagrees with a major stance I have

And yet I never said anything in this thread with which you don't agree, but you chose to argue with me.  Interesting.

no. It's conclusive proof that the evidence for the hoax is not valid.

Have you ever seen the body of evidence in favor of the moon landing hoax?  The four or five things they were able to cover in that episode were conclusive proof of nothing but that those particular arguments weren't valid.  

And let's remember, the FE argument that the moon landings were a hoax consists of nothing more than the opinion that space travel is impossible.  I don't remember them even mentioning FE's beliefs in the Myth Busters episode.

And you have yet to provide any evidence that the moon landings were a hoax.  

When that becomes relevant in any way to the current discussion let me know.  ::)
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40291
Re: The "conspiracy proof"
« Reply #22 on: April 14, 2010, 08:18:52 PM »
And you have yet to provide any evidence that the moon landings were a hoax. 

When that becomes relevant in any way to the current discussion let me know.  ::)

Sorry, I keep forgetting that conspiracies and hoaxes don't need evidence.  Carry on.
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.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: The "conspiracy proof"
« Reply #23 on: April 14, 2010, 08:19:40 PM »
And you have yet to provide any evidence that the moon landings were a hoax. 

When that becomes relevant in any way to the current discussion let me know.  ::)

Sorry, I keep forgetting that conspiracies and hoaxes don't need evidence.  Carry on.

Again, the relevance escapes me.  Keep trying though.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40291
Re: The "conspiracy proof"
« Reply #24 on: April 14, 2010, 08:26:59 PM »
And you have yet to provide any evidence that the moon landings were a hoax. 

When that becomes relevant in any way to the current discussion let me know.  ::)

Sorry, I keep forgetting that conspiracies and hoaxes don't need evidence.  Carry on.

Again, the relevance escapes me.  Keep trying though.

Thanks for agreeing that moon landing hoaxes are irrelevant.
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.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: The "conspiracy proof"
« Reply #25 on: April 14, 2010, 08:40:13 PM »
Sorry, I keep forgetting that conspiracies and hoaxes don't need evidence.  Carry on.
Again, the relevance escapes me.  Keep trying though.
Thanks for agreeing that moon landing hoaxes are irrelevant.

Well, I'm finished responding to you.  If you ever decide to make sense rather than ranting incoherently let me know.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?