Question regarding the conspiracy

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 15, 2010, 03:06:31 PM

Quote from: jackofhearts on June 15, 2010, 07:56:45 AM

Quote from: John Davis on June 15, 2010, 04:24:11 AM

Quote from: jackofhearts on June 15, 2010, 04:13:22 AM

Can we get back to how impossible the Conspiracy was?

I agree, now we have ventured off topic.  Apologies.  The conspiracy to me is unnecessary and just shows a lack of proper interpretation of data.  I'll leave it at that and leave this thread.

I wholeheartedly agree; Conspiracies, IMO, are just an excuse for lack of concrete evidence.  Anyone can shout "Conspiracy!", but few can back up their argument with facts, data, and conclusions.

plus it is circular logic, they say NASA evidence doesn't count because it is a conspiracy, they say that it is a conspiracy because the earth is flat, which they achieve by saying their is no evidence for a round earth. thats unfair, as it assumes that any disproof is fake

Hrm.  No, they say there is evidence for a flat earth -> the nasa evidence is falsified -> there must be a conspiracy

Which is a fallacy, that is arguing on the premise that NASA is conspiring, there is however no reason to believe, or proof that they are doing, or have ever done so.

Need more evidence

They say there is evidence for a flat earth -> the nasa evidence is falsified -> there must be a conspiracy

Their mistake is in the first part of this idea: There is no real evidence for a flat earth that does not equally support a round earth. Show me one single piece of clear observable evidence that actually indicates a flat earth.

We have lots of evidence for a round earth, evidence that has passed the test of peer review. And you should know that whoever submits his work for peer review is in for a good beating, no matter what his theory is. Scientists are all willing to rip peoples' theories into little bits. A theory that passes peer review must be a very good one, I dare anyone here to send their flat earth theories to peer review.

Hrm.  No, they say there is evidence for a flat earth -> the nasa evidence is falsified -> there must be a conspiracy

That logic only works if the evidence for FET is infallible.  It isn't.

Quote from: John Davis on June 15, 2010, 09:53:25 PM

Hrm.  No, they say there is evidence for a flat earth -> the nasa evidence is falsified -> there must be a conspiracy

That logic only works if the evidence for FET is infallible.  It isn't.

Well realistically if the evidence is more infallible than NASAs.

Quote from: markjo on June 16, 2010, 04:06:38 AM

Quote from: John Davis on June 15, 2010, 09:53:25 PM

Hrm.  No, they say there is evidence for a flat earth -> the nasa evidence is falsified -> there must be a conspiracy

That logic only works if the evidence for FET is infallible.  It isn't.

Well realistically if the evidence is more infallible than NASAs.

If there is no conspiracy, then what makes you believe that evidence of a flat earth is more reliable than NASA's evidence of a round earth?  Don't you see that the sole function of the conspiracy is to discredit any and all evidence of a round earth, especially photographic evidence from outer space?

Quote from: John Davis on June 16, 2010, 05:17:32 AM

Quote from: markjo on June 16, 2010, 04:06:38 AM

Quote from: John Davis on June 15, 2010, 09:53:25 PM

Hrm.  No, they say there is evidence for a flat earth -> the nasa evidence is falsified -> there must be a conspiracy

That logic only works if the evidence for FET is infallible.  It isn't.

Well realistically if the evidence is more infallible than NASAs.

If there is no conspiracy, then what makes you believe that evidence of a flat earth is more reliable than NASA's evidence of a round earth?  Don't you see that the sole function of the conspiracy is to discredit any and all evidence of a round earth, especially photographic evidence from outer space?

Just because they gather data and the data is accurate does not mean they are interpreting it correctly.  NASA as a whole is filled with incompetence.  From driving around in diapers, to causing international incidents giving away pieces of wood that are supposedly moon rocks, to not being able to even keep track of their own spendings, to any number of the host of other thigns they routinely do horribly I imagine the real question is why do you think NASA is reliable in the slightest for anything other than entertainment.

Yet they still manage to pull off hundreds of successful space launches every year.

Yet they still manage to pull off hundreds of successful space launches every year.

Hundreds?  What NASA are you talking about.  2006 saw 22.  2010 has about 19 scheduled.  Assuming they are all successful and not cancelled.  Both most of which were satellites.  If their reports are even accurate; knowing them they forgot to carry a 1 or something.

Launching is not hard.  Its a shame we have such goofs attempting to do it because maybe we would have lost a few less good men and a whole lot less equipment and money.  

Quote from: General Disarray on June 16, 2010, 06:58:43 AM

Yet they still manage to pull off hundreds of successful space launches every year.

Hundreds?  What NASA are you talking about.  2006 saw 22.  2010 has about 19 scheduled.  Assuming they are all successful and not cancelled.  Both most of which were satellites.  If their reports are even accurate; knowing them they forgot to carry a 1 or something.

Launching is not hard.  Its a shame we have such goofs attempting to do it because maybe we would have lost a few less good men and a whole lot less equipment and money.  

Launching is not hard.  Its a shame we have such goofs attempting to do it because maybe we would have lost a few less good men and a whole lot less equipment and money.

 

What do you base this on? Have you launched anything into orbit?

Quote from: General Disarray on June 16, 2010, 06:58:43 AM

Yet they still manage to pull off hundreds of successful space launches every year.

Hundreds?  What NASA are you talking about.  2006 saw 22.  2010 has about 19 scheduled.  Assuming they are all successful and not cancelled.  Both most of which were satellites.  If their reports are even accurate; knowing them they forgot to carry a 1 or something.

Launching is not hard.  Its a shame we have such goofs attempting to do it because maybe we would have lost a few less good men and a whole lot less equipment and money.  

You sound as if you think you're more qualified than NASA engineers, physicists, engineers, etc...

...which I assure you, you're likely not.  I don't see where you get off calling those at NASA 'goofs'.

And accidents happen; we lose equipment, money, and good men.  Expecting NASA to be perfect is foolish and unrealistic.

My point is, we have rockets, and we can get to space. We have cameras and we can bring them to space to take pictures. Those pictures pretty clearly show a round planet, so why continue to think it is flat?

Could someone like Tom Bishop come here and please explain the feasability of the conspiracy? John has already shown that he thinks it is untrue (the conspiracy that is). As long as this question remains unanswered the FET is a bigger lie than NASA's spaceprogramm is according to FE'ers.

There is a thread with a (deeply flawed) study about the costs of a possible conspiracy, but there is no way it is even remotely accurate. The cost estimate is off by at least a couple orders of magnitude, and if NASA is so inept as they keep claiming, how could they keep such a huge secret?

The various space agencies have a combined budged of under 20 billion, and the bribes alone would eat up most if not all of that. Operating a functioning space agency and launching rockets into space and employing thousands of people is a huge expense.

There would be no money left to make enough of a profit to make such an expense worth it. In fact, a conspiracy would be deeply in debt.

There is a thread with a (deeply flawed) study about the costs of a possible conspiracy, but there is no way it is even remotely accurate. The cost estimate is off by at least a couple orders of magnitude, and if NASA is so inept as they keep claiming, how could they keep such a huge secret?

The various space agencies have a combined budged of under 20 billion, and the bribes alone would eat up most if not all of that. Operating a functioning space agency and launching rockets into space and employing thousands of people is a huge expense.

There would be no money left to make enough of a profit to make such an expense worth it. In fact, a conspiracy would be deeply in debt.

Isn't that the thread I quoted? Or is there a different one? I surely hope not T_T.

Oh yeah I guess that is the same thread.

I don't expect them to be perfect, but their record is ridiculous.

I don't expect them to be perfect, but their record is ridiculous.

By what metric do you base your assessment of their record?

Quote from: John Davis on June 16, 2010, 08:07:35 PM

I don't expect them to be perfect, but their record is ridiculous.

By what metric do you base your assessment of their record?

The metric that people that think petrified wood is a moon rock probably are incompetent (along with all their other sometimes humourous but always sad failings). 

Quote from: markjo on June 16, 2010, 08:29:49 PM

Quote from: John Davis on June 16, 2010, 08:07:35 PM

I don't expect them to be perfect, but their record is ridiculous.

By what metric do you base your assessment of their record?

The metric that people that think petrified wood is a moon rock probably are incompetent (along with all their other sometimes humourous but always sad failings). 

So a piece of petrified wood is enough to cast doubts on the validity of a space program that has carried out hundreds of publicly viewed rocket launches and the first hand accounts of over 500 people who have traveled to space over the past 50 years or so? 

Quote from: markjo on June 16, 2010, 08:29:49 PM

Quote from: John Davis on June 16, 2010, 08:07:35 PM

I don't expect them to be perfect, but their record is ridiculous.

By what metric do you base your assessment of their record?

The metric that people that think petrified wood is a moon rock probably are incompetent (along with all their other sometimes humourous but always sad failings).  

I doubt that I have the time or energy to list all their failings as they are very very very large in number.

Many of the failings though can be found here if you do a search.  Often they are used as evidence for a conspiracy rather than what I feel they are - examples of failure.

And these are just the reported failings.  I wouldn't be surprised if there were many many more documented and not documented at NASA.  Their are horrible with record keeping though, so who knows.

So, even witih all that fail, you expect them to keep an international, multi-government Conspiracy airtight?  You trash them and trash them, then expect that they can pull something like that together...

So, even witih all that fail, you expect them to keep an international, multi-government Conspiracy airtight?  You trash them and trash them, then expect that they can pull something like that together...

No, I don't expect that at all.  Why do you ask?

Quote from: jackofhearts on June 17, 2010, 02:30:18 AM

So, even witih all that fail, you expect them to keep an international, multi-government Conspiracy airtight?  You trash them and trash them, then expect that they can pull something like that together...

No, I don't expect that at all.  Why do you ask?

Wait, do you believe in the Conspiracy?  If not, my apologies. 

Quote from: John Davis on June 17, 2010, 02:32:12 AM

Quote from: jackofhearts on June 17, 2010, 02:30:18 AM

So, even witih all that fail, you expect them to keep an international, multi-government Conspiracy airtight?  You trash them and trash them, then expect that they can pull something like that together...

No, I don't expect that at all.  Why do you ask?

Wait, do you believe in the Conspiracy?  If not, my apologies. 

No problem, its hard to keep track of who believes what around here.

Quote from: jackofhearts on June 17, 2010, 03:21:04 AM

Quote from: John Davis on June 17, 2010, 02:32:12 AM

Quote from: jackofhearts on June 17, 2010, 02:30:18 AM

So, even witih all that fail, you expect them to keep an international, multi-government Conspiracy airtight?  You trash them and trash them, then expect that they can pull something like that together...

No, I don't expect that at all.  Why do you ask?

Wait, do you believe in the Conspiracy?  If not, my apologies. 

No problem, its hard to keep track of who believes what around here.

Unfortunately.  So many FE'ers have their own FET...

...so, out of curiosity, how do you explain the photos from NASA?

Quote from: John Davis on June 17, 2010, 03:30:10 AM

Quote from: jackofhearts on June 17, 2010, 03:21:04 AM

Quote from: John Davis on June 17, 2010, 02:32:12 AM

Quote from: jackofhearts on June 17, 2010, 02:30:18 AM

So, even witih all that fail, you expect them to keep an international, multi-government Conspiracy airtight?  You trash them and trash them, then expect that they can pull something like that together...

No, I don't expect that at all.  Why do you ask?

Wait, do you believe in the Conspiracy?  If not, my apologies. 

No problem, its hard to keep track of who believes what around here.

Unfortunately.  So many FE'ers have their own FET...

...so, out of curiosity, how do you explain the photos from NASA?

I feel that the Firmament alters how you see things in space by affecting light.  This causes the appearance of a round earth.

I feel that the Firmament alters how you see things in space by affecting light.  This causes the appearance of a round earth.

How very... zetetic. Am I correct in assuming that the evidence for the existence of this "firmament" is somewhere in your boxes of notebooks?

Quote from: John Davis on June 17, 2010, 04:47:23 AM

I feel that the Firmament alters how you see things in space by affecting light.  This causes the appearance of a round earth.

How very... zetetic. Am I correct in assuming that the evidence for the existence of this "firmament" is somewhere in your boxes of notebooks?

The evidence for the existance of the firmament was known to the multitudes since at least the greeks.  Einstein knew it existed as do the leading physicists.

What they call it and its properties however differ.

I'm not really into physics and maths but if you think that the picture is altered so that we have the illusion of a Round Earth, why can't we see all the continents? And if you think that the pictures are true, can you show me the edge of the flat earth on a Nasa picture? I have dozens of high resolution photos.
If you believe that men went to outer space, do you believe that all of them had the illusion of a round earth? or do you think that they were "convinced" to keep it a secret?

I'm not really into physics and maths but if you think that the picture is altered so that we have the illusion of a Round Earth, why can't we see all the continents? And if you think that the pictures are true, can you show me the edge of the flat earth on a Nasa picture? I have dozens of high resolution photos.
If you believe that men went to outer space, do you believe that all of them had the illusion of a round earth? or do you think that they were "convinced" to keep it a secret?

I wouldn't use the word illusion, but I suppose its fitting enough.