Has the zetetic model contributed anything to the development of humankind?

The Space Shuttle goes up in the air until it is out of sight. Where it lands for the two weeks, what happens to it, and how it gets back into the upper atmosphere is, of course, unknown.

From its observed speed and direction we know it can make it to Africa or Europe (called a Transoceanic Abort Landing), obviously it needs a huge runway. So if it does this, it will be observed. A reception crew of several thousand people would then need to collect it, rebuild a full shuttle stack in Europe (shuttle, fuel tank and two boosters) in two weeks (never been done) without fail and then launch it back to the USA (without being seen). It would then have to fly across the USA or north pole unseen, turn around and then pretend to "reenter" from the west. Rentry has been observed.

And not a single person has ever leaked a single part of this.

I can think of hundreds more problems that would have to be overcome.

Wow, you can actually kill FET just by analysing a shuttle launch.

Oh, and responses of the "I don't know how it happens but it does" aren't allowed - please give arguements to knock down each point above. I will then start posting the other problems I can think of.

And please, don't turn the argument around and accuse modern Science.

Skepticism has. And many Zetetics seem to think all skeptics are secretly one of them. They'll tag just about anything as Zetetic inspired (e.g. the Legend of Zelda) or anyone as a flat earther (Newton). Also since they consider all of their "research" to be true, then they have contributed loads.

So if you ask them, yes.
Its like trying to argue with a $cienlolgist.

Quote from: turtles on January 18, 2011, 04:54:18 PM

Well, your post made it onto this board didn't it?

When was the last time you actually saw some of that stuff fail? I don't mean on TV or the net, cos that just proves that some of that stuff is working (the lasers, microchips and internet).

I'm a service technician.  If all of this modern, scientific technology worked flawlessly, then I'd be out of a job.  As it is, I'm pretty busy lately.

why are we trolling our own?
his point is, that the ideas and concepts work. what doesn't work is the engineering behind it, as that is prone to human error and natural impedements

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 19, 2011, 03:58:30 PM

No. Earth Not a Globe proves that the earth is flat. Therefore the shuttle and NASA's other space ventures must be a sham.

Are you suggesting that Rowbotham was infallible in his reasoning?

refer to my above link.

For starters, it can be said that the Zetetic model contributes to humankind by developing individuals with advanced capacities for intuitive and rational thinking leading to logical conclusions and solutions. 

Given the freedom of thought advanced in Zeteticism and how that translates into discovering how the world around us really works, the contributions that have and will be made are endless.

Great point, but you seemed to have mistyped Scientific Method.
Zeteticism contributes so much to society, that it has over 1000 google hits! (well over by 40).
But seriously don't kid yourself, the scientific method and economic drive are the cause of discovery, technology, and innovation.
all of these were made by scientists.

or the "contributions" you were referring to, was that moonlight is harmful and plants don't need light.
thanks for that.

Quote from: markjo on January 19, 2011, 02:29:56 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 19, 2011, 02:00:01 PM

An empty prop which goes into the uppar atmosphere and down again is not really a Space Shuttle - it's a prop.

What evidence do you have that the space shuttle is empty on lift off and that it goes no higher than the upper atmosphere?

All of the evidence is in Earth Not a Globe.

Quote

Given that upon launch people can observe the shuttle moving at speeds of thousands of km/h, ie, suborbital speeds at least, its going to travel thousands of km. Where does it go for two weeks? How does it get back?

The Space Shuttle goes up in the air until it is out of sight. Where it lands for the two weeks, what happens to it, and how it gets back into the upper atmosphere is, of course, unknown.

uhm... so everyone who has been in outer-space was lying. fine. but what about that people who saw the people go into the ship.
or the hours of zero g film?

No. Earth Not a Globe proves that the earth is flat. Therefore the shuttle and NASA's other space ventures must be a sham.

1. You cannot use words like "proof" is a reasoned debate, unless you are a  Bachelor of Pseudoscience.   It would be better to say:
     Earth Not a Globe provides compelling evidence in my opinion that the earth is flat.

2. "Therefore other evidence is invalid" (paraphrased) is logically incorrect.  You need to demonstrate this, without using a circular argument.

3. Putting all your faith in one man and one book... Mmmmm.

If the earth is an infinite plain then there is no space, this where I disagree with John Davis. I believe infinite earth would also be infinite vertically. Tom Bishop is right thou. Spaceships is just something from science fiction. 

If the earth is an infinite plain then there is no space, this where I disagree with John Davis. I believe infinite earth would also be infinite vertically. Tom Bishop is right thou. Spaceships is just something from science fiction. 

Again, you cannot use words like "infinite" in a reasoned debate.  It is in the domain of mathematics or religion ("eternity").  You could say "the boundaries of the FE cosmos are unknown".

Yes you are right, its hard to grasp the concept of eternity. Michio Kaku however always uses the word infinite. He says that there are infinite parallel universes for example. To be honest with you, I do not agree that there are infinite number of them but there might be few.

Yes you are right, its hard to grasp the concept of eternity. Michio Kaku however always uses the word infinite. He says that there are infinite parallel universes for example. To be honest with you, I do not agree that there are infinite number of them but there might be few.

Michio Kaku is a theoretical physicist. 

You cannot use words like "proof" is a reasoned debate

Yes I can. Rowbotham's work has been confirmed and verified by others. Therefore his work meets the status of "proof".

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 19, 2011, 03:58:30 PM

No. Earth Not a Globe proves that the earth is flat. Therefore the shuttle and NASA's other space ventures must be a sham.

Are you suggesting that Rowbotham was infallible in his reasoning?

Rowbotham's work is correct because it has been validated and confirmed by others.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 19, 2011, 03:55:48 PM

Quote from: markjo on January 19, 2011, 02:29:56 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 19, 2011, 02:00:01 PM

An empty prop which goes into the uppar atmosphere and down again is not really a Space Shuttle - it's a prop.

What evidence do you have that the space shuttle is empty on lift off and that it goes no higher than the upper atmosphere?

All of the evidence is in Earth Not a Globe.

Quote

Given that upon launch people can observe the shuttle moving at speeds of thousands of km/h, ie, suborbital speeds at least, its going to travel thousands of km. Where does it go for two weeks? How does it get back?

The Space Shuttle goes up in the air until it is out of sight. Where it lands for the two weeks, what happens to it, and how it gets back into the upper atmosphere is, of course, unknown.

uhm... so everyone who has been in outer-space was lying. fine. but what about that people who saw the people go into the ship.
or the hours of zero g film?

- Who saw the people go into the ship? It's hard to see what's happening while sitting on bleachers while watching the shuttle prepare to take off in the distance.

- CGI.

Quote from: markjo on January 19, 2011, 04:00:23 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 19, 2011, 03:58:30 PM

No. Earth Not a Globe proves that the earth is flat. Therefore the shuttle and NASA's other space ventures must be a sham.

Are you suggesting that Rowbotham was infallible in his reasoning?

Rowbotham's work is correct because it has been validated and confirmed by others.

Tom, why is it that you seem to have a problem answering the question that I ask?  I didn't ask you if Rowbotham's work was correct, I asked if his reasoning was infallible.  There is a difference. 

- Who saw the people go into the ship?

The technicians responsible for helping the astronauts strap in and seal the door.

Quote from: New Earth on January 20, 2011, 03:29:19 AM

Yes you are right, its hard to grasp the concept of eternity. Michio Kaku however always uses the word infinite. He says that there are infinite parallel universes for example. To be honest with you, I do not agree that there are infinite number of them but there might be few.

Michio Kaku is a theoretical physicist. 

So I am I!  I'm a theoretical physicist.  I've got a theoretical degree in physics.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 19, 2011, 03:55:48 PM

The Space Shuttle goes up in the air until it is out of sight. Where it lands for the two weeks, what happens to it, and how it gets back into the upper atmosphere is, of course, unknown.

From its observed speed and direction we know it can make it to Africa or Europe (called a Transoceanic Abort Landing), obviously it needs a huge runway. So if it does this, it will be observed. A reception crew of several thousand people would then need to collect it, rebuild a full shuttle stack in Europe (shuttle, fuel tank and two boosters) in two weeks (never been done) without fail and then launch it back to the USA (without being seen). It would then have to fly across the USA or north pole unseen, turn around and then pretend to "reenter" from the west. Rentry has been observed.

And not a single person has ever leaked a single part of this.

I can think of hundreds more problems that would have to be overcome.

Wow, you can actually kill FET just by analysing a shuttle launch.

Oh, and responses of the "I don't know how it happens but it does" aren't allowed - please give arguements to knock down each point above. I will then start posting the other problems I can think of.

I see this has been quietly passed by....

Tom, why is it that you seem to have a problem answering the question that I ask?  I didn't ask you if Rowbotham's work was correct, I asked if his reasoning was infallible.  There is a difference. 

Rowbotham isn't infalliable, but he is correct.

The technicians responsible for helping the astronauts strap in and seal the door.

So the only people who saw the astronauts go into the shuttle were people employed by the Conspiracy, then?

Quote from: turtles on January 19, 2011, 04:11:52 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 19, 2011, 03:55:48 PM

The Space Shuttle goes up in the air until it is out of sight. Where it lands for the two weeks, what happens to it, and how it gets back into the upper atmosphere is, of course, unknown.

From its observed speed and direction we know it can make it to Africa or Europe (called a Transoceanic Abort Landing), obviously it needs a huge runway. So if it does this, it will be observed. A reception crew of several thousand people would then need to collect it, rebuild a full shuttle stack in Europe (shuttle, fuel tank and two boosters) in two weeks (never been done) without fail and then launch it back to the USA (without being seen). It would then have to fly across the USA or north pole unseen, turn around and then pretend to "reenter" from the west. Rentry has been observed.

And not a single person has ever leaked a single part of this.

I can think of hundreds more problems that would have to be overcome.

Wow, you can actually kill FET just by analysing a shuttle launch.

Oh, and responses of the "I don't know how it happens but it does" aren't allowed - please give arguements to knock down each point above. I will then start posting the other problems I can think of.

I see this has been quietly passed by....

From its observed speed and direction we know it can make it to Africa or Europe (called a Transoceanic Abort Landing), obviously it needs a huge runway. So if it does this, it will be observed.

There are thousands of runways visible on Google maps all over the world, including some which are on secluded islands without a civilian population for hundreds of miles around.

A reception crew of several thousand people would then need to collect it, rebuild a full shuttle stack in Europe (shuttle, fuel tank and two boosters) in two weeks (never been done) without fail and then launch it back to the USA (without being seen).

NASA already hires out companies who build fuel stacks and rockets for its projects. They would simply order an extra set for the shuttle's return launch. They don't need to build it in two weeks. NASA would have already ordered it years prior to coincide with the shuttle launch.

Also, the shuttle is not seen on its return trip for the same reason the shuttle disappears to sight shortly after it first launches: it's simply too high and obscured by atmosphere.

And not a single person has ever leaked a single part of this.

The people building the fuel tanks don't necessarily know what NASA's going to be doing with the fuel tanks.

The people on the distant islands preparing the shuttle for its return trip likely have Top Secret clearances. They know what will happen to them if they talk.

But even if there was a leak, the government excells at supressing the american media from publishing stuff it doesn't like.

The people on the distant islands preparing the shuttle for its return trip likely have Top Secret clearances. They know what will happen to them if they talk.

What if they were on their deathbed, about to die? It seems to me like it wouldn't matter to them if they were to leak information; they were going to die anyway.

Rowbotham isn't infalliable, but he is correct.

If Rowbotham isn't infallible, then there is a chance that he could be wrong.

So the only people who saw the astronauts go into the shuttle were people employed by the Conspiracy, then?

Are you suggesting guilt by association or are the technicians actual conspirators?

Quote from: turtles on January 20, 2011, 12:48:34 PM

I see this has been quietly passed by....

Quote

From its observed speed and direction we know it can make it to Africa or Europe (called a Transoceanic Abort Landing), obviously it needs a huge runway. So if it does this, it will be observed.

There are thousands of runways visible on Google maps all over the world, including some which are on secluded islands without a civilian population for hundreds of miles around.

Quote

A reception crew of several thousand people would then need to collect it, rebuild a full shuttle stack in Europe (shuttle, fuel tank and two boosters) in two weeks (never been done) without fail and then launch it back to the USA (without being seen).

NASA already hires out companies who build fuel stacks and rockets for its projects. They would simply order an extra set for the shuttle's return launch. They don't need to build it in two weeks. NASA would have already ordered it years prior to coincide with the shuttle launch.

Also, the shuttle is not seen on its return trip for the same reason the shuttle disappears to sight shortly after it first launches: it's simply too high and obscured by atmosphere.

Quote

And not a single person has ever leaked a single part of this.

The people building the fuel tanks don't necessarily know what NASA's going to be doing with the fuel tanks.

The people on the distant islands preparing the shuttle for its return trip likely have Top Secret clearances. They know what will happen to them if they talk.

But even if there was a leak the government excells at supressing the american media from publishing stuff it doesn't like.

Oh crumbs, where do I start, you really have no technical knowledge or appreciation at all!

Runways...yeah, cos the shuttle can land on just any runway - doesnt need one of the longest in the world at all!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle_Landing_Facility

And then to build the stack you need the fourth largest building in the world, but I'm sure there are plenty of those around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_Assembly_Building

And of course we all know that the shuttle can always launch two weeks or less after it was used. 100% record there, never any technical or weather delays at all.

You then have to explain why tugs are fetching another set of boosters out of the sea west of Africa. Claim they are just big fireworks maybe?

This is so funny, I can go on picking holes in anything you come back with on this forever. Major FET fail.

Runways...yeah, cos the shuttle can land on just any runway - doesnt need one of the longest in the world at all!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle_Landing_Facility

Since the shuttle is not going into space and since it is not traveling at escape-velocity type speeds, I doubt it needs "one of the longest runways in the world" to land.

And then to build the stack you need the fourth largest building in the world, but I'm sure there are plenty of those around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_Assembly_Building

The second fuel stack could be built in the same Vehicle Assembly Building.

And of course we all know that the shuttle can always launch two weeks or less after it was used. 100% record there, never any technical or weather delays at all.

If there was a delay NASA would just blame it on one of their space projects taking too long. Or a technical issue with re-entry, or they could say that they wanted to wait for weather conditions to improve before re-entry. There a million and one excuses they could give.

You then have to explain why tugs are fetching another set of boosters out of the sea west of Africa. Claim they are just big fireworks maybe?

Why would they need to fetch them out of the water?

This is so funny, I can go on picking holes in anything you come back with on this forever. Major FET fail.

You didn't pick any holes.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 20, 2011, 03:33:07 PM

The people on the distant islands preparing the shuttle for its return trip likely have Top Secret clearances. They know what will happen to them if they talk.

What if they were on their deathbed, about to die? It seems to me like it wouldn't matter to them if they were to leak information; they were going to die anyway.

The government has hundreds of thousands of people with classified clearances, working on secret projects of all sorts all over the United States. I don't hear about an exodus of people leaking information on their death beds.

When you're on your death bed you have better things to think about -- like your impending death, all the people you will be leaving behind, and who will support your family once you are gone.

Talking about work is probably one of the last things you want to do.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 20, 2011, 03:23:05 PM

Rowbotham isn't infalliable, but he is correct.

If Rowbotham isn't infallible, then there is a chance that he could be wrong.

Not if his work has been reviewed and verified to be correct.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 20, 2011, 03:23:05 PM

So the only people who saw the astronauts go into the shuttle were people employed by the Conspiracy, then?

Are you suggesting guilt by association or are the technicians actual conspirators?

If they know that they are sending up cheaply made props then obviously they're in on it.

When you're on your death bed you have better things to think about -- like your impending death, all the people you will be leaving behind, and who will support your family once you are gone.

If it were me, I'd want the world to know the truth before I die. I don't know, I guess I'm just not that much of a coward.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 20, 2011, 04:30:07 PM

When you're on your death bed you have better things to think about -- like your impending death, all the people you will be leaving behind, and who will support your family once you are gone.

If it were me, I'd want the world to know the truth before I die. I don't know, I guess I'm just not that much of a coward.

If it the government is willing to take out ex-NASA employee Thomas Baron's family, what makes you think that they wouldn't be willing to take out yours?

Quote from: markjo on January 20, 2011, 03:43:07 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 20, 2011, 03:23:05 PM

Rowbotham isn't infalliable, but he is correct.

If Rowbotham isn't infallible, then there is a chance that he could be wrong.

Not if his work has been reviewed and verified to be correct.

Quote

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 20, 2011, 03:23:05 PM

So the only people who saw the astronauts go into the shuttle were people employed by the Conspiracy, then?

Are you suggesting guilt by association or are the technicians actual conspirators?

If they know that they are sending up cheaply made props then obviously they're in on it.

It has been stated that there are 45 people in on the conspiracy. You are adding several hundred technicians, private corporations, the UN, and the leader of every country in the world to that number.

Quote from: IOA on January 20, 2011, 04:38:13 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 20, 2011, 04:30:07 PM

When you're on your death bed you have better things to think about -- like your impending death, all the people you will be leaving behind, and who will support your family once you are gone.

If it were me, I'd want the world to know the truth before I die. I don't know, I guess I'm just not that much of a coward.

If it the government is willing to take out ex-NASA employee Thomas Baron's family, what makes you think that they wouldn't be willing to take out yours?

Really Tom? You still think that they murdered him with a train?

Quote from: markjo on January 20, 2011, 03:43:07 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 20, 2011, 03:23:05 PM

Rowbotham isn't infalliable, but he is correct.

If Rowbotham isn't infallible, then there is a chance that he could be wrong.

Not if his work has been reviewed and verified to be correct.

What if his work has been reviewed and verified to be wrong?

Quote

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 20, 2011, 03:23:05 PM

So the only people who saw the astronauts go into the shuttle were people employed by the Conspiracy, then?

Are you suggesting guilt by association or are the technicians actual conspirators?

If they know that they are sending up cheaply made props then obviously they're in on it.

A 4.5 million pound, reusable, manned rocket system doesn't sound like a "cheaply made prop" to me.

Quote from: IOA on January 20, 2011, 04:38:13 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 20, 2011, 04:30:07 PM

When you're on your death bed you have better things to think about -- like your impending death, all the people you will be leaving behind, and who will support your family once you are gone.

If it were me, I'd want the world to know the truth before I die. I don't know, I guess I'm just not that much of a coward.

If it the government is willing to take out ex-NASA employee Thomas Baron's family, what makes you think that they wouldn't be willing to take out yours?

What evidence do you have that the government had anything to do with Thomas Baron's death other than the speculation of conspiracy theorists?