questions

I have a question, (I hope you do answer me this time). If the sun orbits a point vertically above the center of the flat earth, and it illuminates only a portion of the earth, this implies that light is not coming out of the sun in all directions. So, I would like a conceptual explanation of the laws of optics, and the physics of how the sun functions within the theory of the flat earth.

Also, I saw something in the FAQ about dark energy holding the stars and planets above us. The current theory of dark energy says it creates a repulsive force between all objects with mass, and it increases with distance. So, we have gravity pulling together and diminishing with distance, we also have DE pushing apart and decreasing with distance. We are also assuming the sun and the stars always have the same distance to the center of mass of the earth and are at a point where exactly gravity and DE cancel out. If the sun moves away by just a little bit, it will begin to accelerate away, if it moves closer just a little bit, it will crash with the earth. In modern physics, the center of mass of the sun does change position because it's dynamic, but in this model, it can't because there would be no sun! So, that should give you a headstart in trying to explain to me how the sun works in this model.

Now, asking questions makes me wonder more, so i'll throw a couple more:

Is angular momentum conserved in flat earth theory?

If the sun is orbiting a point vertically above the earth, there must be some source of work keeping it in orbit. Otherwise it would spiral off. What is this source of work?

If the earth is a cylinder, how deep is it? How do you know?

What is your mathematical description of gravitation

I have a question, (I hope you do answer me this time). If the sun orbits a point vertically above the center of the flat earth, and it illuminates only a portion of the earth, this implies that light is not coming out of the sun in all directions. So, I would like a conceptual explanation of the laws of optics, and the physics of how the sun functions within the theory of the flat earth.

Also, I saw something in the FAQ about dark energy holding the stars and planets above us. The current theory of dark energy says it creates a repulsive force between all objects with mass, and it increases with distance. So, we have gravity pulling together and diminishing with distance, we also have DE pushing apart and decreasing with distance. We are also assuming the sun and the stars always have the same distance to the center of mass of the earth and are at a point where exactly gravity and DE cancel out. If the sun moves away by just a little bit, it will begin to accelerate away, if it moves closer just a little bit, it will crash with the earth. In modern physics, the center of mass of the sun does change position because it's dynamic, but in this model, it can't because there would be no sun! So, that should give you a headstart in trying to explain to me how the sun works in this model.

Now, asking questions makes me wonder more, so i'll throw a couple more:

Is angular momentum conserved in flat earth theory?

If the sun is orbiting a point vertically above the earth, there must be some source of work keeping it in orbit. Otherwise it would spiral off. What is this source of work?

If the earth is a cylinder, how deep is it? How do you know?

What is your mathematical description of gravitation

Many have believed the sun is semi-spotlight in nature.  While some FE advocates  have not subscribed to such notion, it is a prevalent FE explanation.  AS for what keeps everything in place as celestial gearing, at least two (Master James, Tom F. Bishop)  suggest photoelectric suspension theory.  The search function should locate a thread pertaining to this theory called, 'photo electric suspension theory'.  Im glad to see you went with my advice and starting this thread, I am certain it will garner the attention of several great FE advvocates who can answer your other questions  in greater detail.

You'll get a different answer for each question from every one of these flat earthers. They have no unified theory and each have a unique assortment of silly phenomenons to explain the most simple mechanics of any given system.

For example they know that fusion doesn't create the sun's light. They don't know what does, but they know its not fusion.

In FET the conservation of angular momentum doesn't apply. For example, the general FE consensus is that the sun's orbit increases and decreases throughout the year giving rise to seasons. The problem with this theory is that in order for the sun to make one rotation about its axis in 24 hours it must slow down as its radius decreases and speed up when its radius increases. This is contrary to the conservation of angular momentum. Either angular momentum is conserved or the Earth is flat. Most everyone here has decided to toss out angular momentum in favor of a flat Earth.

You'll get a different answer for each question from every one of these flat earthers. They have no unified theory and each have a unique assortment of silly phenomenons to explain the most simple mechanics of any given system.

For example they know that fusion doesn't create the sun's light. They don't know what does, but they know its not fusion.

Incorrect.  I  have viewed several intelligent answers to this. 

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on December 01, 2011, 06:06:02 PM

You'll get a different answer for each question from every one of these flat earthers. They have no unified theory and each have a unique assortment of silly phenomenons to explain the most simple mechanics of any given system.

For example they know that fusion doesn't create the sun's light. They don't know what does, but they know its not fusion.

Incorrect.  I  have viewed several intelligent answers to this.

Do you have any proof these answers are intelligent?

the sun is not a spotlight, it shines its light in all directions casting a giant circle of light onto roughly half of the known earth. A spotlight only 300 miles up would not create enough light to illuminate 1/2 of the known world.

thank you for your question,

the sun is not a spotlight, it shines its light in all directions casting a giant circle of light onto roughly half of the known earth. A spotlight only 300 miles up would not create enough light to illuminate 1/2 of the known world.

thank you for your question,

If it shown its light in all directions, shouldn't we still be able to see it at night?

the sun is not a spotlight, it shines its light in all directions casting a giant circle of light onto roughly half of the known earth. A spotlight only 300 miles up would not create enough light to illuminate 1/2 of the known world.

thank you for your question,

Not a spotlight like  the police use no. 

In FET the conservation of angular momentum doesn't apply. For example, the general FE consensus is that the sun's orbit increases and decreases throughout the year giving rise to seasons. The problem with this theory is that in order for the sun to make one rotation about its axis in 24 hours it must slow down as its radius decreases and speed up when its radius increases. This is contrary to the conservation of angular momentum. Either angular momentum is conserved or the Earth is flat. Most everyone here has decided to toss out angular momentum in favor of a flat Earth.

Have you considered that the space-medium (I know how you loathe "aether") is not homogenous. That, in fact, the speeding and slowing at different distances from the celestial barycenter is the result of this difference?

Quote from: jraffield1 on December 01, 2011, 06:15:23 PM

In FET the conservation of angular momentum doesn't apply. For example, the general FE consensus is that the sun's orbit increases and decreases throughout the year giving rise to seasons. The problem with this theory is that in order for the sun to make one rotation about its axis in 24 hours it must slow down as its radius decreases and speed up when its radius increases. This is contrary to the conservation of angular momentum. Either angular momentum is conserved or the Earth is flat. Most everyone here has decided to toss out angular momentum in favor of a flat Earth.

Have you considered that the space-medium (I know how you loathe "aether") is not homogenous. That, in fact, the speeding and slowing at different distances from the celestial barycenter is the result of this difference?

I'm not sure I'm correctly visualizing what you're talking about. Are you referring to inhomogeneous aether that would cause differences in inertia or a swirling accretion of aether that is inhomogeneous that whirls the sun around?

What if the aether induces more resistance towards the center and less at a distance?

What if the aether induces more resistance towards the center and less at a distance?

In RET the Earth continues around the sun because of the attractive force of gravity (which is a conservative force) and the conservation of angular momentum. Once you set it going the motion is self-sustaining. If we conclude that the sun orbits a celestial barycenter and that angular momentum is conserved, an addition force is needed to explain the deviation of its motion. To be self-sustaining this force must be conserved, and so cannot be a form of friction (such as a resistive aether).

I believe in a finite plane. The expansion and contraction might be explained by the interaction of the non-laminar flow of DE above the disc. I'm not sure what might explain this were the earth an infinite plane. I've not given it much thought. Perhaps John will chime in.

Nice to have so many FE theories and so little work on it!

Do you have something to add to the conversation apart from snarky disbelief?

Yes.

It's nice to float an idea but at least you have to back it in a way or another. I could do that, everyone could do that ad infinitum. Would FET progress? No.

If you have a theory, back it with something more tangible than "I believe", "might be" and the best : "I've not given it much thought."

Hello everyone, this is my first post on this website.

Before I ask my questions I would just like to say that I believe in very little of what we humans 'think we know' as absolute 'fact' (FE & RE included). I think it is more likely that what we percieve as reality is more of a mass 'illusion' or 'halluciantion'. Our individual faculties are designed to 'make sense' of all the information we recieve through our senses and so what one person might percieve as the actual colour of blue might be completely different to someone elses perception of the colour blue, but we have to agree on (most of) these basic things in order to communicate and survive. In a nutshell, what I'm saying is that I will give anything (ie any idea or theory) the benifit of the doubt and take it into serious (and respectful) consideration. This said, it 'seems' to me that a spherical earth makes more sense than a flat one but I'm open to debate. I would like to know;

1) How was such an elaborate (and interconnecting) system of mathematics, laws, facts, figures, etc (ie the 'Conspiracy'), created to support such a wide range of sciences and not just a spherical earth and space flight ?The inventors must have (had) vastly superior intellects and orginizational skills to hold such a thing together.

2) How has it fooled so may people (especially the brilliant minds of the last few hundred years). There are millions of people who are currently studying the earth at this very moment under the pretense that it is spherical, would'nt at least a few of them notice that something is wrong with the current data? How do the conspirators control this?

3) Do FE'ers believe in the existence of asteroids and meteors? If so, wouldn't a disc shaped earth be very susceptable and unstable in regard to these objects if we come into contact with them? Say a very large meteor clips the side of the Earth, wouldn't it spin like a coin and destroy or upset everything on the surface? There are craters all over the face of the planet that suggest we have had many large impacts over time.

4) Are the leaders or majority of the FE'ers very or at all religious? I sometimes get the feeling that this was all created to support the ideas of intelligent design or something of the sort.

Thank you for your time (if you are reading this) and I hope that some-one will answer some (or hopefully all) of my questions. Good day.

1) How was such an elaborate (and interconnecting) system of mathematics, laws, facts, figures, etc (ie the 'Conspiracy'), created to support such a wide range of sciences and not just a spherical earth and space flight ?The inventors must have (had) vastly superior intellects and orginizational skills to hold such a thing together.

They are not facts, merely theories.

2) How has it fooled so may people (especially the brilliant minds of the last few hundred years). There are millions of people who are currently studying the earth at this very moment under the pretense that it is spherical, would'nt at least a few of them notice that something is wrong with the current data? How do the conspirators control this?

They don't need to; it is simply how powerful globularism is.  It forces people to assume the earth is a sphere and most calculations are based, falsely, on that.

3) Do FE'ers believe in the existence of asteroids and meteors? If so, wouldn't a disc shaped earth be very susceptable and unstable in regard to these objects if we come into contact with them? Say a very large meteor clips the side of the Earth, wouldn't it spin like a coin and destroy or upset everything on the surface? There are craters all over the face of the planet that suggest we have had many large impacts over time.

As I have yet to experience any such thing, I would say these events don't exist. 

4) Are the leaders or majority of the FE'ers very or at all religious? I sometimes get the feeling that this was all created to support the ideas of intelligent design or something of the sort.

The vast majority are not religious.  However, there is plenty of evidence in the bible to show the earth is flat.

I do believe that people, in general, are easily swayed by ideas that apparently make sense, either because it works for them, they are too busy to think otherwise, or they are intellectually unable to dispute them ... but ... a whole world full of billions of people, many of whom have been forced in recent times to take full stock of their lives and their reality ... ?? ... is it really so easy to fool so many people? This 'Conspiracy' would have to be an insanely huge (and delicate) web of integrated smaller conspiracies. With so much to hide, I feel doubtful that such a thing could exist without falling apart at the seams at some point. Do you believe that the truth will have to be revealed soon, perhaps 2012?

... (Respectfully) To say that you don't believe in cataclysmic events like meteor impacts because you have never experienced one yourself is very poor debate m'fraid. Could you please clarify what you mean?

@ Mr Pseudonym.

I like the way you answer questions though, in a very calm and direct way. Well done.

I do believe that people, in general, are easily swayed by ideas that apparently make sense, either because it works for them, they are too busy to think otherwise, or they are intellectually unable to dispute them ... but ... a whole world full of billions of people, many of whom have been forced in recent times to take full stock of their lives and their reality ... ?? ... is it really so easy to fool so many people? This 'Conspiracy' would have to be an insanely huge (and delicate) web of integrated smaller conspiracies. With so much to hide, I feel doubtful that such a thing could exist without falling apart at the seams at some point. Do you believe that the truth will have to be revealed soon, perhaps 2012?

... (Respectfully) To say that you don't believe in cataclysmic events like meteor impacts because you have never experienced one yourself is very poor debate m'fraid. Could you please clarify what you mean?

There is no need for the conspiracy to be insanely huge; the faked space program did enough to spread globularism almost indefinitely.  It is through groups and mediums such as the one we have here at FES that we hope the truth will be revealed.

Also, I'm not sure what clarification you are looking for.  Noone on earth has ever witnessed a 'cacataclysmic events like meteor impacts", including myself.  It is hard to say that such an event could ever happen. I'm not sure what evidence you have that is leading you to believe such a thing could happen.

Quote from: TonySonofGawain on December 05, 2011, 04:47:43 AM

I do believe that people, in general, are easily swayed by ideas that apparently make sense, either because it works for them, they are too busy to think otherwise, or they are intellectually unable to dispute them ... but ... a whole world full of billions of people, many of whom have been forced in recent times to take full stock of their lives and their reality ... ?? ... is it really so easy to fool so many people? This 'Conspiracy' would have to be an insanely huge (and delicate) web of integrated smaller conspiracies. With so much to hide, I feel doubtful that such a thing could exist without falling apart at the seams at some point. Do you believe that the truth will have to be revealed soon, perhaps 2012?

... (Respectfully) To say that you don't believe in cataclysmic events like meteor impacts because you have never experienced one yourself is very poor debate m'fraid. Could you please clarify what you mean?

There is no need for the conspiracy to be insanely huge; the faked space program did enough to spread globularism almost indefinitely.  It is through groups and mediums such as the one we have here at FES that we hope the truth will be revealed.

Also, I'm not sure what clarification you are looking for.  Noone on earth has ever witnessed a 'cacataclysmic events like meteor impacts", including myself.  It is hard to say that such an event could ever happen. I'm not sure what evidence you have that is leading you to believe such a thing could happen.

If meteors never strike the Earth, how do you explain enormous impact craters?

Quote from: Mr Pseudonym on December 05, 2011, 04:03:02 PM

Quote from: TonySonofGawain on December 05, 2011, 04:47:43 AM

I do believe that people, in general, are easily swayed by ideas that apparently make sense, either because it works for them, they are too busy to think otherwise, or they are intellectually unable to dispute them ... but ... a whole world full of billions of people, many of whom have been forced in recent times to take full stock of their lives and their reality ... ?? ... is it really so easy to fool so many people? This 'Conspiracy' would have to be an insanely huge (and delicate) web of integrated smaller conspiracies. With so much to hide, I feel doubtful that such a thing could exist without falling apart at the seams at some point. Do you believe that the truth will have to be revealed soon, perhaps 2012?

... (Respectfully) To say that you don't believe in cataclysmic events like meteor impacts because you have never experienced one yourself is very poor debate m'fraid. Could you please clarify what you mean?

There is no need for the conspiracy to be insanely huge; the faked space program did enough to spread globularism almost indefinitely.  It is through groups and mediums such as the one we have here at FES that we hope the truth will be revealed.

Also, I'm not sure what clarification you are looking for.  Noone on earth has ever witnessed a 'cacataclysmic events like meteor impacts", including myself.  It is hard to say that such an event could ever happen. I'm not sure what evidence you have that is leading you to believe such a thing could happen.

If meteors never strike the Earth, how do you explain enormous impact craters?

They could well be from former volcanos or even ancient nuclear testing sites.  Now tell me, if a huge rock supposedly strikes the earth, where does the rock disappear too if it leaves a crater behind?

Quote from: TonySonofGawain on December 05, 2011, 04:47:43 AM

I do believe that people, in general, are easily swayed by ideas that apparently make sense, either because it works for them, they are too busy to think otherwise, or they are intellectually unable to dispute them ... but ... a whole world full of billions of people, many of whom have been forced in recent times to take full stock of their lives and their reality ... ?? ... is it really so easy to fool so many people? This 'Conspiracy' would have to be an insanely huge (and delicate) web of integrated smaller conspiracies. With so much to hide, I feel doubtful that such a thing could exist without falling apart at the seams at some point. Do you believe that the truth will have to be revealed soon, perhaps 2012?

... (Respectfully) To say that you don't believe in cataclysmic events like meteor impacts because you have never experienced one yourself is very poor debate m'fraid. Could you please clarify what you mean?

There is no need for the conspiracy to be insanely huge; the faked space program did enough to spread globularism almost indefinitely.  It is through groups and mediums such as the one we have here at FES that we hope the truth will be revealed.

Also, I'm not sure what clarification you are looking for.  Noone on earth has ever witnessed a 'cacataclysmic events like meteor impacts", including myself.  It is hard to say that such an event could ever happen. I'm not sure what evidence you have that is leading you to believe such a thing could happen.

The Fact is the conspiracy simply does not make sense financially.  There would simply need to be way too many people paid off and NASA's budget is too scrutinized, and gets further cut almost regularly.  Not to mention that how NASA spends most of its money is a matter of public record, and most of it goes to employees, and companies to construct various projects for them, and towards missions.  The technology that they utilize also works, unless they pay of every engineer to say that it works.

Frankly The idea of a NASA conspiracy is so full of holes its crazy to consider it a possibility. 

Quote from: jraffield1 on December 05, 2011, 04:43:34 PM

Quote from: Mr Pseudonym on December 05, 2011, 04:03:02 PM

Quote from: TonySonofGawain on December 05, 2011, 04:47:43 AM

I do believe that people, in general, are easily swayed by ideas that apparently make sense, either because it works for them, they are too busy to think otherwise, or they are intellectually unable to dispute them ... but ... a whole world full of billions of people, many of whom have been forced in recent times to take full stock of their lives and their reality ... ?? ... is it really so easy to fool so many people? This 'Conspiracy' would have to be an insanely huge (and delicate) web of integrated smaller conspiracies. With so much to hide, I feel doubtful that such a thing could exist without falling apart at the seams at some point. Do you believe that the truth will have to be revealed soon, perhaps 2012?

... (Respectfully) To say that you don't believe in cataclysmic events like meteor impacts because you have never experienced one yourself is very poor debate m'fraid. Could you please clarify what you mean?

There is no need for the conspiracy to be insanely huge; the faked space program did enough to spread globularism almost indefinitely.  It is through groups and mediums such as the one we have here at FES that we hope the truth will be revealed.

Also, I'm not sure what clarification you are looking for.  Noone on earth has ever witnessed a 'cacataclysmic events like meteor impacts", including myself.  It is hard to say that such an event could ever happen. I'm not sure what evidence you have that is leading you to believe such a thing could happen.

If meteors never strike the Earth, how do you explain enormous impact craters?

They could well be from former volcanos or even ancient nuclear testing sites.  Now tell me, if a huge rock supposedly strikes the earth, where does the rock disappear too if it leaves a crater behind?

It strikes the ground with enough energy to vaporize itself and a good chuck of the ground where it hits. Technically speaking, the meteor is scattered around the crater and, depending on how large the impact was, scattered across the globe.

Quote from: jraffield1 on December 05, 2011, 04:43:34 PM

Quote from: Mr Pseudonym on December 05, 2011, 04:03:02 PM

Quote from: TonySonofGawain on December 05, 2011, 04:47:43 AM

I do believe that people, in general, are easily swayed by ideas that apparently make sense, either because it works for them, they are too busy to think otherwise, or they are intellectually unable to dispute them ... but ... a whole world full of billions of people, many of whom have been forced in recent times to take full stock of their lives and their reality ... ?? ... is it really so easy to fool so many people? This 'Conspiracy' would have to be an insanely huge (and delicate) web of integrated smaller conspiracies. With so much to hide, I feel doubtful that such a thing could exist without falling apart at the seams at some point. Do you believe that the truth will have to be revealed soon, perhaps 2012?

... (Respectfully) To say that you don't believe in cataclysmic events like meteor impacts because you have never experienced one yourself is very poor debate m'fraid. Could you please clarify what you mean?

There is no need for the conspiracy to be insanely huge; the faked space program did enough to spread globularism almost indefinitely.  It is through groups and mediums such as the one we have here at FES that we hope the truth will be revealed.

Also, I'm not sure what clarification you are looking for.  Noone on earth has ever witnessed a 'cacataclysmic events like meteor impacts", including myself.  It is hard to say that such an event could ever happen. I'm not sure what evidence you have that is leading you to believe such a thing could happen.

If meteors never strike the Earth, how do you explain enormous impact craters?

They could well be from former volcanos or even ancient nuclear testing sites.  Now tell me, if a huge rock supposedly strikes the earth, where does the rock disappear too if it leaves a crater behind?

Is that a serious question?  We find meteors all the time, and we have even watched them impact into other planets, such as Jupiter.  And where does the rock disappear? it breaks up into smaller rocks and is exploded all over the place.  Imagine if an airplane crashed into a pile of airplanes, and then someone asked "well where did the airplane go"?

In large enough impacts its even vaporized, and there are plenty smaller impacts that we actually have the meteorites from.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_Shoemaker%E2%80%93Levy_9

Quote from: Mr Pseudonym on December 05, 2011, 04:03:02 PM

Quote from: TonySonofGawain on December 05, 2011, 04:47:43 AM

I do believe that people, in general, are easily swayed by ideas that apparently make sense, either because it works for them, they are too busy to think otherwise, or they are intellectually unable to dispute them ... but ... a whole world full of billions of people, many of whom have been forced in recent times to take full stock of their lives and their reality ... ?? ... is it really so easy to fool so many people? This 'Conspiracy' would have to be an insanely huge (and delicate) web of integrated smaller conspiracies. With so much to hide, I feel doubtful that such a thing could exist without falling apart at the seams at some point. Do you believe that the truth will have to be revealed soon, perhaps 2012?

... (Respectfully) To say that you don't believe in cataclysmic events like meteor impacts because you have never experienced one yourself is very poor debate m'fraid. Could you please clarify what you mean?

There is no need for the conspiracy to be insanely huge; the faked space program did enough to spread globularism almost indefinitely.  It is through groups and mediums such as the one we have here at FES that we hope the truth will be revealed.

Also, I'm not sure what clarification you are looking for.  Noone on earth has ever witnessed a 'cacataclysmic events like meteor impacts", including myself.  It is hard to say that such an event could ever happen. I'm not sure what evidence you have that is leading you to believe such a thing could happen.

The Fact is the conspiracy simply does not make sense financially.  There would simply need to be way too many people paid off and NASA's budget is too scrutinized, and gets further cut almost regularly.  Not to mention that how NASA spends most of its money is a matter of public record, and most of it goes to employees, and companies to construct various projects for them, and towards missions.  The technology that they utilize also works, unless they pay of every engineer to say that it works.

Frankly The idea of a NASA conspiracy is so full of holes its crazy to consider it a possibility.

Good fellow, you seem to be under a misapprehension.  There are no holes in the conspiracy, only holes in your understanding it.  If you cite for me your major contentions, I will be happy in helping you in understanding.

Quote from: jraffield1 on December 05, 2011, 04:43:34 PM

Quote from: Mr Pseudonym on December 05, 2011, 04:03:02 PM

Quote from: TonySonofGawain on December 05, 2011, 04:47:43 AM

I do believe that people, in general, are easily swayed by ideas that apparently make sense, either because it works for them, they are too busy to think otherwise, or they are intellectually unable to dispute them ... but ... a whole world full of billions of people, many of whom have been forced in recent times to take full stock of their lives and their reality ... ?? ... is it really so easy to fool so many people? This 'Conspiracy' would have to be an insanely huge (and delicate) web of integrated smaller conspiracies. With so much to hide, I feel doubtful that such a thing could exist without falling apart at the seams at some point. Do you believe that the truth will have to be revealed soon, perhaps 2012?

... (Respectfully) To say that you don't believe in cataclysmic events like meteor impacts because you have never experienced one yourself is very poor debate m'fraid. Could you please clarify what you mean?

There is no need for the conspiracy to be insanely huge; the faked space program did enough to spread globularism almost indefinitely.  It is through groups and mediums such as the one we have here at FES that we hope the truth will be revealed.

Also, I'm not sure what clarification you are looking for.  Noone on earth has ever witnessed a 'cacataclysmic events like meteor impacts", including myself.  It is hard to say that such an event could ever happen. I'm not sure what evidence you have that is leading you to believe such a thing could happen.

If meteors never strike the Earth, how do you explain enormous impact craters?

They could well be from former volcanos or even ancient nuclear testing sites. 

You mean like when Constantine the first tested Romes nukes?

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on December 05, 2011, 05:25:26 PM

Quote from: Mr Pseudonym on December 05, 2011, 04:03:02 PM

Quote from: TonySonofGawain on December 05, 2011, 04:47:43 AM

I do believe that people, in general, are easily swayed by ideas that apparently make sense, either because it works for them, they are too busy to think otherwise, or they are intellectually unable to dispute them ... but ... a whole world full of billions of people, many of whom have been forced in recent times to take full stock of their lives and their reality ... ?? ... is it really so easy to fool so many people? This 'Conspiracy' would have to be an insanely huge (and delicate) web of integrated smaller conspiracies. With so much to hide, I feel doubtful that such a thing could exist without falling apart at the seams at some point. Do you believe that the truth will have to be revealed soon, perhaps 2012?

... (Respectfully) To say that you don't believe in cataclysmic events like meteor impacts because you have never experienced one yourself is very poor debate m'fraid. Could you please clarify what you mean?

There is no need for the conspiracy to be insanely huge; the faked space program did enough to spread globularism almost indefinitely.  It is through groups and mediums such as the one we have here at FES that we hope the truth will be revealed.

Also, I'm not sure what clarification you are looking for.  Noone on earth has ever witnessed a 'cacataclysmic events like meteor impacts", including myself.  It is hard to say that such an event could ever happen. I'm not sure what evidence you have that is leading you to believe such a thing could happen.

The Fact is the conspiracy simply does not make sense financially.  There would simply need to be way too many people paid off and NASA's budget is too scrutinized, and gets further cut almost regularly.  Not to mention that how NASA spends most of its money is a matter of public record, and most of it goes to employees, and companies to construct various projects for them, and towards missions.  The technology that they utilize also works, unless they pay of every engineer to say that it works.

Frankly The idea of a NASA conspiracy is so full of holes its crazy to consider it a possibility.

Good fellow, you seem to be under a misapprehension.  There are no holes in the conspiracy, only holes in your understanding it.  If you cite for me your major contentions, I will be happy in helping you in understanding.

1.)  GPS is a system by which orbiting satellites provide location or navigational directions to any point on earth.  For instance, in Zimbabwe.

http://www.travelbygps.com/z_links/tracks4africa_dot_co.php

In fact, it works in every country on earth.  It works everywhere, in the middle of the ocean, in valleys, you get the point.  Prior to this the US used a less effective system known as LORAN.  Since then the Army has deactivated LORAN, and only uses Satellites. The LORAN sytem was never put in place in south america or africa, yet GPS works in both places.  GPS is operated through the department of defence of the united tates of america for both military and civilian use.

Maintaing a global array of antenna is not within NASA's budget, and The US military is no longer maintaining the LORAN system, in fact they publicly stated that it is no longer in use.

"The current LORAN system has been phased out in the United States and Canada. The United States Coast Guard (USCG) and Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) ceased transmitting LORAN-C (and joint CHAYKA) signals in 2010."

Its Coverage was best described as "good", but it was in no way universal or as accurate as current satellites allow for.

Also, in recent times further evidence of GPS being space based, is the use of Cruise missiles against various targets in Iraq, where ground based towers could easily be shut off by local power companies, yet cruise missiles struck in the heart of Baghdad on the opening days of the war.

This is not a hole in my understanding of the conspiracy.  NASA cannot fund a global network of towers on its budget of a meager 20 billion.  Verizon spends 5.7 billion dollars to maintain its tower system in a countries that have exceedingly good infrastructure by Africa's standards, and this cost does not even provide enough coverage to avoid gaps in valleys or lightly populated regions.

That is just one hole.

Ill let you address that before addressing the concept that "not that many people need to be in on it".