Stupid Conspiracy

  • 151 Replies
  • 18986 Views
Re: Stupid Conspiracy
« Reply #120 on: December 09, 2011, 12:57:02 PM »
The separation between Grumman and its employees are so distant that they don't even know what their employees are working on. Their employees very often have higher clearances than the managers at Grumman. I've worked for plenty of civilian and government contractors. My only communication with the contracting company was literally a paycheck and maybe an occasional call to clarify some hours worked.

Grumman knew that their employees were working on some Apollo projects and went with that for their press releases.
The mortgage payoff calculator will help you to calculate the amount of interest that you will save by paying your mortgage off early.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Stupid Conspiracy
« Reply #121 on: December 09, 2011, 02:51:33 PM »
The shoddy, amateurish design for the lunar lander is actually an example of a commonly used trope in fiction.  After all (NASA reasons) how could it look so obviously fake if it isn't real?

What should a real lunar lander look like?  ???

It should at least look real.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41780
Re: Stupid Conspiracy
« Reply #122 on: December 09, 2011, 03:00:34 PM »
What should a real lunar lander look like?  ???

It should at least look real.

What does it take to make a lunar lander look real?
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: Stupid Conspiracy
« Reply #123 on: December 09, 2011, 03:01:40 PM »
What should a real lunar lander look like?  ???

It should at least look real.

What does it take to make a lunar lander look real?

The first step would be to avoid making it look fake.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41780
Re: Stupid Conspiracy
« Reply #124 on: December 09, 2011, 03:02:45 PM »
What should a real lunar lander look like?  ???

It should at least look real.

What does it take to make a lunar lander look real?

The first step would be to avoid making it look fake.

So you have no clue.  Glad we sorted that out.
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.

*

hoppy

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 11684
Re: Stupid Conspiracy
« Reply #125 on: December 09, 2011, 03:57:37 PM »
That lunar lander is so fake, I lol when looking at it. When they took the roofing paper off,where is the"airtight module" that is supposed to under the paper? Truly laughable.
God is real.                                         
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9665708/Flat-Earth-Bible-02-of-10-The-Flat-Earth

Re: Stupid Conspiracy
« Reply #126 on: December 09, 2011, 04:14:28 PM »
When I look at some American cars, I tell myself: "this can be true, they are fake. Such monstrosities cannot happen".

And yet...
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

?

Mizuki

  • 356
  • Earth is NOT a Globe
Re: Stupid Conspiracy
« Reply #127 on: December 09, 2011, 05:02:26 PM »
LinearPlane.

I saw the dark dot on your picture the first time you posted it. But thank you anyway. I have seen this picture before. I couldn't see a lunar rover on it then and i still can't now.

Maybe it's my eyes.  :-\

Mizuki x



You can clearly see the tracks of where people walked on the moon. Can you see or are you just blind? I've never met people more ridiculous in my life.

You said the lunar rover can be seen in that photo, but now you've down-graded to 'tracks' can be seen.

Mizuki x
"Earth is a maximal sphere in a cyclical space and its surface therefore a total plane, the equator plane of the Cosmos. The (total) plane, as well as the straight line and space as a whole, is flat, without curvature yet closed, running back on itself."

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: Stupid Conspiracy
« Reply #128 on: December 09, 2011, 05:05:06 PM »
LinearPlane.

I saw the dark dot on your picture the first time you posted it. But thank you anyway. I have seen this picture before. I couldn't see a lunar rover on it then and i still can't now.

Maybe it's my eyes.  :-\



You can clearly see the tracks of where people walked on the moon. Can you see or are you just blind? I've never met people more ridiculous in my life.

You said the lunar rover can be seen in that photo, but now you've down-graded to 'tracks' can be seen.


Please stop taking only single posts into consideration. He is referring to the fact both can be seen. Also stop signing one sentence posts.

Re: Stupid Conspiracy
« Reply #129 on: December 09, 2011, 05:14:52 PM »
One thing I never understood was how the Japanese got to pearl harbor as efficiently as the USA in WW2? Isn't Japan at the other side of the map from the USA?
"I discovered that what's really important for a creator isn't what we vaguely define as inspiration or even what it is we want to say, recall, regret, or rebel against. No, what's important is the way we say it. Art is all about craftsmanship." -Fellini

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: Stupid Conspiracy
« Reply #130 on: December 09, 2011, 05:16:51 PM »
One thing I never understood was how the Japanese got to pearl harbor as efficiently as the USA in WW2? Isn't Japan at the other side of the map from the USA?

In FET Japan is farther away from Hawaii than it is in RET. Try again.

*

hoppy

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 11684
Re: Stupid Conspiracy
« Reply #131 on: December 09, 2011, 05:54:46 PM »
What should a real lunar lander look like?  ???

It should at least look real.

What does it take to make a lunar lander look real?

The first step would be to avoid making it look fake.

So you have no clue.  Glad we sorted that out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lunar_Lander_Model.jpg

This fake lander, does not look as fake.
God is real.                                         
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9665708/Flat-Earth-Bible-02-of-10-The-Flat-Earth

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41780
Re: Stupid Conspiracy
« Reply #132 on: December 09, 2011, 07:36:45 PM »
That lunar lander is so fake, I lol when looking at it. When they took the roofing paper off,where is the"airtight module" that is supposed to under the paper? Truly laughable.

What makes you think that was supposed to be an "airtight module"?  That was the aft equipment bay.  No reason for it to be airtight that I can think of.
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.

Re: Stupid Conspiracy
« Reply #133 on: December 09, 2011, 07:56:07 PM »
Irush, you are a complete idiot. So how did the Japanese get to Pearl Harbour, they flew across Europe? Over Britian? Over the Alantic battles? Over the country of the fucking United States, and made a supprise attack? Give me a break. They would be out of fuel so many times they would have been bound to be killed. And the Japanese submaries that attacked? Did they just sail across the world too? Am I missing a piece of evidence? Intelligent humans came up with the round earth theory, monkeys stratching their asses came up with the flat earth idea.
"I discovered that what's really important for a creator isn't what we vaguely define as inspiration or even what it is we want to say, recall, regret, or rebel against. No, what's important is the way we say it. Art is all about craftsmanship." -Fellini

Re: Stupid Conspiracy
« Reply #134 on: December 09, 2011, 08:15:24 PM »
Dare someone to take a cd disk and try to distribute light evenly throughtout the whole surface, so one part is night and one is day. I  dare anyone to do it.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2011, 03:42:11 AM by Redhotpengy »
"I discovered that what's really important for a creator isn't what we vaguely define as inspiration or even what it is we want to say, recall, regret, or rebel against. No, what's important is the way we say it. Art is all about craftsmanship." -Fellini

?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: Stupid Conspiracy
« Reply #135 on: December 10, 2011, 02:24:59 AM »
The shoddy, amateurish design for the lunar lander is actually an example of a commonly used trope in fiction.  After all (NASA reasons) how could it look so obviously fake if it isn't real?

Incorrect.  It does not look fake.

See how well it's working?

Incorrect.  You said it looks so fake that it must be real.  I do not believe it looks fake.  It looks very real to me, very functional.

Which is exactly the point.  You're so blinded by your infatuation with NASA that you refuse to admit, possibly even to yourself, how fake it really looks.

I do not think that you understand your original post.  You claim that NASA built the lander to look fake on purpose, because it looking fake would make it more legitimate.  Therefore if NASA's plan worked i would have to concede it looked fake, but i would still insist it was real because of how fake it looked. 

I believe it looks real because i know why it looks the way it does.  The external portion looks to me like insulation.  It is shiny to reflect as much heat as possible.  The external coverings do not look air tight because they do not need to be air tight.  It does not look aerodynamic because its not operating in an atmosphere as thick as the earth's.  It has cone shaped rocket boosters all over it because they are needed for stability during flight, as wings do not work in space.

So it does not look fake because it fits the description of a lunar lander perfectly, not because NASA purposefully made it look fake.  The underlying principle of "it looks fake so it must be real" is the lunar lander looking fake.  There is a difference between "looking" fake and "being" real.

Re: Stupid Conspiracy
« Reply #136 on: December 10, 2011, 03:36:06 AM »
What should a real lunar lander look like?  ???

It should at least look real.

What does it take to make a lunar lander look real?

The first step would be to avoid making it look fake.

That's very zetetic and FE'ers : looks matter over substance.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

hoppy

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 11684
Re: Stupid Conspiracy
« Reply #137 on: December 10, 2011, 07:40:10 AM »
What should a real lunar lander look like?  ???

It should at least look real.

What does it take to make a lunar lander look real?

The first step would be to avoid making it look fake.

That's very zetetic and FE'ers : looks matter over substance.
FE'ers , common sense over lies.
God is real.                                         
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9665708/Flat-Earth-Bible-02-of-10-The-Flat-Earth

Re: Stupid Conspiracy
« Reply #138 on: December 10, 2011, 09:58:06 AM »
What should a real lunar lander look like?  ???

It should at least look real.

What does it take to make a lunar lander look real?

The first step would be to avoid making it look fake.

That's very zetetic and FE'ers : looks matter over substance.
FE'ers , common sense over lies.

So far, you've been unable to prove those lies. Think before posting, please.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

El Cid

  • 169
  • ...And the truth shall set you free.
Re: Stupid Conspiracy
« Reply #139 on: December 10, 2011, 03:52:03 PM »
Didn't anyone ever watch Appollo 13?  Come on, you have to have.  Remember the part where one of the astronauts says, "You see, all that separates us from the vacuum of space is a wall thinner than a sheet of foil."  Of course, that doesn't mean that it can't possibly work.  Space travel is not easy.  You have to be innovative and make do with what you have.  You can't focus on making your spaceship look good.

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: Stupid Conspiracy
« Reply #140 on: December 11, 2011, 04:48:54 AM »
Yes, I have read the stickied 26 page thread. I want to put this in a readable format.
Let's look at how many people from what walks of life need to be in on the conspiracy in order for it to function, shall we?

1. Space agencies.
People like Tom Bishop love to make out that this is just NASA, the Goddamn Russians and if pushed, China. Not true. You also have the European Space Agency (including people from the UK, France, Germany and so on) and even India has a space programme now. Oh, and Japan. Anyone else I forgot? Probably.
1a. Accessory space agencies.
These are the people who back up the Space Agencies. The Space Agencies oversee the building and flight of spacecraft and the training of astronauts, but not everything in space is owned, created, or operated by them. For example, take deep space probes, often worked on by teams from universities and technical institutions, and monitored by teams such as JPL. These are the people who would need to be most involved in bribery if there was a conspiracy cover up, as they are actually recording the data using massive dishes, and sending the instructions back out to the space craft. They know where man made objects in space should be, and if they weren't where they're meant to be, they would know. We're talking hundreds of people worldwide that need to be in on the conspiracy to pull this off - so far. The number has to rise when we add:

2. Pilots.
There's quite a lot of pilots out there who fly in the southern hemisphere, along routes which according to FET, would exceed the actual capable range of their aircraft by many thousands of miles. The only way to account for this would be to add them to the conspiracy, which also enables them to ignore instrumental discrepancies such as between GPS and navigational beacons, and INS. So let's put that up to another thousand, to be on the conservative side. After all, we're not just talking about current pilots, but all the retired ones and the ones still in training.

3. The armed forces.
All of them, everywhere. At least the ones telling the troops where to go and what to do, and any involved in navigation. Also the crews of submarines, which often use INS for navigation. Let's say another two thousand, to be conservative. (Note to Americans: other countries have armies too, not just you guys.)

4. The hidden armed forces.
Want to disbelieve satellites? Then you have to have stratellites and pseudolites and all the other replacements you like to think exist. Who operates all these? A popular theory on here is it's a branch of the military. And it's gonna need to be another several thousand guys worldwide.

5. Satellite engineers.
No, not the ones that put the satellites up there (see section 1) but the guys that fix the dish on your house. They need to know where to point the dish. If your signal source is thousands of miles away in space, it's easy. If it's on a balloon up in the atmosphere somewhere, then oh dear, suddenly they need to point a dish in Guildford at a different place in the sky than a dish in Croydon. How very strange. Better bribe the thousands of dish guys then, hadn't we?

6. Everyone in the Antarctic.
All the people who work on all the bases out there and who have seen this massive wall of ice, or a big cataclysmic edge - quick, slip them a cash bung! And make sure you've got plenty of cash available because there's quite a high turnover rate of staff down there, and once they've seen the truth, well you just gotta keep paying.

7. Conspiracy enforcers
Assuming all these people are being bribed, you need to have somebody actually running the whole thing. Who looks after the cash that pays off the satellite engineers and the Antarctic researchers? Who threatens to murder them if they squeal? The numbers can't be known for sure but you're gonna need a few hundred of this type just to corral everyone else. Oh, yes, also corrupt politicians in every country.

So how many people are we up to? Probably over ten thousand now. Minimum. This is ridiculous. And once someone's in on it, they need to keep paying them indefinitely. And yet not once do we hear of a leak, after all those thousands of people have been so easily bribed?
Yeah, right.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12253
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Stupid Conspiracy
« Reply #141 on: December 11, 2011, 05:37:04 AM »
Yes, I have read the stickied 26 page thread. I want to put this in a readable format.
Let's look at how many people from what walks of life need to be in on the conspiracy in order for it to function, shall we?
[some text omitted]
If you paid a tiny bit more attention to what's going on, you would have saved yourself a whole lot of time.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52090.0
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: Stupid Conspiracy
« Reply #142 on: December 11, 2011, 05:44:45 AM »
Yes, I have read the stickied 26 page thread. I want to put this in a readable format.
Let's look at how many people from what walks of life need to be in on the conspiracy in order for it to function, shall we?
[some text omitted]
If you paid a tiny bit more attention to what's going on, you would have saved yourself a whole lot of time.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52090.0

Date of start of this thread: 5th December
Date of thread PizzaPizazz refers to: 9th December
Mentions of Ice Wall Guards in my thread: zero.
Mentions of unstickying the CCC thread for any reasons other than Icewall Guards in the thread Pizza linked to: zero.
Time that would have been saved if I'd paid attention to what's going on as per Pizza's suggestion: minus four days. Well done. Seriously, well done for that. Keep this level of contribution up and one day you'll be as hilarious as Tom.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2011, 05:48:02 AM by The Knowledge »
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

*

Lorddave

  • 16451
Re: Stupid Conspiracy
« Reply #143 on: December 11, 2011, 06:41:19 AM »
Why is it that Tom Bishop always brings out towers when James has clearly shown that it's stationary planes that generate the signal.
I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.

Re: Stupid Conspiracy
« Reply #144 on: December 12, 2011, 08:22:28 AM »
LinearPlane.

I saw the dark dot on your picture the first time you posted it. But thank you anyway. I have seen this picture before. I couldn't see a lunar rover on it then and i still can't now.

Maybe it's my eyes.  :-\

Mizuki x



You can clearly see the tracks of where people walked on the moon. Can you see or are you just blind? I've never met people more ridiculous in my life.

You said the lunar rover can be seen in that photo, but now you've down-graded to 'tracks' can be seen.

Mizuki x

Yet you don't even address that the tracks can be seen.

You have to be a troll. No one is this stupid.
The FAQ needs updating to reflect the falsehood of the FAQ.

Re: Stupid Conspiracy
« Reply #145 on: December 12, 2011, 08:23:29 AM »
Why is it that Tom Bishop always brings out towers when James has clearly shown that it's stationary planes that generate the signal.

How would a stationary plane would work?
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

Re: Stupid Conspiracy
« Reply #146 on: December 12, 2011, 08:24:53 AM »
The shoddy, amateurish design for the lunar lander is actually an example of a commonly used trope in fiction.  After all (NASA reasons) how could it look so obviously fake if it isn't real?

What should a real lunar lander look like?  ???

It should at least look real.

Looking real or not has no bearing on the fact that we went there, put a laser there, and you can VERIFY it independently. But you won't because you're a troll who'd rather sit here and claim it looks fake while the staff here closes threads for no reason.
The FAQ needs updating to reflect the falsehood of the FAQ.

*

Lorddave

  • 16451
Re: Stupid Conspiracy
« Reply #147 on: December 12, 2011, 10:11:48 AM »
Why is it that Tom Bishop always brings out towers when James has clearly shown that it's stationary planes that generate the signal.

How would a stationary plane would work?
Beats the hell out of me. Ask James.
I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.

Re: Stupid Conspiracy
« Reply #148 on: December 12, 2011, 10:13:45 AM »
Why is it that Tom Bishop always brings out towers when James has clearly shown that it's stationary planes that generate the signal.

How would a stationary plane would work?

Simple they used Harrier Jump Jets. Everyone knows that.
The FAQ needs updating to reflect the falsehood of the FAQ.

Re: Stupid Conspiracy
« Reply #149 on: December 12, 2011, 10:28:58 AM »
Why is it that Tom Bishop always brings out towers when James has clearly shown that it's stationary planes that generate the signal.

How would a stationary plane would work?

Simple they used Harrier Jump Jets. Everyone knows that.

How long can a Harrier stay in flight?
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.