Why the earth can't be flat

You brought up private organizations.

Nope:

No governments, no organizations

And the poster I was actually responding to:

Every day when I look on the news sites theres always articles about astronomy and whatnot, done by not nasa or the government, but by private research labs or private (and public) universities.

Another pedantic play by ClockTower exposed as the humbug it is.

Do you have any evidence that textbooks and publications are "just wrong"? We've seen two cases in recent weeks where those sources predicted the phase of the Moon the Parallactic Angle of constellations, the Sun and the Moon, and time of dusk in L. A.

That's not the topic under discussion. Unlike you, I don't derail whenever my pedantic plays unravel. Let's keep it on-topic, shall we?

Still, no one said "private organizations" in this thread until you made your outlandish claim below:

Private organisations have done very little (if anything) that is used as serious evidence for RET. Most of what is done involves the major space agencies on some level.

If you don't want to discuss your claim in this thread, then don't make it in this thread. You could, of course, also concede your error in making the claim.

It's cowardly to make excuses about the reasons you don't have to face criticism about your outlandish claims.

Still, no one said "private organizations" in this thread

Blah blah blah. I'm ClockTower, and when other people use reasonably synonymic terms interchangably (see "private organisations" for "private research labs/universities"), I decide this is a serious discrepancy worth discussing.


My usage was entirely legitimate, and it's absurd that you think the above pedantry can pass for a serious argument.

If you don't want to discuss your claim in this thread, then don't make it in this thread. You could, of course, also concede your error in making the claim.

It's cowardly to make excuses about the reasons you don't have to face criticism about your outlandish claims.

I'm sorry, but I'm not making excuses about anything. Your silly point was not only pedantic but incorrect. Now you're trying to reduce it to an even more laughable level of pedantry, and in the process have single-handedly performed a reductio ad absurdum on your own position.

Quote from: krukoslik on February 21, 2012, 11:36:02 AM

My biggest point againsty the FE theory is what the reason to hide it would be.
What could NASA possibly get out of hiding such a massive truth from everyone, and how could they possibly get away with it? Thats why the entire idea of a flat earth is ridiculous.

No one is getting anything out of hiding something like that from the public. No governments, no organizations, no one at all. Thats all I really have to say

Motive: money


Ability: having to join a space agency in order to obseve the things they claim exist first-hand.

I am sorry, but I find this theory highly unlikely, as should anyone with a relative knowledge of the Cold War.
NASA, during this time, was funded by two things; Striving to beat the Soviets in the space-race, and striving to beat the Soviet in the arms race.
ICBM research and development worked closely with spaceship research and development, as they are just about the same thing. Both are rockets. And both generally leave the atmosphere.

Even assuming that money was the motive, it is highly that the US and the USSR space agencies would be able to work together. For one thing, their rocket designs are radically different. For another, as I stated; research and development of spaceships were closely worked in relation to ICBMs as well. As such; for them to work together would require both parties to give intricate information on eachother's ICBM research and development. Thus putting both parties national security at risk.

You should note that FE'ers do not believe that the space agencies of the world are simply working together. Rather, The Conspiracy is a kind of supra-organisation that manages and controls the various space agencies. Moreover, they were not interested in the national security of their host states.

You should note that FE'ers do not believe that the space agencies of the world are simply working together. Rather, The Conspiracy is a kind of supra-organisation that manages and controls the various space agencies. Moreover, they were not interested in the national security of their host states.

All the same, funding comes from a reliable source.
At least, back then.

Well, yes. That's why The Conspiracy works.

Well, yes. That's why The Conspiracy works.

But they're losing funding.
NASA was just cut.

And another thing; You used the Chinese example before; how they faked their videos. Rather shoddy job, of faking it, I mean.
Why wouldn't they be able to ask for assistance from the many space agencies who are supposedly in on it?

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on March 05, 2012, 09:47:44 AM

Well, yes. That's why The Conspiracy works.

But they're losing funding.
NASA was just cut.

And another thing; You used the Chinese example before; how they faked their videos. Rather shoddy job, of faking it, I mean.
Why wouldn't they be able to ask for assistance from the many space agencies who are supposedly in on it?

I disagree. The spacewalk was not faked.

Quote from: Graff on March 05, 2012, 09:50:46 AM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on March 05, 2012, 09:47:44 AM

Well, yes. That's why The Conspiracy works.

But they're losing funding.
NASA was just cut.

And another thing; You used the Chinese example before; how they faked their videos. Rather shoddy job, of faking it, I mean.
Why wouldn't they be able to ask for assistance from the many space agencies who are supposedly in on it?

I disagree. The spacewalk was not faked.

What about that bubble?

Then again, for all we know, that video was photoshoped by someone to contain said bubble.

But they're losing funding.
NASA was just cut.

And? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. As the funding goes down, so does the number of missions they have to fake.

And another thing; You used the Chinese example before; how they faked their videos. Rather shoddy job, of faking it, I mean.
Why wouldn't they be able to ask for assistance from the many space agencies who are supposedly in on it?

Here's what annoys me somewhat about that argument. Frequently FE'ers are forced to defend their belief in The Conspiracy, despite the lack of evidence, by saying that if there was evidence then The Conspiracy could be easily disproved. RE'ers then throw their hands up and dismiss that argument as ludicrous. Then, when evidence of fakery is presented, suddenly RE'ers start using the above argument themselves!


My guess is that the Chinese wing of The Conspiracy is simply not as well funded and/or run as the other branches, due to inexperience or budget constraints associated with the host government. And besides, everyone slips up eventually.

Quote from: ClockTower on March 05, 2012, 09:53:14 AM

Quote from: Graff on March 05, 2012, 09:50:46 AM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on March 05, 2012, 09:47:44 AM

Well, yes. That's why The Conspiracy works.

But they're losing funding.
NASA was just cut.

And another thing; You used the Chinese example before; how they faked their videos. Rather shoddy job, of faking it, I mean.
Why wouldn't they be able to ask for assistance from the many space agencies who are supposedly in on it?

I disagree. The spacewalk was not faked.

What about that bubble?

Then again, for all we know, that video was photoshoped by someone to contain said bubble.

I've long ago posted the debunking of Tom Bishop's outlandish claim. But just to save you the effort of lurking moar, please see: Did the Chinese fake their space walk? No.

Discover's/Bad Astronomy's rebuttals consist solely of "That's really silly" and "Yeeeeeah."

It is widely agreed on throughout this forum that the Chinese spacewalk is likely fake.

Quote from: Graff on March 05, 2012, 09:50:46 AM

But they're losing funding.
NASA was just cut.

And? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. As the funding goes down, so does the number of missions they have to fake.

Quote from: Graff on March 05, 2012, 09:50:46 AM

And another thing; You used the Chinese example before; how they faked their videos. Rather shoddy job, of faking it, I mean.
Why wouldn't they be able to ask for assistance from the many space agencies who are supposedly in on it?

Here's what annoys me somewhat about that argument. Frequently FE'ers are forced to defend their belief in The Conspiracy, despite the lack of evidence, by saying that if there was evidence then The Conspiracy could be easily disproved. RE'ers then throw their hands up and dismiss that argument as ludicrous. Then, when evidence of fakery is presented, suddenly RE'ers start using the above argument themselves!


My guess is that the Chinese wing of The Conspiracy is simply not as well funded and/or run as the other branches, due to inexperience or budget constraints associated with the host government. And besides, everyone slips up eventually.

The thing is consistency.
Your conspiracy is consistently inconsistent.
Not to mention  you lot seem to entirely ignore history.
Why is the Chinese wing any different from any other? Why did they fail so blatantly?
I don't doubt that some missions are fake. The thing I doubt is all of them being fake.
I would personally say that half of the Soviet Union's space missions are likely to be fake. Simply because of the speed they did them.
The moon-mission could also be fake, in my mind, could also be.
But all of space exploration? If that were the case; why bother to keep doing it?

The reason I brought up NASA's lack of funding is as money incentives is unlikely further because of this.

The thing is consistency.
Your conspiracy is consistently inconsistent.
Not to mention  you lot seem to entirely ignore history.
Why is the Chinese wing any different from any other? Why did they fail so blatantly?

Wages are notoriously low in China in any industry. Education is also lacking. China does everything cheaply. It only follows that they would be cheap on their fake space program as well.

Quote from: Graff on March 05, 2012, 10:10:37 AM

The thing is consistency.
Your conspiracy is consistently inconsistent.
Not to mention  you lot seem to entirely ignore history.
Why is the Chinese wing any different from any other? Why did they fail so blatantly?

Wages are notoriously low in China for any industry. Education is also lacking. China does everything cheaply. It only follows that they would be cheap on their fake space program as well.

So? Wages were low for the Soviet Union.

Discover's/Bad Astronomy's rebuttals consist solely of "That's really silly" and "Yeeeeeah."

It is widely agreed on throughout this forum that the Chinese spacewalk is likely fake.

False and false. For example:

The movement of the straps and other things hanging off the suit don’t look like they are underwater either; they look like they are in microgravity.

and: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=53459.msg1311017;topicseen#msg1311017

Quote from: Graff on March 05, 2012, 10:10:37 AM

The thing is consistency.
Your conspiracy is consistently inconsistent.
Not to mention  you lot seem to entirely ignore history.
Why is the Chinese wing any different from any other? Why did they fail so blatantly?

Wages are notoriously low in China in any industry. Education is also lacking. China does everything cheaply. It only follows that they would be cheap on their fake space program as well.

That's a non sequitur. Your personal prejudices are showing again. For shame.

Low wages, by US standards, do not imply poor quality, by US standards. The iPad is one counter-example.

The thing is consistency.
Your conspiracy is consistently inconsistent.
Not to mention  you lot seem to entirely ignore history.
Why is the Chinese wing any different from any other? Why did they fail so blatantly?
I don't doubt that some missions are fake. The thing I doubt is all of them being fake.
I would personally say that half of the Soviet Union's space missions are likely to be fake. Simply because of the speed they did them.
The moon-mission could also be fake, in my mind, could also be.
But all of space exploration? If that were the case; why bother to keep doing it?

The reason I brought up NASA's lack of funding is as money incentives is unlikely further because of this.

NASA still gets billions of dollars in funding each year. Moreover, as their budget goes down, so does the cost of the Conspiracy. So long as the budget isn't totally slashed, budget cuts won't make it unprofitable.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 05, 2012, 10:08:44 AM

Discover's/Bad Astronomy's rebuttals consist solely of "That's really silly" and "Yeeeeeah."

It is widely agreed on throughout this forum that the Chinese spacewalk is likely fake.

False and false. For example:

Quote from: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/10/08/did-the-chinese-fake-their-space-walk/

The movement of the straps and other things hanging off the suit don’t look like they are underwater either; they look like they are in microgravity.

and: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=53459.msg1311017;topicseen#msg1311017

That is not an appropriate rebuttal. The straps and flag in the space walk are clearly moving on their own independently of the astronaut. Flowing water flaps " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the flag around wildly with minimal movement on part of the astronaut's hand.

That's a non sequitur. Your personal prejudices are showing again. For shame.

Low wages, by US standards, do not imply poor quality, by US standards. The iPad is one counter-example.

That's not a counter-example. China didn't produce the iPad. Apple did. Apple is an American company operating in China.

That's not a counter-example. China didn't produce the iPad. Apple did. Apple is an American company operating in China.

Again, the Soviet Union had low wages.
Explain that, if you would.

NASA still gets billions of dollars in funding each year. Moreover, as their budget goes down, so does the cost of the Conspiracy. So long as the budget isn't totally slashed, budget cuts won't make it unprofitable.

I can see your point, yes.
But, if that is the case, then the Conspiracy isn't losing its power, but rather gaining it.
As such; again I must ask why China did such a shoddy job.

Like I said, it's probably an inexperienced branch of The Conspiracy, and it's probably not as well funded. Besides, due to the secretive nature of the Chinese state, people are more than willing to attribute any slip-ups to the Party rather than a supranational conspiracy.

Quote from: ClockTower on March 05, 2012, 10:22:46 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 05, 2012, 10:08:44 AM

Discover's/Bad Astronomy's rebuttals consist solely of "That's really silly" and "Yeeeeeah."

It is widely agreed on throughout this forum that the Chinese spacewalk is likely fake.

False and false. For example:

Quote from: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/10/08/did-the-chinese-fake-their-space-walk/

The movement of the straps and other things hanging off the suit don’t look like they are underwater either; they look like they are in microgravity.

and: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=53459.msg1311017;topicseen#msg1311017

That is not an appropriate rebuttal. The straps and flag in the space walk are clearly moving on their own independently of the astronaut. Flowing water flaps " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the flag around wildly with minimal movement on part of the astronaut's hand.

You need to review your outlandish claim and then tell me how the referenced analysis of a renown Ph. D. in the field is not a direct rebuttal of your outlandish claim: "Discover's/Bad Astronomy's rebuttals consist solely of "That's really silly" and "Yeeeeeah."" Surely, he is better than you in determining the expected motion of objects in microgravity than you. If you were better, no doubt you would have published that book of yours, and it would have already outsold Dr. Plait's bestseller: http://www.amazon.com/Death-Skies-These-Ways-World/dp/0670019976.

Quote

That's a non sequitur. Your personal prejudices are showing again. For shame.

Low wages, by US standards, do not imply poor quality, by US standards. The iPad is one counter-example.

That's not a counter-example. China didn't produce the iPad. Apple did. Apple is an American company operating in China.

Your point was that low wages in China resulted in poor quality products. Clearly the high-quality iPad is produced by low-wage workers in China. Please do pay attention.

Like I said, it's probably an inexperienced branch of The Conspiracy, and it's probably not as well funded. Besides, due to the secretive nature of the Chinese state, people are more than willing to attribute any slip-ups to the Party rather than a supranational conspiracy.

You give too much credit, and too little to the Conspiracy.
You claim they have convinced the world that the Earth is round, worked with countless agencies across the world, speaking different languages, under different agencies, and yet; China.
Again, consistencies.

The reason more people are willing to attribute any slip-ups to the Chinese government is likely due to the fact that they are the ones responsible for this. Not the Conspiracy, of whom's record has been to this point flawless.

If the Conspiracy can make a mistake like this; Why not before?

Are you suggesting that in order to make a mistake now, they must have made one before?

Are you suggesting that in order to make a mistake now, they must have made one before?

No, I simply mean to suddenly make a mistake of that scale, likely they ought to have a history of making mistakes of some form or another.

Why, in this day and age, were they not able to catch that, and edit it out?
Why, back when we first landed on the moon, when we did not have things such as photoshop, this not happen?

Again, the Soviet Union had low wages.
Explain that, if you would.

The Soviet Union was a first world nation.

In the Soviet Union if you were poor it meant that you had indoor plumbing, heating, a car, you ate out regularly, and you were educated to a high school level.

In China if you were poor it means that you are living in shack with 8 other people where rice and water is considered a good meal, and you can't read or write.

It's a country where even the affluent members of their society, doctors and engineers, are poor and uneducated by our standards. Buildings regularly collapse in China at the slightest shake or rainstorm, killing thousands, due to China's low quality engineers. It's a country where doctors prescribe homeopathy, herbal treatments, acupuncture, and massages as the main form of medical care.

I can see your point, yes.
But, if that is the case, then the Conspiracy isn't losing its power, but rather gaining it.
As such; again I must ask why China did such a shoddy job.

They did a shoddy job because they have a low quality workforce.

Quote from: Graff on March 05, 2012, 10:41:57 AM

Again, the Soviet Union had low wages.
Explain that, if you would.

The Soviet Union is a first world nation.

In the Soviet Union if you had a low wage it meant that you had indoor plumbing, heating, a car, you ate out regularly, and you are educated to a high school level.

In China if you have a low wage it means that you are living in shack with 8 other people where rice and water is considered a good meal, and can't read or write.

It's a country where even the affluent members of their society, doctors and engineers, are poor and uneducated by our standards. Buildings regularly collapse in China at the slightest shake or rainstorm, killing thousands, due to China's poor quality engineers.

Quote

I can see your point, yes.
But, if that is the case, then the Conspiracy isn't losing its power, but rather gaining it.
As such; again I must ask why China did such a shoddy job.

They did a shoddy job because they have a low quality workforce.

Do you know nothing of the Soviet Union?

The Soviet Union is a first world nation.

No, it is not.
1) The Soviet Union doesn't exist any longer.
2) When it did, it was a second world nation.

Reference: http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/second_world.htm

No, I simply mean to suddenly make a mistake of that scale, likely they ought to have a history of making mistakes of some form or another.

Why, in this day and age, were they not able to catch that, and edit it out?
Why, back when we first landed on the moon, when we did not have things such as photoshop, this not happen?

Why? Why can't this be their first mistake?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 05, 2012, 11:18:27 AM

The Soviet Union is a first world nation.

No, it is not.
1) The Soviet Union doesn't exist any longer.
2) When it did, it was a second world nation.

Reference: http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/second_world.htm

The definition of "first world" on that page is "anyone allied with the United States"

From the Wiki page of First World --

"The concept of the First World first originated during the Cold War, where it was used to describe countries that were aligned with the United States."

Since its original definition, the term First World has come to be largely synonymous with developed countries or highly developed countries

At the time of its dissolution, the Soviet Union was the world's second largest economy and one of the most developed countries in the world, and hence, First World.