ISS is not in space

If someone leaks nuclear secrets onto an internet website, those secrets aren't going to stay leaked on the internet for very long. The government will deal with such things instantly, sending out however many warrants it takes. Secrets may be transmitted from one party to another, but something like that will never be leaked to the public at large.

Web sites aren't the only way for leaks to propagate.  The decentralized nature of the internet, anonymous email accounts, IP address spoofing and the like can make leaks tough to track down, even for the government.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 27, 2013, 08:20:39 PM

If someone leaks nuclear secrets onto an internet website, those secrets aren't going to stay leaked on the internet for very long. The government will deal with such things instantly, sending out however many warrants it takes. Secrets may be transmitted from one party to another, but something like that will never be leaked to the public at large.

Web sites aren't the only way for leaks to propagate.  The decentralized nature of the internet, anonymous email accounts, IP address spoofing and the like can make leaks tough to track down, even for the government.

Like I said, leaks may be transmitted from one party to another, but something like that will never be leaked to the public at large. If someone leaked maps of all the secret US Nuclear Missile Silos around the US, it's not going to stay on the public internet for very long. Any ISP will take it down within minutes of a call from the government, even without a warrant, and probably even on their own volition, without needing a take down request at all.

Even overseas webhosts aren't going to host US Top Secret documents. The US Government controls the main top level domain registrars and can filter the main internet backbones, and raids on foreign data centers are not unheard of.

Tom,

Firstly, comparing government secrets (that are an issue of national security) to a global coverup like you think is happening, you will see they aren't really balanced. If a government employee throws government secrets out into the world, he stands to gain nothing, most likely a prison sentence or death.

But if a group of 4-5 astronauts, who have been in space, stand up and do media coverage of the NASA coverup, they don't risk prison, NASA can't just kill them after they've been exposed, and there's really no stopping the snowball effect, as more and more people hear and get involved in it.

Also, "within minutes" is an eternity on the internet. By that time, if it's a big thing, it'll have been copied to thousands of hard drives. Many government secrets have been leaked like this before. Most of them can't be perfectly contained once out.

Basically, it would take no time whatsoever for the astronauts to expose this NASA conspiracy if they wanted to, so either NASA gives them whatever the hell they ask, or, alternatively, there's no conspiracy, and that makes the most sense.

Yes, covering a thing like up this might've been possible in the days before the internet. But these days, I believe it's utterly impossible. If there was any conspiracy, it would've surfaced by now.

Like I said, information on the internet can't really be controlled like that. So it should be the case of employees being payed enough to shut their mouths. Which brings me back to the budget argument. Either NASA makes much more money than their budget, or the whole conspiracy isn't possible. I'm leaning toward the latter, of course.

If it had surfaced already, then it wouldn't be a conspiracy anymore, as everyone would know about it. You mean there are a few old, ambiguous references which can be interpreted as possible attempts to surface. That's not conclusive, though it may seem like it if you really want it to be true.

I don't expect to be told the truth either, but I also don't consider everything I know about anything as the absolute truth. There's some things I'm very informed in, and some things I just have an opinion about, and some things I can't even get information on.

For instance, talking conspiracies: I consider it entirely possible that 9/11 was somehow orchestrated by the US.

I don't know for sure, and I'm certain I'll never find out whether it's true or not, and I don't consider it to be the truth either, just a possibility. It doesn't really change anything to me anyway, whether it's true or not. I'm not a US citizen, this is their issue, I don't care.

My point is, if it's anything that by its nature doesn't provide enough information, you can never know for sure if it is true or not. You can only guess and theorize. And no matter how much I theorize, while I can consider the 9/11 conspiracy to be possible, I can't consider this NASA conspiracy to be possible. The information I have and my own brain processes just tell me that it doesn't work out.

PS: Videos being taken down don't matter on the internet. Like I said, a few minutes are an eternity there, and if the subject is controversial and it's an important subject (which this certainly qualifies as), the video gets copied and downloaded thousands of times before it's taken down. That means it can't be stopped anymore.

Of course, some random guy talking about the conspiracy doesn't get this attention, since there's nothing supporting he knows anything about it (and in fact, doesn't). But actual, known astronauts and other NASA employees doing the same thing is sure to be an instant attention magnet. Once such a video was posted, there would be no way to "take it down". It'd just pop back up again, and gain even more attention, instantly.

Point is, people are not asleep. They just use the information they get.

You can't say for certain something like this conspiracy is true, since you don't actually have information about it. You can analyze and theorycraft and have opinions and beliefs, but you can't be certain it's true. There's nothing telling you that.

And if you start all points of view with already being absolutely sure something like this is true, you will inevitably fall into a trap set by your own thoughts. If before analysis you assume you know something to be true, your brain will automatically ignore any evidence to the contrary, no matter how hard, and focus on anything that can be interpreted as supporting it. This is not a good thought process and can very easily lead to further misinformation and beliefs.

Again, I'm not saying any conspiracy theory is automatically false. I'm saying that by assuming it to be true, you can very easily fall into a downward spiral of thoughts that reinforce your belief in it being true and ignore anything else.

Quote from: icanbeanything on May 28, 2013, 12:50:54 AM

Tom,

Firstly, comparing government secrets (that are an issue of national security) to a global coverup like you think is happening, you will see they aren't really balanced. If a government employee throws government secrets out into the world, he stands to gain nothing, most likely a prison sentence or death.

But if a group of 4-5 astronauts, who have been in space, stand up and do media coverage of the NASA coverup, they don't risk prison, NASA can't just kill them after they've been exposed, and there's really no stopping the snowball effect, as more and more people hear and get involved in it.

Also, "within minutes" is an eternity on the internet. By that time, if it's a big thing, it'll have been copied to thousands of hard drives. Many government secrets have been leaked like this before. Most of them can't be perfectly contained once out.

Basically, it would take no time whatsoever for the astronauts to expose this NASA conspiracy if they wanted to, so either NASA gives them whatever the hell they ask, or, alternatively, there's no conspiracy, and that makes the most sense.

There appears to have been many people , astronauts included that have attempted to talk and leave cryptic clues etc.

They leave cryptic clues...? That is too far fetched. You are looking for things which aren't there. IMO, it fits the disorder I mentioned before.

They leave cryptic clues...? That is too far fetched. You are looking for things which aren't there. IMO, it fits the disorder I mentioned before.

Yeah, cryptic clues is very far-fetched. No sane person in that situation would try to leave cryptic clues. When your "enemy" is a powerful organization, it's much more likely they will decipher your clues way before any average person.

On the other hand, it's very easy to consider something a cryptic clue when in reality it isn't. The human brain sees patterns in everything.

When people see things that are blatant and defy the laws of physics as they know them, then I can only surmise 2 things.
1. They are so brainwashed that they will deny anything against official lines.
2. They are shills, who either know it's fake or are simply paid to simply deny anything without actually knowing what the real truth is.

That's just my opinion.

Alright. However, I don't see anything that defies the laws of physics as I know them, and I know them fairly well.

You seem to think I have been brainwashed. I seem to think you are a bit too low on that spiral I described earlier. It is obvious we will probably never get a resolution about this matter. I honestly hope neither of us is right, however. In the meantime, I will continue enjoying the conversations we have, I just feel this topic in particular is futile.

Before I make any view either way, I scrutinise stuff. I don't just dive straight in and say, " oh, I don;t need to see this, I know it's fake"...I actually do scrutinise things.

Judging from your posting history and your inability to grasp such fundamental concepts as Newton's laws of motion, I find your statement hard to believe.

Quote from: markjo on May 29, 2013, 06:15:30 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 29, 2013, 05:17:59 AM

Before I make any view either way, I scrutinise stuff. I don't just dive straight in and say, " oh, I don;t need to see this, I know it's fake"...I actually do scrutinise things.

Judging from your posting history and your inability to grasp such fundamental concepts as Newton's laws of motion, I find your statement hard to believe.

Believe what you like, it doesn't affect me either way.

Yes, we get that you seem to be impervious to learning anything new.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 29, 2013, 05:17:59 AM

Before I make any view either way, I scrutinise stuff. I don't just dive straight in and say, " oh, I don;t need to see this, I know it's fake"...I actually do scrutinise things.

Judging from your posting history and your inability to grasp such fundamental concepts as Newton's laws of motion, I find your statement hard to believe.

Newton? He was a part of the conspiracy, wasn't he? 

Quote from: Puttah on May 29, 2013, 06:32:39 AM

Quote from: markjo on May 29, 2013, 06:15:30 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 29, 2013, 05:17:59 AM

Before I make any view either way, I scrutinise stuff. I don't just dive straight in and say, " oh, I don;t need to see this, I know it's fake"...I actually do scrutinise things.

Judging from your posting history and your inability to grasp such fundamental concepts as Newton's laws of motion, I find your statement hard to believe.

Newton? He was a part of the conspiracy, wasn't he? 

No. He was simply used as a name to further an agenda, just like many others have, in my opinion.
The history we are told is not the real history I don't think.
Our history is a great big fabrication.

Whether Newton drafted the equations or Gibson did,  it doesn't change the fact that the equations work in the real world.

This man (I believe) has spent his entire life from 1969, a very troubled man. A man that actually had scruples and a conscience.
#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Neil Armstrong's Cryptic Speech

So you get your information out of this 'cryptic' message. The fact he is sobbing and he said something similar like the young students "will remove thruth protective layers". You totally interpret that as that there is a conspiracy, but as he started. They did a job (going to the moon, making the baby steps) and now the young students are there to get it even further, to discover what else the universe has to offer. Back in the 60s they did not understand as much of the universe as we do today.

He was not onto something, he never questioned he went to the moon and if all these new students should be onto something that men like Neil Armstrong discovered about this conspiracy, how come the vast mayority is not bothered about it. Look at how small this community is which proclaim the earth is flat. Look how many times we have debunked the FEH and shown you the issues. If there was really thruth in your FEH, then more people would be onto it and you would have answers to the issues we have raised.

You may think you are doing a heroic act, but all you do is making up stories. It reminds me of a movie "A Beautiful Mind", a true story about a professor who suffered paranoid schizophrenia. After 25 years he finally discovered himself he was hallucinating three people who seemed to be all too real to him.

I am not a psychiatrist myself, but you already replied that either:

1. They are so brainwashed that they will deny anything against official lines.
2. They are shills, who either know it's fake or are simply paid to simply deny anything without actually knowing what the real truth is.

When I have a look at Paranoid personality disorder. It is described as:

  Individuals with this personality disorder may be hypersensitive, easily feel slighted, and habitually relate to the world by vigilant scanning of the environment for clues or suggestions that may validate their fears or biases

You made up two options for yourself to confirm your bias.

then I can only surmise 2 things.

You do not even consider the option
I am wrong, they are right.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 29, 2013, 05:23:02 AM

This man (I believe) has spent his entire life from 1969, a very troubled man. A man that actually had scruples and a conscience.
#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Neil Armstrong's Cryptic Speech

So you get your information out of this 'cryptic' message. The fact he is sobbing and he said something similar like the young students "will remove truth's protective layers".

It sounds like he is saying that the truth we know is false.

Quote from: Lolflatdisc on May 29, 2013, 06:53:21 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 29, 2013, 05:23:02 AM

This man (I believe) has spent his entire life from 1969, a very troubled man. A man that actually had scruples and a conscience.
#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Neil Armstrong's Cryptic Speech

So you get your information out of this 'cryptic' message. The fact he is sobbing and he said something similar like the young students "will remove truth's protective layers".

It sounds like he is saying that the truth we know is false.

Or he could be telling the students to be imaginative and creative in scientific endeavors.   The greatest breakthroughs in science do not come from upholding a view in a protected bubble,  but from testing the view and delving deeper.  There are many interpretations and Neil Armstrong is likely the only person that will ever know what he meant. 

You say, "look at how many flat earth believers there is"...I can say, go outside and look at how many earth worms are in your garden. Very few, yet underneath there are hundreds if not thousands in your area alone.

A lot of those worms know that once they pop their heads out of the ground, they are sitting ducks to be plucked away from it and devoured.
People are getting wiser to all the bull crap, that's why you have so many debunkers on patrol to make sure it doesn't reach any kind of level where their voices will be heard far and wide and heeded.

Debunkers are "on patrol" for the integrity of knowledge.   Without debunkers there would be not stop claims of all sorts being passed off as 100% truth, like a picture of a unicorn out mermaid.  Conspiracy theorists critically analyze the official evidence and debunkers critically analyze the conspiracy evidence.

Quote from: DuckDodgers on May 29, 2013, 07:13:22 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 29, 2013, 07:07:14 AM

You say, "look at how many flat earth believers there is"...I can say, go outside and look at how many earth worms are in your garden. Very few, yet underneath there are hundreds if not thousands in your area alone.

A lot of those worms know that once they pop their heads out of the ground, they are sitting ducks to be plucked away from it and devoured.
People are getting wiser to all the bull crap, that's why you have so many debunkers on patrol to make sure it doesn't reach any kind of level where their voices will be heard far and wide and heeded.

Debunkers are "on patrol" for the integrity of knowledge.   Without debunkers there would be not stop claims of all sorts being passed off as 100% truth, like a picture of a unicorn out mermaid.  Conspiracy theorists critically analyze the official evidence and debunkers critically analyze the conspiracy evidence.

Most people that want the truth, AKA, "conspiracy theorists" do so to allow people to gain real knowledge instead of the bullshit that's constantly fed to the masses.

Or to validate a preconceived notion or to alleviate a fear of a randomly chaotic universe that is not being controlled by someone oora group of people.   There are several reasons for conspiracy theorists to promote their vviews,  it is rarely out of pure concern for society.

The guilt displayed on his face. every time he's ever had to come out in public should tell anyone that is awake, as to what really went on.

He's basically telling students that they can make great discoveries but only if the truth comes out, instead of being hidden from them.
You don't make a statement like he did for it not to mean anything other than the truth is masked by the lies.

It is also very easy to see something that's not there, if you already think it's there beforehand.

Quote from: icanbeanything on May 29, 2013, 07:40:26 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 29, 2013, 07:15:16 AM

The guilt displayed on his face. every time he's ever had to come out in public should tell anyone that is awake, as to what really went on.

He's basically telling students that they can make great discoveries but only if the truth comes out, instead of being hidden from them.
You don't make a statement like he did for it not to mean anything other than the truth is masked by the lies.

It is also very easy to see something that's not there, if you already think it's there beforehand.

It's also very easy to hum a song that someone has hummed all day long, because it sort of gets ingrained into your mind.
It's a bit like seeing a rotating round earth at every turn in life. You automatically see it and believe it.
Just like you'll hum the same tune of the professor that bashes his theories into your skull time and time again.

Like I said, see how this topic is pointless? You think I'm brainwashed because I don't see something while you clearly see it. I think I'm fine and you're seeing things that aren't there.

It is logical that with this predicament we cannot reach a conclusion regarding this topic.

Obviously, we can't physically prove any claim while debating on a forum.

Quote from: Lolflatdisc on May 29, 2013, 06:53:21 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 29, 2013, 05:23:02 AM

This man (I believe) has spent his entire life from 1969, a very troubled man. A man that actually had scruples and a conscience.
#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Neil Armstrong's Cryptic Speech

So you get your information out of this 'cryptic' message. The fact he is sobbing and he said something similar like the young students "will remove truth's protective layers".

It sounds like he is saying that the truth we know is false.

No, to me it means that we don't know yet the full thruth, but as we continue to investigate and discover more, we will learn more about the mysteries of the universe. We will peel off layers to get to a wider picture of the universe. We do not know yet why or how the universe started. We only know through our observations that at one point it must have been together in one point. We only know what it has been, based on our most current findings. Who knows what for example the scientists at CERN will find and what kind of layers they will peel off to get closer to the thruth.

Neil Armstrong was talking about these steps. They paved the way for next generations to discover more. The next generation does not have to re-invent the wheel to get started. They will base their discoveries on what previous scientists have found. Since no one is born with the knowledge we have schools which start at the very basic and show you that the very basics are right. Hence in physic and chemistry class many examples and real-life experiments. When I was in school we also did all kinds of tests to see for ourselves how it works. Sometimes these experiments go wrong and we see these kind of videos 
#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Science Teacher's Experiment Gone Wrong!

Quote from: icanbeanything on May 29, 2013, 09:05:37 AM

Obviously, we can't physically prove any claim while debating on a forum.

Nor can we physically prove it if we were face to face, with any definitive proof that would be accepted as that.

Of course, we could just go outside and start making our own observations of the world we live in, independent of the media or anything else we have been told. If the observations are made with care, and assessed without bias*, the truth of the matter will become clear.

* When I say "assessed without bias", I mean that, when you look at something, you don't ask yourself "what does this tell me about a flat earth", or "what does this tell me about a round earth". I mean, ask yourself "what does this tell me about earth?" I have done this myself, and everything I have seen tells me that, although the earth looks flat when I am standing on the ground, it can't be, because there are just too many things that only work if it is round.

Quote from: icanbeanything on May 29, 2013, 09:05:37 AM

Obviously, we can't physically prove any claim while debating on a forum.

Nor can we physically prove it if we were face to face, with any definitive proof that would be accepted as that.

You can conduct experiments and make direct observations, and since it's face-to-face, nobody can say the other party is making things up, since you can see them too. It would, however, take a long time.

Quote from: icanbeanything on May 29, 2013, 09:41:19 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 29, 2013, 09:08:07 AM

Quote from: icanbeanything on May 29, 2013, 09:05:37 AM

Obviously, we can't physically prove any claim while debating on a forum.

Nor can we physically prove it if we were face to face, with any definitive proof that would be accepted as that.

You can conduct experiments and make direct observations, and since it's face-to-face, nobody can say the other party is making things up, since you can see them too. It would, however, take a long time.

And probably end up with both parties throttling each other unless they both saw it all the same way. 

I don't know, I usually keep calm. If I get angry for something, I usually just turn to sarcasm.

It's also much easier to explain things face to face.

Quote from: icanbeanything on May 29, 2013, 09:41:19 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 29, 2013, 09:08:07 AM

Quote from: icanbeanything on May 29, 2013, 09:05:37 AM

Obviously, we can't physically prove any claim while debating on a forum.

Nor can we physically prove it if we were face to face, with any definitive proof that would be accepted as that.

You can conduct experiments and make direct observations, and since it's face-to-face, nobody can say the other party is making things up, since you can see them too. It would, however, take a long time.

And probably end up with both parties throttling each other unless they both saw it all the same way. 

We have seen what comes from this,  hurt feelings, death threats,  lawsuits, and slander.   Check the Wallace stuff.

Like I said, leaks may be transmitted from one party to another, but something like that will never be leaked to the public at large. If someone leaked maps of all the secret US Nuclear Missile Silos around the US, it's not going to stay on the public internet for very long. Any ISP will take it down within minutes of a call from the government, even without a warrant, and probably even on their own volition, without needing a take down request at all.

Even overseas webhosts aren't going to host US Top Secret documents. The US Government controls the main top level domain registrars and can filter the main internet backbones, and raids on foreign data centers are not unheard of.

I don't think you understand how the internet works.  "Filter the main internet backbones"?  What are you talking about?  The State Dept should have used it's awesome-delete-o-tron machine to delete the Wikileaks from the internet.  Why didn't they just filter the main internet backbones with ISP-sniffing router block deleters and hyper-machine link eraser code?  Wouldn't the ISPs have just erased that information from the internet after getting a call from the government?  I mean, they can just hit the 'erase that from the internet' button, right?

Anyone with direct evidence of the conspiracy could virtually instantly distribute that information globally and publicly at virtually no risk to herself.  Take ten minutes to email it to every journalist for whom you can find an address.  You could then take another five minutes and email it to politicians, academics, police officers, foreign governments, torrent sites, blogs, facebook, twitter, the local weather person, the GAO, the FBI, John Boehner, Tom Brady, whoever else.  That would take you no time at all, and you could do it totally anonymously.

Of course, we could just go outside and start making our own observations of the world we live in, independent of the media or anything else we have been told. If the observations are made with care, and assessed without bias*, the truth of the matter will become clear.

* When I say "assessed without bias", I mean that, when you look at something, you don't ask yourself "what does this tell me about a flat earth", or "what does this tell me about a round earth". I mean, ask yourself "what does this tell me about earth?" I have done this myself, and everything I have seen tells me that, although the earth looks flat when I am standing on the ground, it can't be, because there are just too many things that only work if it is round.

Agreed.

But when scepti with his superior logic sees the sun fall below the horizon, he can only conclude that the sun never falls below the Earth but is moving away from him at a constant height above a flat Earth into the distance.

It's obvious examples like this that show without a shadow of a doubt that he isn't basing his conclusions on what he thinks he's seeing, but rather skewing his interpretations of the results to work with a flat Earth.

I wouldn't expect you to see it any other way to be fair.

How could I see it any other way? The sun falls into the horizon, not into the distance.