Logic behind the conspiracy

Quote from: Alex Tomasovich on August 16, 2013, 08:03:33 AM

I hate to break up the party, but this thread is about the conspiracy, not about space. There's a space travel forum already heavily infested by Scepti in which y'all could continue this 'discussion'.

I'll start a thread for this discussion in FE debate.

Just alter your topic name, it's your topic after all.

Quote from: REphoenix on August 16, 2013, 08:06:02 AM

Quote from: Alex Tomasovich on August 16, 2013, 08:03:33 AM

I hate to break up the party, but this thread is about the conspiracy, not about space. There's a space travel forum already heavily infested by Scepti in which y'all could continue this 'discussion'.

I'll start a thread for this discussion in FE debate.

Just alter your topic name, it's your topic after all.

Too late. And I do want to discuss the conspiracy.

Quote from: REphoenix on August 16, 2013, 07:59:58 AM

1. ice dome wouldn't form like that.
Yes they would.

2. moving galaxies.
Clarify what you personally observe, please.
3. meteors.
Ice crystals or icicles falling from the dome and being vapourised back into their original form over time, depending on their drop size.

4. what causes gravity?
Atmospheric pressure.

5. who painted the stars on the ice dome? Batman? Oompa Loompas? The care bears?
The stars are reflections from the central part of the earth through vibrating crystals moving around it.

6. Why do they move?
Microwave energy or vibration/frequency/sound.

7. where are the other planets?
There are no other planets, they are simply reflections of what's happening on earth.

I will admit I haven't been a visitor to this website as long as a lot of RE's and FE's and haven't had as much experience or expertise except in posting some actual facts, in particular the distance from the earth to the moon and how it has been measured to cite one example.

But my question is about etiquette, tact or diplomacy  on The Flat Earth Society Forum.

How do you respond to posts from FE's such as sceptimatic- even if they are complete nonsense -  without sounding rude, offensive or impolite ?

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 16, 2013, 08:07:24 AM

Quote from: REphoenix on August 16, 2013, 07:59:58 AM

1. ice dome wouldn't form like that.
Yes they would.

2. moving galaxies.
Clarify what you personally observe, please.
3. meteors.
Ice crystals or icicles falling from the dome and being vapourised back into their original form over time, depending on their drop size.

4. what causes gravity?
Atmospheric pressure.

5. who painted the stars on the ice dome? Batman? Oompa Loompas? The care bears?
The stars are reflections from the central part of the earth through vibrating crystals moving around it.

6. Why do they move?
Microwave energy or vibration/frequency/sound.

7. where are the other planets?
There are no other planets, they are simply reflections of what's happening on earth.

I will admit I haven't been a visitor to this website as long as a lot of RE's and FE's and haven't had as much experience or expertise except in posting some actual facts, in particular the distance from the earth to the moon and how it has been measured to cite one example.

But my question is about etiquette, tact or diplomacy  on The Flat Earth Society Forum.

How do you respond to posts from FE's such as sceptimatic without sounding rude, offensive or impolite ?

Not to sound rude, offensive, or impolite, but this question should probably have it's own topic, keeping this one clear for FEers to validate the logic behind The Conspiracy.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 16, 2013, 08:07:24 AM

Quote from: REphoenix on August 16, 2013, 07:59:58 AM

1. ice dome wouldn't form like that.
Yes they would.

2. moving galaxies.
Clarify what you personally observe, please.
3. meteors.
Ice crystals or icicles falling from the dome and being vapourised back into their original form over time, depending on their drop size.

4. what causes gravity?
Atmospheric pressure.

5. who painted the stars on the ice dome? Batman? Oompa Loompas? The care bears?
The stars are reflections from the central part of the earth through vibrating crystals moving around it.

6. Why do they move?
Microwave energy or vibration/frequency/sound.

7. where are the other planets?
There are no other planets, they are simply reflections of what's happening on earth.

I will admit I haven't been a visitor to this website as long as a lot of RE's and FE's and haven't had as much experience or expertise except in posting some actual facts, in particular the distance from the earth to the moon and how it has been measured to cite one example.

But my question is about etiquette, tact or diplomacy  on The Flat Earth Society Forum.

How do you respond to posts from FE's such as sceptimatic- even if they are complete nonsense -  without sounding rude, offensive or impolite ?

Either pm me, use the angry ranting or simply treat me for what you believe I am and totally ignore me.
Many seem to do it just fine. Try it.

Quote from: Googleotomy on August 16, 2013, 10:14:17 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 16, 2013, 08:07:24 AM

Quote from: REphoenix on August 16, 2013, 07:59:58 AM

1. ice dome wouldn't form like that.
Yes they would.

2. moving galaxies.
Clarify what you personally observe, please.
3. meteors.
Ice crystals or icicles falling from the dome and being vapourised back into their original form over time, depending on their drop size.

4. what causes gravity?
Atmospheric pressure.

5. who painted the stars on the ice dome? Batman? Oompa Loompas? The care bears?
The stars are reflections from the central part of the earth through vibrating crystals moving around it.

6. Why do they move?
Microwave energy or vibration/frequency/sound.

7. where are the other planets?
There are no other planets, they are simply reflections of what's happening on earth.

I will admit I haven't been a visitor to this website as long as a lot of RE's and FE's and haven't had as much experience or expertise except in posting some actual facts, in particular the distance from the earth to the moon and how it has been measured to cite one example.

But my question is about etiquette, tact or diplomacy  on The Flat Earth Society Forum.

How do you respond to posts from FE's such as sceptimatic without sounding rude, offensive or impolite ?

Not to sound rude, offensive, or impolite, but this question should probably have it's own topic, keeping this one clear for FEers to validate the logic behind The Conspiracy.

Right !
Just wondering what sceptimatic's post had to do with the validation of the logic behind The Conspiracy ? Guess I'd better let y'all deal with that . LOL. I'm going to go back into the listening mode.

Quote from: Alex Tomasovich on August 16, 2013, 10:18:28 AM

Quote from: Googleotomy on August 16, 2013, 10:14:17 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 16, 2013, 08:07:24 AM

Quote from: REphoenix on August 16, 2013, 07:59:58 AM

1. ice dome wouldn't form like that.
Yes they would.

2. moving galaxies.
Clarify what you personally observe, please.
3. meteors.
Ice crystals or icicles falling from the dome and being vapourised back into their original form over time, depending on their drop size.

4. what causes gravity?
Atmospheric pressure.

5. who painted the stars on the ice dome? Batman? Oompa Loompas? The care bears?
The stars are reflections from the central part of the earth through vibrating crystals moving around it.

6. Why do they move?
Microwave energy or vibration/frequency/sound.

7. where are the other planets?
There are no other planets, they are simply reflections of what's happening on earth.

I will admit I haven't been a visitor to this website as long as a lot of RE's and FE's and haven't had as much experience or expertise except in posting some actual facts, in particular the distance from the earth to the moon and how it has been measured to cite one example.

But my question is about etiquette, tact or diplomacy  on The Flat Earth Society Forum.

How do you respond to posts from FE's such as sceptimatic without sounding rude, offensive or impolite ?

Not to sound rude, offensive, or impolite, but this question should probably have it's own topic, keeping this one clear for FEers to validate the logic behind The Conspiracy.

Right !
Just wondering what sceptimatic's post had to do with the validation of the logic behind The Conspiracy ?

Oh, sorry. It doesn't, which is why that whole conversation has been moved to another thread. And already has 3 pages of posts and is currently 'discussing' what has been discussed with Scepti about 5 times previously.

But enough about that. I'm ready to hear some logic about The Conspiracy!

Quote from: Googleotomy on August 16, 2013, 10:24:29 AM

Quote from: Alex Tomasovich on August 16, 2013, 10:18:28 AM

Quote from: Googleotomy on August 16, 2013, 10:14:17 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 16, 2013, 08:07:24 AM

Quote from: REphoenix on August 16, 2013, 07:59:58 AM

1. ice dome wouldn't form like that.
Yes they would.

2. moving galaxies.
Clarify what you personally observe, please.
3. meteors.
Ice crystals or icicles falling from the dome and being vapourised back into their original form over time, depending on their drop size.

4. what causes gravity?
Atmospheric pressure.

5. who painted the stars on the ice dome? Batman? Oompa Loompas? The care bears?
The stars are reflections from the central part of the earth through vibrating crystals moving around it.

6. Why do they move?
Microwave energy or vibration/frequency/sound.

7. where are the other planets?
There are no other planets, they are simply reflections of what's happening on earth.

I will admit I haven't been a visitor to this website as long as a lot of RE's and FE's and haven't had as much experience or expertise except in posting some actual facts, in particular the distance from the earth to the moon and how it has been measured to cite one example.

But my question is about etiquette, tact or diplomacy  on The Flat Earth Society Forum.

How do you respond to posts from FE's such as sceptimatic without sounding rude, offensive or impolite ?

Not to sound rude, offensive, or impolite, but this question should probably have it's own topic, keeping this one clear for FEers to validate the logic behind The Conspiracy.

Right !
Just wondering what sceptimatic's post had to do with the validation of the logic behind The Conspiracy ?

Oh, sorry. It doesn't, which is why that whole conversation has been moved to another thread. And already has 3 pages of posts and is currently 'discussing' what has been discussed with Scepti about 5 times previously.

But enough about that. I'm ready to hear some logic about The Conspiracy!

Enough about that, too :
But one last comment :
I've been ready to hear some logic about the Conspiracy, too...Since:
"25-03-2013  07:03:18"

Believe it or not, your description of YOUR version of FE is part of why im here. I do not believe in FE but I love the ways my imagination takes off when some of theses versions are described. Perhaps I came off too harsh as im not here to troll or pick fights. Im here to share ideas. I guess I just get frustrated when the back and forth continues to go nowhere and it seems no one in the FES has any desire to go any further than thought experiments.

There are obstacles that require vast sacrifices that in the end aren't even worth making given the current state of the world. At this point expeditions aren't even necessary because who cares about convincing the gen-pop. It's more like this is a hobby we are discussing amongst ourselves for personal enlightenment. You see the few of us who know, didn't even need some supreme expedition for us to realize the truth.

So who cares about gen-pop anyway, its not like we are trying to start a revolution. Please...Lets all just stay in our comfort zones.

No one seems to consider the flip side, that all evidence of a flat Earth has been fabricated.

No one seems to consider the flip side, that all evidence of a flat Earth has been fabricated.

It is hard to imagine that much evidence could be fabricated.  It does not seem possible. 

Quote from: Katamariguy on August 16, 2013, 07:44:41 PM

No one seems to consider the flip side, that all evidence of a flat Earth has been fabricated.

It is hard to imagine that much evidence could be fabricated.  It does not seem possible.

Oh, the unmitigated irony of this statement.

You say this, but at the same time, claim that all evidence of the Round Earth IS fabricated.

Quote from: jroa on August 17, 2013, 11:00:54 PM

Quote from: Katamariguy on August 16, 2013, 07:44:41 PM

No one seems to consider the flip side, that all evidence of a flat Earth has been fabricated.

It is hard to imagine that much evidence could be fabricated.  It does not seem possible.

Oh, the unmitigated irony of this statement.

You say this, but at the same time, claim that all evidence of the Round Earth IS fabricated.

Most RE'ers are simply wrong because they assume the Earth is round and make evidence fit their model.  I am sure that there is some fabrication going on, but I don't think there is very much.

Quote from: hewholikespie on August 17, 2013, 11:45:27 PM

Quote from: jroa on August 17, 2013, 11:00:54 PM

Quote from: Katamariguy on August 16, 2013, 07:44:41 PM

No one seems to consider the flip side, that all evidence of a flat Earth has been fabricated.

It is hard to imagine that much evidence could be fabricated.  It does not seem possible.

Oh, the unmitigated irony of this statement.

You say this, but at the same time, claim that all evidence of the Round Earth IS fabricated.

Most RE'ers are simply wrong because they assume the Earth is round and make evidence fit their model.  I am sure that there is some fabrication going on, but I don't think there is very much.

That is even more ironic. That is exactly what FE is doing IMHO.

You admit in the wiki that nobody ever thinks that NASA is a conspiracy unless the believe in FE.

Many thousands, possibly millions, believe in NASA conspiracies. Only some small part of those people are flat earthers.

No one seems to consider the flip side, that all evidence of a flat Earth has been fabricated.

Precisely how does one fabricate direct observation?   

Quote from: Katamariguy on August 16, 2013, 07:44:41 PM

No one seems to consider the flip side, that all evidence of a flat Earth has been fabricated.

Precisely how does one fabricate direct observation?   

Considering you have never perceived the entirety of a planar Earth, and that locally, the Earth varies between quite flat to mountainous, I would say you fabricate it by doing what you just did.

That act of induction seems more sound than globularisms leap of faith to me. Allow me to differ.

Quote from: Katamariguy on August 16, 2013, 07:44:41 PM

No one seems to consider the flip side, that all evidence of a flat Earth has been fabricated.

Precisely how does one fabricate direct observation?   

Well, when confronted with observations against your hypothesis, you claim they're fabricated, so let's ask you. How does one fabricate direct observation?

You may directly observe something I have not; isn't that possible? Your observation, even assuming it was legitimate, is not my direct observation. You are not supplying me with direct observation. Indeed on this forum, I'm usually supplied with third source observations. Feel free to make your own direct observations and see if they do not coincide with mine.

You may directly observe something I have not; isn't that possible? Your observation, even assuming it was legitimate, is not my direct observation. You are not supplying me with direct observation. Indeed on this forum, I'm usually supplied with third source observations. Feel free to make your own direct observations and see if they do not coincide with mine.

I have and I'd like to check if they coincide with your observations but I've not seen any of yours.

Sadly, this has nothing to do with "Logic behind the conspiracy."

The conspiracy at root is illogical. It depends on keeping the masses in the dark for base greed. It becomes increasingly clear that the truth will one day be known.

The conspiracy at root is illogical. It depends on keeping the masses in the dark for base greed. It becomes increasingly clear that the truth will one day be known.

What would have been gained by hiding the shape of the Earth before space flight?

Hiding the shape of the earth or the workings of it all can be down to worshipping the sun god or such stuff like that, possibly.

Hiding the shape of the earth or the workings of it all can be down to worshipping the sun god or such stuff like that, possibly.

Please expand on this. As far as I can tell the idea that the earth is a special case in the vast cosmos, that the Earth is the center of the universe and that everything we observe literally revolves around it would be incredibly strong ammunition for any religious organisation.

Quote from: Ski on August 21, 2013, 03:49:59 PM

The conspiracy at root is illogical. It depends on keeping the masses in the dark for base greed. It becomes increasingly clear that the truth will one day be known.

What would have been gained by hiding the shape of the Earth before space flight?

How would we know that they were?

Quote from: Manarq on August 22, 2013, 06:47:34 AM

Quote from: Ski on August 21, 2013, 03:49:59 PM

The conspiracy at root is illogical. It depends on keeping the masses in the dark for base greed. It becomes increasingly clear that the truth will one day be known.

What would have been gained by hiding the shape of the Earth before space flight?

How would we know that they were?

Geodesy

Did you mean to finish the post with "... does not prove they were hiding the shape of the earth"?

 

Did you mean to finish the post with "... does not prove they were hiding the shape of the earth"?

The question "How would we (commoners) know they (governments?) were hiding the shape of the Earth?" was answered with "Geodesy" where commoners can use tools to map and measure the Earth--as has been done long before Sputnik.

So how would we know they were hiding the shape of the Earth? IF Geodesy disagrees with what 'they' are saying, they're hiding something.

You are jumping ahead as you have not demonstrated they were hiding the shape of the earth as opposed to simply in error.