General rebuttal to FET

IGNORE THE STUPID MAP DEBATE

How do you explain the trans-antarctic expedition jroa? HOW

Can you explain your question a little further?

in 1956 a group of explorers (including Sir Edmund Hillary) set off from Shackleton Base in Antarctica, trekked until they reached the South pole, then kept on trekking to get to McMurdo base on the opposite side of antarctica. How does FET account for thi?

Maybe they lied.  Or, maybe they were mistaken.  Or, maybe they were tricked into thinking they were someplace they were not.  Or, maybe they just walked around the icewall and did not realized it.

I don't know.  I was not there, and neither were you.

Oh, well, since you weren't there, and neither was I, then it CAN't be ruled out that it was faked.

Applying this logic means that ANY knowledge we ever gain by means other than pure observation cannot be trusted because we weren't there.

Moon Landings- can't be proven, neither of us were there.
Existence of indonesia-can't be proven, neither of us are there right now.
Nazi Germany was led by Hitler- can't be proven, neither of us were there.
William Shakespeare wrote "Hamlet"- can't be proven, neither of us were there.
New York still exists- can't be proven, neither of us are there. (assumption)
Obama is president of the US- can't be proven, neither of us are there.

To claim that something is fallible because neither of us were/are there is preposterous and counter-progress, as it means that anything we learn must be immediately disregarded as fallible.

So, on this line of logic, we must doubt everything except what we can reason ourselves.

So let us undertake a hypothetical line of logic.
Let us assume the Earth is flat.
most of the 7 billion inhabitants of the planet are mistaken, and have been kept in the dark about this by a conspiracy of some description.
So this conspiracy is very well-executed, as it encompasses 99% of the Earth's population.
How much would this conspiracy cost?
"Space Weightlessness": Average cost of hyper-realistic CGI in movies: $45 000/min
Hours worth of ISS footage are beamed down daily, very rough estimated cost: $4,000,000/day=1,460,000,000/year.
Not to mention that animation takes an average of 6 hours to create per minute of footage, but we'll ignore that.
To sum up all of the necessary costs would be futile, but my question is simple: what is the point?
How much profit can be made from convincing the people of Earth that the land is round, when it's really flat?

Oh, well, since you weren't there, and neither was I, then it CAN't be ruled out that it was faked.

Applying this logic means that ANY knowledge we ever gain by means other than pure observation cannot be trusted because we weren't there.

Moon Landings- can't be proven, neither of us were there.
Existence of indonesia-can't be proven, neither of us are there right now.
Nazi Germany was led by Hitler- can't be proven, neither of us were there.
William Shakespeare wrote "Hamlet"- can't be proven, neither of us were there.
New York still exists- can't be proven, neither of us are there. (assumption)
Obama is president of the US- can't be proven, neither of us are there.

To claim that something is fallible because neither of us were/are there is preposterous and counter-progress, as it means that anything we learn must be immediately disregarded as fallible.

So, on this line of logic, we must doubt everything except what we can reason ourselves.

So let us undertake a hypothetical line of logic.
Let us assume the Earth is flat.
most of the 7 billion inhabitants of the planet are mistaken, and have been kept in the dark about this by a conspiracy of some description.
So this conspiracy is very well-executed, as it encompasses 99% of the Earth's population.
How much would this conspiracy cost?
"Space Weightlessness": Average cost of hyper-realistic CGI in movies: $45 000/min
Hours worth of ISS footage are beamed down daily, very rough estimated cost: $4,000,000/day=1,460,000,000/year.
Not to mention that animation takes an average of 6 hours to create per minute of footage, but we'll ignore that.
To sum up all of the necessary costs would be futile, but my question is simple: what is the point?
How much profit can be made from convincing the people of Earth that the land is round, when it's really flat?

I don't know where you are plucking your figures from, but let's use a bit of common sense.

If I build a car over a period of time, it can cost me quite a bit of money for parts, initially, but once it's built, all I have to do from that point on is maintain it and fuel it.
From that point on, I can go out in it, every hour of the day if I feel like it and all it would cost me is fuel and occasional tyre replacement, etc, basically a tiny fraction of the cost of when I first started the build.

What's the point here?

The point is, the same carry on can quite easily be done with the set up of the so called ISS and everything else that's basically shown to us. The initial outlay would be costly, yet once it's all set up, it's just a case of maintenance and a few hired actors at a time. Not difficult to pull off by any stretch of the imagination.

We see models against a dark background.
We see people inside some rigged up, padded shipping containers, maybe.
We see effects of what happens on a vomit comet in clips.
We see the effects of magnetism being used on the bodies of those actornoughts.
What would be so difficult in adding little extras to this?

All the other stuff about not seeing New York and Indonesia, is pointless for two reasons.

1. Anyone can verify it's there, physically.
2. Logic and common sense can be used to simply accept certain other aspects for what they are, IF, they don't hit you in the face as being anything other than what they appear.

This is not the case with earth and space and it's rightly questioned.

Oh, well, since you weren't there, and neither was I, then it CAN't be ruled out that it was faked.

Applying this logic means that ANY knowledge we ever gain by means other than pure observation cannot be trusted because we weren't there.

Moon Landings- can't be proven, neither of us were there.
Existence of indonesia-can't be proven, neither of us are there right now.
Nazi Germany was led by Hitler- can't be proven, neither of us were there.
William Shakespeare wrote "Hamlet"- can't be proven, neither of us were there.
New York still exists- can't be proven, neither of us are there. (assumption)
Obama is president of the US- can't be proven, neither of us are there.

To claim that something is fallible because neither of us were/are there is preposterous and counter-progress, as it means that anything we learn must be immediately disregarded as fallible.

So, on this line of logic, we must doubt everything except what we can reason ourselves.

So let us undertake a hypothetical line of logic.
Let us assume the Earth is flat.
most of the 7 billion inhabitants of the planet are mistaken, and have been kept in the dark about this by a conspiracy of some description.
So this conspiracy is very well-executed, as it encompasses 99% of the Earth's population.
How much would this conspiracy cost?
"Space Weightlessness": Average cost of hyper-realistic CGI in movies: $45 000/min
Hours worth of ISS footage are beamed down daily, very rough estimated cost: $4,000,000/day=1,460,000,000/year.
Not to mention that animation takes an average of 6 hours to create per minute of footage, but we'll ignore that.
To sum up all of the necessary costs would be futile, but my question is simple: what is the point?
How much profit can be made from convincing the people of Earth that the land is round, when it's really flat?

You don't understand.  You are asking me for a specific detail, which I can't give because I was not there.  It is like me pointing at a stranger's parked car and asking you to tell me how it got there.  You would not be able to tell me without guessing.

Please think before you post.

in what way is teleporting 80,000 km or accidentally walking four times the length of Russia, as you suggest, a slight detail that I am asking. More than a slight error, I'd say.

in what way is teleporting 80,000 km or accidentally walking four times the length of Russia, as you suggest, a slight detail that I am asking. More than a slight error, I'd say.

I offered several possible explanations.  I don't know which, if any are correct, but all of them are possible explanations.

You offered several very vague hypotheses that did not sufficiently explain the phenomenon, as expeditions and ice core samples have come back from the station established at the south pole. Please do not try to cover the fact that this is a gaping hole in the theory by clutching at straws.

I have never been able to understand this conspiracy hypothesis. Specifically, how this conspiracy group would benefit financially from fooling everyone in the first place, let alone how it would still be profitable given the operating costs of staging everything.

Can another FE'er fill me in on the presently accepted paradigm here?

If you control the people, you control the money.  I believe the conspiracy is much more than just tricking you into believing that the Earth is round.  It is about power for a very few amount of people who control the world.

If you control the people, you control the money.  I believe the conspiracy is much more than just tricking you into believing that the Earth is round.  It is about power for a very few amount of people who control the world.

I see. So its purpose is not really tricking you into believing that the Earth is round, this just also happened. The true purpose is control, likely of an economic nature, and therein lies the benefit.

So then what precise benefit would the Round Earth piece bring to the conspirators? I can imagine an emotive (ego-itive?) one: let's just see if we have enough power to pull this off and fool everyone...but beyond this (or in addition to), I do not see any monetary gain possibility -- just for this piece of it.

The conspiracy started long before the space race.  However, it took a great turn during the space race.  Prior to that, people were just wrong about the shape of the Earth.  The Earth seemed to be round due to certain natural phenomenon, so scientists have believed that it is round for a long time.

After WWII, the race for space began using war rocket technology.  When it was found that Newtonian orbit does not work, nations, such as the USSR and USA began to fabricate stories about space to simply one up each other.  Russia got into orbit first, so the US got through the Van Allen belt microwave oven and landed on the moon first.

None of them will out the others, for fear of a collapse.  However, you can see the new comers, such as China, have no experience in this kind of deception and their videos are almost childish in the mistake that one can find.

So why wouldn't the USA just out the USSR and say they are faking......this isn't real.

No........instead they spend trillions "pretending" to go into space and to the moon multiple times. They open up a space camp for kids and train future astronauts. Build a space station. Fake a few space disasters apparently. Launch a ton of satellites to no where obviously and scientist all over the globe peer into their telescopes to learn more about the cosmos each day. Governments all over the world fund space museums for daily visitors to have a look at and educate themselves about all these "fake" happenings.

Seems extremely logical. 

First of all, why would they do that when it would out themselves? 

Second of all, if they are not really going to space, where is that money going?

Makes you think, huh?

First of all, why would they do that when it would out themselves? 

Why pretend to be able to go into space in the first place is the better question.

Hey look the russians are gonna pretend to build rockets and go to space...........I got an awesome idea.........let's do that too! We'll gather up a bunch of german scientist and make them work for us so everyone thinks we're building rockets to go the moon.

Yeah..........I think that's exactly how it happened.

Second of all, if they are not really going to space, where is that money going?

But why pretend to go into space? The government has never had a problem spending money on anything it wants to. Why the need to create a fake space program in order to pocket money.

And even if it were fake...........do you realize how many people work in the space industry? They are all getting paychecks. So they are paying these people just for show?

Makes zero sense.

Makes you think, huh?

No, it doesn't. Makes me nauseated that anyone could think crap like this could possibly be true.

The Ruskies put on a good show, and probably spent a lot of money, to show that they could do something the US could not.  Kenedy fell for it, and said that the US go even farther.  Before you know it, it is spiraling out of control.  Lies on top of lies. 

Right.

And despite the insanely large number of people needed to be involved in such a conspiracy, from multiple countries and over decades............no one has ever come forth as a whistle blower? No wikileaks dealing with the subject. No tell all books.

Everyone just continues to fall in line, something history would tell you is really strange when it comes to conspiracies.

Right.

And despite the insanely large number of people needed to be involved in such a conspiracy, from multiple countries and over decades............no one has ever come forth as a whistle blower? No wikileaks dealing with the subject. No tell all books.

Everyone just continues to fall in line, something history would tell you is really strange when it comes to conspiracies.

Most of the people who are involved think that they know the shape of the Earth.  The few who know true shape do not share it with the rest.  Only a few dozen people involved with the conspiracy, at most, know the try shape.  The rest are just sheep.

So all those sheep looking into telescopic lenses have no idea what they are looking at.

The sheer tons of physicists in the world are either in on the conspiracy or blind to it?

"Only a few dozen people" manipulating the rest...........despite the fact that all math equations and physic theories are right there in the open for anyone to grab and disprove?

No way.

Round Earth physicists know what they know from books.  They believe it is absolutely true because they read it in a text book.  Why would they do any experiments to prove otherwise?

Round Earth physicists know what they know from books.  They believe it is absolutely true because they read it in a text book.  Why would they do any experiments to prove otherwise?

Are you suggesting that scientists don't do experiments?

Yet experiments are done every day. A lot of them focused on learning how the universe got to where it is today.

There is zero reason to continue to experiment on the shape of the earth because it's been proven. Beyond a reasonable doubt at all.

Quote from: jroa on October 18, 2013, 07:19:05 AM

Round Earth physicists know what they know from books.  They believe it is absolutely true because they read it in a text book.  Why would they do any experiments to prove otherwise?

Are you suggesting that scientists don't do experiments?

No, of course not, silly.  They just don't need to do experiments on things that they read in text books.

Yet experiments are done every day. A lot of them focused on learning how the universe got to where it is today.

There is zero reason to continue to experiment on the shape of the earth because it's been proven. Beyond a reasonable doubt at all.

Yes, experiments using RE calculations will produce round Earth results. 

Yes, experiments using RE calculations will produce round Earth results. 

What a cop out.

Sticks and shadows is the most basic experiment with no assumption.......simply an observation.

Explain that one to me jroa.

Quote from: rottingroom on October 18, 2013, 07:20:47 AM

Quote from: jroa on October 18, 2013, 07:19:05 AM

Round Earth physicists know what they know from books.  They believe it is absolutely true because they read it in a text book.  Why would they do any experiments to prove otherwise?

Are you suggesting that scientists don't do experiments?

No, of course not, silly.  They just don't need to do experiments on things that they read in text books.

Can you provide some examples of experiments that they don't do? I'm assuming you mean any number of the experiments that RE'rs make topics on here regularly right?

Quote

Yes, experiments using RE calculations will produce round Earth results. 

What a cop out.

Sticks and shadows is the most basic experiment with no assumption.......simply an observation.

Explain that one to me jroa.

Are you saying that you have done experiments without using RE calculations to determine the shape of the Earth?

Are you saying that you have done experiments without using RE calculations to determine the shape of the Earth?

I specifically asked you about the sticks and shadows experiment...............why did you ignore that and instead ask me a question in return?

I use calculations that have been proven over time. Because the earth is, in fact, an oblate spheroid. It's a proven fact. Not a theory or absurd notion. There is zero logic in anything you say to argue against it.