Why no Whistleblowers?

  • 59 Replies
  • 3514 Views
Why no Whistleblowers?
« on: March 03, 2016, 11:19:11 PM »
Given the massive scale of this 500 year old conspiracy that requires the involvement of millions of participants to keep the charade going (including military, international space agencies, physicists, engineers, pilots, marine navigators, professors, intellectuals, etc.) WHY has there never been a credible whistleblower exposing your claims?  Where are there intellectuals with credibility that claim the world is flat?  There is really NO WAY to contain a conspiracy as grand as this and the only people who propagate this nonsense are internet trolls.  One paranoid schizophrenic who probably looks like a Bond movie villain claims that Steven Hawking knows about this (and laughs with his "credible intellectual" colleagues) yet chooses not to share this information with the rest of the blind masses.  What insanity. 

So, why has no one blown the lid on this?  Given the huge number of scientists and professionals that would have first-hand knowledge that the world is flat, why exactly has not one of them released confidential documents on Wikileaks...now SURELY Julian Desange knows that the world is flat, right?! LOL.


Re: Why no Whistleblowers?
« Reply #1 on: March 04, 2016, 12:18:40 AM »
"Go back and watch your TV peasent"
"Wow these round earthers are so easily manipulated by scientists LOL"
"You'll truly see it's flat when you open your eyes to the truth"
"Round earthers are such sheep!!"

Funny cause almost every flat earther got convinced the earth was flat by a few YouTube videos made by people with  ~200 followers

Re: Why no Whistleblowers?
« Reply #2 on: March 04, 2016, 12:23:03 AM »
They are true intellectuals...not like the rest of us "peasants!"  Gullible, naive, and paranoid people that do their "research" from dubious "internet researchers."

Re: Why no Whistleblowers?
« Reply #3 on: March 04, 2016, 12:32:49 AM »
Ever since businesses and governments have turned to a global scale it requires the map and scale of a spherical earth. Think of how many people would be in on this it just doesn't make sense.

Really?? Even Jose from FedEx is in on this big governmental secret??

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 15660
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Why no Whistleblowers?
« Reply #4 on: March 04, 2016, 08:20:44 AM »
Given the massive scale of this 500 year old conspiracy that requires the involvement of millions of participants to keep the charade going (including military, international space agencies, physicists, engineers, pilots, marine navigators, professors, intellectuals, etc.) WHY has there never been a credible whistleblower exposing your claims?  Where are there intellectuals with credibility that claim the world is flat?  There is really NO WAY to contain a conspiracy as grand as this and the only people who propagate this nonsense are internet trolls.  One paranoid schizophrenic who probably looks like a Bond movie villain claims that Steven Hawking knows about this (and laughs with his "credible intellectual" colleagues) yet chooses not to share this information with the rest of the blind masses.  What insanity. 

So, why has no one blown the lid on this?  Given the huge number of scientists and professionals that would have first-hand knowledge that the world is flat, why exactly has not one of them released confidential documents on Wikileaks...now SURELY Julian Desange knows that the world is flat, right?! LOL.
Most of these people would not need to be involved. Each are acting in a compartmentalized fashion - they simply are working on their own part of the larger piece and would have to know nothing of the conspiracy at all.

For example, they built a spaceship, whether it went to the moon or not. So all the folks at Boeing or Lockheed would not need to be involved. Likewise it would be silly to include cafeteria workers, professors, intellectuals, and the engineers. They are all acting under the assumption that they are working on a piece of the puzzle and don't really look to getting more information than what they need to do their job well. They have no need, or want, to know about the "larger picture" except how it applies to them.

Only a few key players would end up needing to know the truth.

And they have blown the lid on this. Now you do say credible whistleblowers. What is the first thing you do to a whistleblower if you are the conspiracy?

Destroy his credibility in any way possible.
Quantum Ab Hoc

Re: Why no Whistleblowers?
« Reply #5 on: March 04, 2016, 08:52:21 AM »
Given the massive scale of this 500 year old conspiracy that requires the involvement of millions of participants to keep the charade going (including military, international space agencies, physicists, engineers, pilots, marine navigators, professors, intellectuals, etc.) WHY has there never been a credible whistleblower exposing your claims?  Where are there intellectuals with credibility that claim the world is flat?  There is really NO WAY to contain a conspiracy as grand as this and the only people who propagate this nonsense are internet trolls.  One paranoid schizophrenic who probably looks like a Bond movie villain claims that Steven Hawking knows about this (and laughs with his "credible intellectual" colleagues) yet chooses not to share this information with the rest of the blind masses.  What insanity. 

So, why has no one blown the lid on this?  Given the huge number of scientists and professionals that would have first-hand knowledge that the world is flat, why exactly has not one of them released confidential documents on Wikileaks...now SURELY Julian Desange knows that the world is flat, right?! LOL.
Most of these people would not need to be involved. Each are acting in a compartmentalized fashion - they simply are working on their own part of the larger piece and would have to know nothing of the conspiracy at all.

For example, they built a spaceship, whether it went to the moon or not. So all the folks at Boeing or Lockheed would not need to be involved. Likewise it would be silly to include cafeteria workers, professors, intellectuals, and the engineers. They are all acting under the assumption that they are working on a piece of the puzzle and don't really look to getting more information than what they need to do their job well. They have no need, or want, to know about the "larger picture" except how it applies to them.

Only a few key players would end up needing to know the truth.

And they have blown the lid on this. Now you do say credible whistle blowers. What is the first thing you do to a whistle blower if you are the conspiracy?

Destroy his credibility in any way possible.

Under that same logic is it not possible to conclude that people believing in the flat earth hypothesis are also restricted to compartmentalized knowledge. In other words, under what pretense is it accepted by those believing in the flat earth theory, that the evidence they have of the earth being flat, is of any better, or more genuine, quality than the evidence of a spherical earth?

Is it not beyond (bar any further measure) down to a basic choice of opinion? "I think this seems more credible, therefor I'm going to believe in this?" If we accept that both parties are under this compartmentalization of information, then it seems as though it defaults to a study of the volume and logical fidelity of the material on both sides. And in that case, wouldn't it be more rational to believe in the weight of evidence that the earth is spherical, due simply to sheer supporting volume and logical validity; without having to invoke grand conspiracy presumptions to prove the case? And in respect to this conspiracy, is there any substantiated evidence to validate the assertion? If so, could you post some sources? Or is it simply an hypothesis invoked as prerequisite to substantiate the central claim? Hypotheses can't be used as evidence. An hypotheses requires evidence in it's self, before it can be used as material in further validation. I'm interested in finding out on what physical basis the concept of this conspiracy lies, aside from the necessity of it to be real, in order for the central claim to be true.

--

When you say that the best way to discredit a whistle blower is to destroy their credibility. this is an accurate claim, but does that actually apply to any advocates of the flat earth hypothesis? Do we have any actual cases of credible people coming forwards with the idea, that are then publicly shamed and discredited vis.character assassination, defamation and so forth? I'll warn here that you can't use people claiming the invalidity of the claim that the earth is flat as valid proof of this, because this claim is the one in question. My question here is where are the cases of what you mention happening?

It's ok to hypothesize about how some possible conspiracy might occur, but without evidence of it occurring, it's a presumption and not really a credible assertion to validity of the claim. There is an essential step in validating an assertion: Substantiation. So while I agree with your rhetoric, it doesn't establish the truth of what you're implying.

Could you do so?
« Last Edit: March 04, 2016, 09:05:02 AM by TigerWidow »

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 15660
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Why no Whistleblowers?
« Reply #6 on: March 04, 2016, 09:07:14 AM »
Given the massive scale of this 500 year old conspiracy that requires the involvement of millions of participants to keep the charade going (including military, international space agencies, physicists, engineers, pilots, marine navigators, professors, intellectuals, etc.) WHY has there never been a credible whistleblower exposing your claims?  Where are there intellectuals with credibility that claim the world is flat?  There is really NO WAY to contain a conspiracy as grand as this and the only people who propagate this nonsense are internet trolls.  One paranoid schizophrenic who probably looks like a Bond movie villain claims that Steven Hawking knows about this (and laughs with his "credible intellectual" colleagues) yet chooses not to share this information with the rest of the blind masses.  What insanity. 

So, why has no one blown the lid on this?  Given the huge number of scientists and professionals that would have first-hand knowledge that the world is flat, why exactly has not one of them released confidential documents on Wikileaks...now SURELY Julian Desange knows that the world is flat, right?! LOL.
Most of these people would not need to be involved. Each are acting in a compartmentalized fashion - they simply are working on their own part of the larger piece and would have to know nothing of the conspiracy at all.

For example, they built a spaceship, whether it went to the moon or not. So all the folks at Boeing or Lockheed would not need to be involved. Likewise it would be silly to include cafeteria workers, professors, intellectuals, and the engineers. They are all acting under the assumption that they are working on a piece of the puzzle and don't really look to getting more information than what they need to do their job well. They have no need, or want, to know about the "larger picture" except how it applies to them.

Only a few key players would end up needing to know the truth.

And they have blown the lid on this. Now you do say credible whistle blowers. What is the first thing you do to a whistle blower if you are the conspiracy?

Destroy his credibility in any way possible.

Under that same logic is it not possible to conclude that people believing in the flat earth theory are also restricted to compartmentalized knowledge. In other words, under what pretense is it accepted by those believing in the flat earth theory, that the evidence they have of the earth being flat, is of any better, or more genuine, quality than the evidence of a spherical earth?
There is a fair amount of compartmentalization in any field simply due to necessity. Here we are talking about the government, navy, and army - specifically these branches working with contractors and the outside world. Its a rule of work in this case to compartmentalize.

Your other question - how is our evidence more valid than theirs - can be answered easily. It is more valid because it embodies the mentality of Enlightenment. We are talking about self discovered truths through empiricism - not rotely believing an authority figure. As Orwell might put it - Do you think it is above our astronomers to construct a dual system?

Quote
Is it not beyond (bar any further measure) down to a basic choice of opinion? "I think this seems more credible, therefor I'm going to believe in this?" If we accept that both parties are under this compartmentalization of information, then it seems as though it defaults to a study of the volume and logical fidelity of the material on both sides. And in that case, wouldn't it be more rational to believe in the weight of evidence that the earth is spherical, due simply to sheer supporting volume and logical validity; without having to invoke grand conspiracy presumptions to prove the case?
The rational choice would be to examine the path less examined. As you said, the volume of evidence is abundant for the spherical earth. The flat earth is largely un-examined. Who knows what we might find? What ideas may come from the seeds of a flat earth? Even if incorrect we have historical evidence that often incorrect scientific ideas are later re-purposed.
Quote
When you say that the best way to discredit a whistle blower is to destroy their credibility. this is an accurate claim, but does that actually apply to any advocates of the flat earth hypothesis? Do we have any actual cases of credible people coming forwards with the idea, that are then publicly shamed and discredited vis.character assassination, defamation and so forth? I'll warn here that you can't use people disclaiming the invalidity of the claim that the earth is flat, as valid proof of this, because this claim is the one in question. My question here is where are the cases of what you mention happening?
Its showed up very often regarding moon hoaxers and whistleblowers in that respect.  As far as the flat earth goes we can see B.o.B being attacked and discredited as well as Tila Tequila for standing up for the truth. Things like personal attacks against their former careers and education level.

Quote
It's ok to hypothesize about how some possible conspiracy might occur, but without evidence of it occurring, it's a presumption and not really a credible assertion to validity of the claim. There is an essential step in validating an assertion: Substantiation. So while I agree with your rhetoric, it doesn't establish the truth of what you're implying.

Could you do so?
We always deal with presumption. If you think anything else, you don't understand science. I would find it hard to establish the truth of any implications what-so-ever.

I agree though, it would be nice to get a smoking gun. I'm not a believer in the conspiracy. Mainly due to the fact that I'd rather believe that humans err over malice. This may not be the most well founded reason, but its one that has served me well over the years. If we had a smoking gun, then yes. However given how incompetent NASA is we can truly say that they were stupid enough to only take one picture of the earth while there, stupid enough to photoshop up images of the earth, stupid enough to fake the shape of the earth to appear more rounded than it actually is, silence and decredit moon hoax whistleblowers,  etc.

On the other hand, they are ripping off Americans every day to illicitly fund their empire. They develop technologies funded by America such as memory foam bedding. Then they turn around and sell it to the private sector to gain more funding. Finally the end user of this technology has to pay for the development of said technology twice - once to the private sector and again in taxes that originally funded these endeavors. They are stealing funding from those that produce the true labor of this country and should be ashamed. IN addition, they skirt their responsibility to truth and reporting to the American public accurately almost every chance they get.
Quantum Ab Hoc

Re: Why no Whistleblowers?
« Reply #7 on: March 04, 2016, 10:04:56 AM »
Given the massive scale of this 500 year old conspiracy that requires the involvement of millions of participants to keep the charade going (including military, international space agencies, physicists, engineers, pilots, marine navigators, professors, intellectuals, etc.) WHY has there never been a credible whistleblower exposing your claims?  Where are there intellectuals with credibility that claim the world is flat?  There is really NO WAY to contain a conspiracy as grand as this and the only people who propagate this nonsense are internet trolls.  One paranoid schizophrenic who probably looks like a Bond movie villain claims that Steven Hawking knows about this (and laughs with his "credible intellectual" colleagues) yet chooses not to share this information with the rest of the blind masses.  What insanity. 

So, why has no one blown the lid on this?  Given the huge number of scientists and professionals that would have first-hand knowledge that the world is flat, why exactly has not one of them released confidential documents on Wikileaks...now SURELY Julian Desange knows that the world is flat, right?! LOL.
Most of these people would not need to be involved. Each are acting in a compartmentalized fashion - they simply are working on their own part of the larger piece and would have to know nothing of the conspiracy at all.

For example, they built a spaceship, whether it went to the moon or not. So all the folks at Boeing or Lockheed would not need to be involved. Likewise it would be silly to include cafeteria workers, professors, intellectuals, and the engineers. They are all acting under the assumption that they are working on a piece of the puzzle and don't really look to getting more information than what they need to do their job well. They have no need, or want, to know about the "larger picture" except how it applies to them.

Only a few key players would end up needing to know the truth.

And they have blown the lid on this. Now you do say credible whistle blowers. What is the first thing you do to a whistle blower if you are the conspiracy?

Destroy his credibility in any way possible.

Under that same logic is it not possible to conclude that people believing in the flat earth theory are also restricted to compartmentalized knowledge. In other words, under what pretense is it accepted by those believing in the flat earth theory, that the evidence they have of the earth being flat, is of any better, or more genuine, quality than the evidence of a spherical earth?
There is a fair amount of compartmentalization in any field simply due to necessity. Here we are talking about the government, navy, and army - specifically these branches working with contractors and the outside world. Its a rule of work in this case to compartmentalize.

Your other question - how is our evidence more valid than theirs - can be answered easily. It is more valid because it embodies the mentality of Enlightenment. We are talking about self discovered truths through empiricism - not rotely believing an authority figure. As Orwell might put it - Do you think it is above our astronomers to construct a dual system?

Quote
Is it not beyond (bar any further measure) down to a basic choice of opinion? "I think this seems more credible, therefor I'm going to believe in this?" If we accept that both parties are under this compartmentalization of information, then it seems as though it defaults to a study of the volume and logical fidelity of the material on both sides. And in that case, wouldn't it be more rational to believe in the weight of evidence that the earth is spherical, due simply to sheer supporting volume and logical validity; without having to invoke grand conspiracy presumptions to prove the case?
The rational choice would be to examine the path less examined. As you said, the volume of evidence is abundant for the spherical earth. The flat earth is largely un-examined. Who knows what we might find? What ideas may come from the seeds of a flat earth? Even if incorrect we have historical evidence that often incorrect scientific ideas are later re-purposed.
Quote
When you say that the best way to discredit a whistle blower is to destroy their credibility. this is an accurate claim, but does that actually apply to any advocates of the flat earth hypothesis? Do we have any actual cases of credible people coming forwards with the idea, that are then publicly shamed and discredited vis.character assassination, defamation and so forth? I'll warn here that you can't use people disclaiming the invalidity of the claim that the earth is flat, as valid proof of this, because this claim is the one in question. My question here is where are the cases of what you mention happening?
Its showed up very often regarding moon hoaxers and whistleblowers in that respect.  As far as the flat earth goes we can see B.o.B being attacked and discredited as well as Tila Tequila for standing up for the truth. Things like personal attacks against their former careers and education level.

Quote
It's ok to hypothesize about how some possible conspiracy might occur, but without evidence of it occurring, it's a presumption and not really a credible assertion to validity of the claim. There is an essential step in validating an assertion: Substantiation. So while I agree with your rhetoric, it doesn't establish the truth of what you're implying.

Could you do so?
We always deal with presumption. If you think anything else, you don't understand science. I would find it hard to establish the truth of any implications what-so-ever.

I agree though, it would be nice to get a smoking gun. I'm not a believer in the conspiracy. Mainly due to the fact that I'd rather believe that humans err over malice. This may not be the most well founded reason, but its one that has served me well over the years. If we had a smoking gun, then yes. However given how incompetent NASA is we can truly say that they were stupid enough to only take one picture of the earth while there, stupid enough to photoshop up images of the earth, stupid enough to fake the shape of the earth to appear more rounded than it actually is, silence and decredit moon hoax whistleblowers,  etc.

On the other hand, they are ripping off Americans every day to illicitly fund their empire. They develop technologies funded by America such as memory foam bedding. Then they turn around and sell it to the private sector to gain more funding. Finally the end user of this technology has to pay for the development of said technology twice - once to the private sector and again in taxes that originally funded these endeavors. They are stealing funding from those that produce the true labor of this country and should be ashamed. IN addition, they skirt their responsibility to truth and reporting to the American public accurately almost every chance they get.

Quote
It is more valid because it embodies the mentality of Enlightenment. We are talking about self discovered truths through empiricism - not rotely believing an authority figure. As Orwell might put it - Do you think it is above our astronomers to construct a dual system?

I have a problem with this. If you're establishing validity as coming from self discovered truths through empiricism. You're also validating the evidence that underlies the spherical earth model. This is the basis of scientific discovery. Your claim is contradictory here. You're using the same principle to validate one claim, and invalidate the other. It can either validate both, or neither. So I can't take this as substantiation that material in support of the flat earth hypothesis has more credibility than the material supporting the spherical earth model. Based purely on you referencing the process through which that information is gathered. In so much as under your definition, those processes are identical (unless you're implying that the spherical earth model isn't based on empirical evidence?!), yet the outcome is not. There is a logical flaw here. Where is it? Can you attempt another justification of this rebutal?

As for the idea that scientific discovery is coming from an authority figure, this is kind of a straw man argument, or at least a warped truth. Science in it's self is observable by you or I, or anyone. Take basic trigonometry, the length of line C is the square route of a+b in a right angle triangle. This is an observable fact you or I can see and deduce from looking at a right angle triangle. The speed of light can be measured with a laser pointer, a detector, a long enough range and some timing equipment. This is an observable fact any of us can deduce for ourselves.

These principles are used to establish the distances to planets (distance=time divided by velocity). The distance traveled for the radio waves to bounce off Mercury and hit the receiver back on earth is T divided by C. where T is the time it takes and C is the speed of light (2.99792458 x10 to the power of 5). We know radio waves travel at the speed of light and also, from doing the experiment we get T (time it takes the radio waves to bounce off Mercury and get back to earth) as 1266.648 seconds.

So: 2.99792458 x 10⁵ x ⅓ (1266.648) = 1.8987x10⁸ km or, about 48 million miles.

The same can be done for any other planet, lets say Venus. It takes the reflection 12.6255 minutes to occur, so Venus is 141.115 million miles away. Again, these are simple premises being applied logically, and conclusion being drawn based on observation of the nature of how these applied measurements interact.

This is how we can measure the physical distance a planet 'must be' from earth. The only way this could be 'wrong' is if there is an error in the observation, or the calculation. There's no room for 'authority'. And when every measurement done by anyone that does it always comes back with the same figure. We can say that it must correlate to a physical property of the universe.

From that, we can use trigonometry to work out our distance from the sun. We take the distance between us and a planet like venus, find the position of it's orbit in the sky when at the point between anterograde and retrograde. We know from trigonometry that this is the point at which it's position relative to the sun and us is tangent to it's orbit vector. It 'has' to be, otherwise it wouldn't 'be' the point of greatest elongation. It's inescapable observable fact, me or you, or anyone can see.

What it 'means' is that we know 'for sure' that at that point, us, the earth (oops) the sun and venus are at a right angle. We then take the distance we have measured between us and venus where: (distance between Earth and Venus) = a cos(e)  and (distance between Venus and the Sun) = a sin(e), Where 'e' is the angle between Venus and the sun at the point of greatest elongation and a*cos(e) is the distance between the Earth and Venus.

From this we can work out what 'a' is in the trigonometric equation (the distance from earth to the sun). The greatest elongation of Venus is about 46 degrees, so by this reasoning, the Sun-Venus distance is about 72% of the Sun-Earth distance.

If we know the absolute distance between Earth and Venus (which we have established), and that the Sun-Venus distance is 72% of the Earth Sun distance(which we have established). We can figure out what 100% of the Earth sun Distance is by using trigonometry. That number turns out to be: 9.295610⁷ or about 93 million miles. So now we know, for sure, that Earth is 93 million miles from the Sun. It isn't something we've been 'told to believe' by an authority figure. You can go out, by yourself, do the observations, run the experiments and come to the same figure. To argue against this is to claim that the literal bedrock of observation and actual logical deduction is some how 'being faked'. It's a straw man argument.

Science is based on observation and derived through maths (logic in written form) and rational deduction. We come to the conclusions that planets are certain distances away, and certain diameters by coming to conclusions based on deriving basic laws from simple observations and extrapolating them onto more complex systems. You can do this, anyone can. You can't "control" that. And when these calculations are performed an indefinite number of times, and continuously portray the same results. We can say that they apply to reality.

Could you explain to me in which part of this, such a fundamentally deep "hood wink" can occur? Between the observer and the observed.

-edit - typo
« Last Edit: March 04, 2016, 10:34:32 AM by TigerWidow »

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 15660
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Why no Whistleblowers?
« Reply #8 on: March 04, 2016, 10:29:35 AM »
Given the massive scale of this 500 year old conspiracy that requires the involvement of millions of participants to keep the charade going (including military, international space agencies, physicists, engineers, pilots, marine navigators, professors, intellectuals, etc.) WHY has there never been a credible whistleblower exposing your claims?  Where are there intellectuals with credibility that claim the world is flat?  There is really NO WAY to contain a conspiracy as grand as this and the only people who propagate this nonsense are internet trolls.  One paranoid schizophrenic who probably looks like a Bond movie villain claims that Steven Hawking knows about this (and laughs with his "credible intellectual" colleagues) yet chooses not to share this information with the rest of the blind masses.  What insanity. 

So, why has no one blown the lid on this?  Given the huge number of scientists and professionals that would have first-hand knowledge that the world is flat, why exactly has not one of them released confidential documents on Wikileaks...now SURELY Julian Desange knows that the world is flat, right?! LOL.
Most of these people would not need to be involved. Each are acting in a compartmentalized fashion - they simply are working on their own part of the larger piece and would have to know nothing of the conspiracy at all.

For example, they built a spaceship, whether it went to the moon or not. So all the folks at Boeing or Lockheed would not need to be involved. Likewise it would be silly to include cafeteria workers, professors, intellectuals, and the engineers. They are all acting under the assumption that they are working on a piece of the puzzle and don't really look to getting more information than what they need to do their job well. They have no need, or want, to know about the "larger picture" except how it applies to them.

Only a few key players would end up needing to know the truth.

And they have blown the lid on this. Now you do say credible whistle blowers. What is the first thing you do to a whistle blower if you are the conspiracy?

Destroy his credibility in any way possible.

Under that same logic is it not possible to conclude that people believing in the flat earth theory are also restricted to compartmentalized knowledge. In other words, under what pretense is it accepted by those believing in the flat earth theory, that the evidence they have of the earth being flat, is of any better, or more genuine, quality than the evidence of a spherical earth?
There is a fair amount of compartmentalization in any field simply due to necessity. Here we are talking about the government, navy, and army - specifically these branches working with contractors and the outside world. Its a rule of work in this case to compartmentalize.

Your other question - how is our evidence more valid than theirs - can be answered easily. It is more valid because it embodies the mentality of Enlightenment. We are talking about self discovered truths through empiricism - not rotely believing an authority figure. As Orwell might put it - Do you think it is above our astronomers to construct a dual system?

Quote
Is it not beyond (bar any further measure) down to a basic choice of opinion? "I think this seems more credible, therefor I'm going to believe in this?" If we accept that both parties are under this compartmentalization of information, then it seems as though it defaults to a study of the volume and logical fidelity of the material on both sides. And in that case, wouldn't it be more rational to believe in the weight of evidence that the earth is spherical, due simply to sheer supporting volume and logical validity; without having to invoke grand conspiracy presumptions to prove the case?
The rational choice would be to examine the path less examined. As you said, the volume of evidence is abundant for the spherical earth. The flat earth is largely un-examined. Who knows what we might find? What ideas may come from the seeds of a flat earth? Even if incorrect we have historical evidence that often incorrect scientific ideas are later re-purposed.
Quote
When you say that the best way to discredit a whistle blower is to destroy their credibility. this is an accurate claim, but does that actually apply to any advocates of the flat earth hypothesis? Do we have any actual cases of credible people coming forwards with the idea, that are then publicly shamed and discredited vis.character assassination, defamation and so forth? I'll warn here that you can't use people disclaiming the invalidity of the claim that the earth is flat, as valid proof of this, because this claim is the one in question. My question here is where are the cases of what you mention happening?
Its showed up very often regarding moon hoaxers and whistleblowers in that respect.  As far as the flat earth goes we can see B.o.B being attacked and discredited as well as Tila Tequila for standing up for the truth. Things like personal attacks against their former careers and education level.

Quote
It's ok to hypothesize about how some possible conspiracy might occur, but without evidence of it occurring, it's a presumption and not really a credible assertion to validity of the claim. There is an essential step in validating an assertion: Substantiation. So while I agree with your rhetoric, it doesn't establish the truth of what you're implying.

Could you do so?
We always deal with presumption. If you think anything else, you don't understand science. I would find it hard to establish the truth of any implications what-so-ever.

I agree though, it would be nice to get a smoking gun. I'm not a believer in the conspiracy. Mainly due to the fact that I'd rather believe that humans err over malice. This may not be the most well founded reason, but its one that has served me well over the years. If we had a smoking gun, then yes. However given how incompetent NASA is we can truly say that they were stupid enough to only take one picture of the earth while there, stupid enough to photoshop up images of the earth, stupid enough to fake the shape of the earth to appear more rounded than it actually is, silence and decredit moon hoax whistleblowers,  etc.

On the other hand, they are ripping off Americans every day to illicitly fund their empire. They develop technologies funded by America such as memory foam bedding. Then they turn around and sell it to the private sector to gain more funding. Finally the end user of this technology has to pay for the development of said technology twice - once to the private sector and again in taxes that originally funded these endeavors. They are stealing funding from those that produce the true labor of this country and should be ashamed. IN addition, they skirt their responsibility to truth and reporting to the American public accurately almost every chance they get.

Quote
It is more valid because it embodies the mentality of Enlightenment. We are talking about self discovered truths through empiricism - not rotely believing an authority figure. As Orwell might put it - Do you think it is above our astronomers to construct a dual system?

I have a problem with this. If you're establishing validity as coming from self discovered truths through empiricism. You're also validating the evidence that underlies the spherical earth model. This is the basis of scientific discovery. Your claim is contradictory here. You're using the same principle to validate one claim, and invalidate the other. It can either validate both, or neither. So I can't take this as substantiation that material in support of the flat earth hypothesis has more credibility than the material supporting the spherical earth model. Based purely on you referencing the process through which that information is gathered. In so much as under your definition, those processes are identical (unless you're implying that the spherical earth model isn't based on empirical evidence?!), yet the outcome is not. There is a logical flaw here. Where is it? Can you attempt another justification of this rebutal?
It actually isn't the basis of scientific discovery in round earth science. Again and again we have historical example of round earth theory being put forth without empirical basis, without proper falsification, and without coherency with empirical evidence. Against Method outlines a great deal of this in relation to Galileo. As well, you can check out the Anarchy of Science which is a bit more reades digestable.
Quote
As for the idea that scientific discovery is coming from an authority figure, this is kind of a straw man argument, or at least a warped truth. Science in it's self is observable by you or I, or anyone. Take basic trigonometry, the length of line C is the square route of a+b in a right angle triangle. This is an observable fact you or I can see and deduce from looking at a right angle triangle. The speed of light can be measured with a laser pointer, a detector, a long enough range and some timing equipment. This is an observable fact any of us can deduce for ourselves.
A poor example because trigonometry supposedly no longer holds on a round earth - recall that we overthrew Euclid's geometry with relativity. This is a scientific "truth" that we are lead to believe that we cannot easily verify. Likewise, you bring to us a mathematical truth which thus does not have any necessary tie to either scientific truth (see science without numbers) or reality in general.

We cannot measure the speed of light without first assuming certain principles about it, namely that relativity is right. You can see the circular argument here. We need to assume the speed of light is constant independent of observer to be able to measure it as we would not be able to account for the supposed lack of difference cause by the speed or acceleration of the observer or observing tools.

To the point though, to make any use of the empirical data gathered we need to frame it in a context. There are infinitely many of these contexts we can choose and we are using only one of them. By shifting this towards a personally developed context we have increased the scope of our investigation greatly, rather than pigeon holing it into a game of climbing up the shoulders of giants and ignoring their axioms that led them there.

There should be no doubt that looking at more angles and solutions to a problem raises our understanding of said problem.
Quote
These principles are used to establish the distances to planets (distance=time divided by velocity) again, these are simple premises being applied logically, and conclusion being drawn based on observation of the nature of how these applied measurements interact.
Yes, a lot of theory can flow from only a few axioms. Unfortunately we aren't even sure if this is valid - we have no solution to the problem of induction. However, given we can accept our unsure footing we are still in trouble. By deductively creating our network we have done very little except come to the realization of what our current theory says. We have no advanced it or really given it sure footing - in fact if anything we are looking for what does not fit given our theory is true. That way the next time we have a revolution in a Kuhnian sense we are moving towards new understanding. This puzzle solving helps us with engineering, but its only purpose towards truth is to find what is wrong - where the language starts creating paradoxical statements in reference to empirical evidence, like the rotational discrepancies of large galaxies that led us to the silyl idea of "Dark matter"
Quote
This is how we can measure the physical distance a planet 'must be' from earth. The only way this could be 'wrong' is if there is an error in the observation, or the calculation. There's no room for 'authority'. And when every measurement done by anyone that does it always comes back with the same figure. We can say that it must correlate to a physical property of the universe.
No, this is how we measure the distance a planet must be given our axioms / assumptions are true. It is often wrong and we then shift our assumptions during a scientific revolution to realize that our previous decisions were incorrect. Its not when calculation is wrong, its when calculation is misapplied due to an authority handing us down our axiomatic decisions.

Quote
From that, we can use trigonometry to work out our distance from the sun. We take the distance between us and a planet like venus, find the position of it's orbit in the sky when at the point between anterograde and retrograde. We know from trigonometry that this is the point at which it's position relative to the sun and us is tangent to it's orbit vector. It 'has' to be, otherwise it wouldn't 'be' the point of greatest elongation. It's inescapable observable fact, me or you, or anyone can see.
Again, this relies on the assumptions taken. It is not beyond us, and its rudimentary to prove mathematically, to create an infinite number of other models that will explain said empirical data. If you think something say it "has" to be, you likely haven't looked at the problem for long enough.
Quote
Science is based on observation and derived through and maths (logic in written form) and rational deduction.
Incorrect, science is not based math. This has been shown already in academia (cited earlier.) Likewise, its often not based on observation - we have several instances in scientific history where our entire point of view has shifted and has done so against empirical data (see against method for the popular example.) Likewise, we have shady ground for saying that reality behaves logically. In fact, we have strong evidence it doesn't behave logically given Godel.

Quote
We come to the conclusions that planets are certain distances away, and certain diameters by coming to conclusions based on deriving basic laws from simple observations and extrapolating them onto more complex systems. You can do this, anyone can. You can't "control" that. And when these calculations are performed an indefinite number of times, and continuously portray the same results. We can say that they apply to reality.

Could you explain to me in which part of this, such a fundamentally deep "hood wink" can occur? Between the observer and the observed.
Take Eratosthenes. He took empirical data and used logic and reasoning to deduce the diameter of the earth. However, if we look further back in the past to Taoist scholars they performed an identical experiment and came to the conclusion that the Earth was flat and the stars close.

The difference between these two are not in calculation. It is not in measurement. It is in theory. And you see this same pattern repeated again and again everytime we shift our observational language to deal with paradox within our theory.
Quantum Ab Hoc

Re: Why no Whistleblowers?
« Reply #9 on: March 04, 2016, 10:46:34 AM »
You position seems incredibly nihilistic. You're basically invoking the transcendental argument. "nothing has any absolute value. Everything is unknowable and all axioms of understanding are synthetic". This is an intellectual culdesac. You posit to use this observation as justification for throwing out what you could call 'the reason axiom', while you prescribe the same phenomenology as justification to the validity of the flat earth hypothesis.

Wouldn't your actual stance be one of both earth science axioms being equally invalid, as all knowledge is apparently synthetic a-posteriori? How can you claim that there is 'any way' to substantiate the flat earth theory (asnd so claim to support it) if your argument is of the universal inaplicability of rationality onto prescribed axioms of observation?

your reasoning seems to completely defeat it's self. I don't understand you angle.

Re: Why no Whistleblowers?
« Reply #10 on: March 04, 2016, 11:00:59 AM »
John, you complete pillow, you're completely ignoring that there are various different ways of measuring interplanetary distances and angles, which don't ALL rely on ONE principle or assumption on which you cast doubt (such as the speed of light, of which itself there are several methods of measuring). Different methods can be used to cross check each other's validity. And those cross checks match every time.
You're clearly intelligent enough to be aware of this, so to see you deliberately playing the numpty is kind of pathetic. Really, I expected better.
Founder member of the League Of Scientific Gentlemen and Mademoiselles des Connaissances.
I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 15660
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Why no Whistleblowers?
« Reply #11 on: March 04, 2016, 11:17:42 AM »
You position seems incredibly nihilistic. You're basically invoking the transcendental argument. "nothing has any absolute value. Everything is unknowable and all axioms of understanding are synthetic". This is an intellectual culdesac. You posit to use this observation as justification for throwing out what you could call 'the reason axiom', while you prescribe the same phenomenology as justification to the validity of the flat earth hypothesis.

Wouldn't your actual stance be one of both earth science axioms being equally invalid, as all knowledge is apparently synthetic a-posteriori? How can you claim that there is 'any way' to substantiate the flat earth theory (asnd so claim to support it) if your argument is of the universal inaplicability of rationality onto prescribed axioms of observation?

your reasoning seems to completely defeat it's self. I don't understand you angle.
I'd be fine conceding that flat earth theory is equally prone to these issues. However, they don't seem as deeply entrenched in our view and we are actively aware of them; we are even attempting to deal with them since the 1900s with zeteticism. So its a hesitant acceptance of your point.

My beef here is when we are force fed science through the media and the academic fashion show and told it is true when we all know through the philosophy of science that there is no such thing as truth in science, simply a particular angle to look at reality. Since WWII science has been made into a religion, and we have stepped back before the enlightenment and are simply taking our dogma instead of from the church from the Academic establishment which has its own set of prejudices and motives, some equally as nefarious if not more so than the Church at the time.

We have lost empiricism and we have lost falsification. We are left with a Big Bang creation story, magical dark matter and energy, and other ad hoc patches to our understanding that in the past would have led to a revolution and thus progress. Instead we cling to our dogma and don't even question the status quo - despite the fact that questioning and disagreeing with scientific 'fact' is how we progress scientific understanding, not by rotely solving puzzles based off the consequences of our beliefs. Thats just how we get microwave ovens, and bigger bombs and gross tasting tomatos and what not. Feats of engineering, not truth.

Even scientists have strong motivation not to change their work - are they to throw away their entire life-long specialization for a new idea? As noted in the past, science does not advance through convincing others the new idea is right, but by waiting for those against the idea to die. For a scientist to function in normal science he MUST take the current understanding as dogma. How else could he hope to perform, for example, curve fitting? He is not interested in advancement of understanding, but instead creating an inward network of consequences to the last revolutions axioms until it comes a time when they can no longer hold together due to the paradox then created (and which some might argue is inevitable due to formalism's failure. However I have strong evidence we need to take in suspect Godel's work as well as Cantor's Slash.)

We are far too often looking for coherency rather than advancement. The flat earth is what advancement looks like. Something that appears patently false but makes sense. It can be defended long enough for it to "grow" up into theory, and a new language for us to find new paradox within through normal puzzle solving science, and thus raise our understanding.

I would go so far as to say we need to have a modular based science. Look at the early success of science in cultures where multiple worldviews are prevalent, specifically Greece and Rome. We are in the modular age, and yet science has yet to catch up with the rest of society in our understanding of some pretty basic stuff.

John, you complete pillow, you're completely ignoring that there are various different ways of measuring interplanetary distances and angles, which don't ALL rely on ONE principle or assumption on which you cast doubt (such as the speed of light, of which itself there are several methods of measuring). Different methods can be used to cross check each other's validity. And those cross checks match every time.
You're clearly intelligent enough to be aware of this, so to see you deliberately playing the numpty is kind of pathetic. Really, I expected better.
Yes and they are all based off of the same set of base assumptions. If they are not, then I would have to question the validity of the model based on its use of mutually exclusive base premises - in short its self-coherence. We also have holes and paradoxes within each of these different methods fields that have yet to be explained, thus putting into question the validity of each of these methods and their foundations.
Quantum Ab Hoc

Re: Why no Whistleblowers?
« Reply #12 on: March 04, 2016, 12:33:05 PM »
I still see no problem with the method to find the distance of Venus, it only assumes tha s=v*t (which is hardly assuming, it's more of the definition of velocity) and that light always travels at the same speed when viewed from the same reference frame (which is not as strong as what relativity says, this weaker assumption is all that is needed).
Lots of experiments agree with both assumptions, and none have disproved either of them.
Now you could say that the experiments are done on earth, so there is no empirical evidence that they are true in space, but that a bit like saying they might stop being true tomorrow, because it's not the same day as when the tests are done.
It's impossible to get anywhere in science if we don't assume that the laws of physics are both time and space invariant.

Now I agree that something better needs to be though of then "dark matter and energy", but that's to do with the larger universe, doesn't appear to effect our solar system, since we don't need to say dark matter exists in the solar system to make the calculations in it work.

Re: Why no Whistleblowers?
« Reply #13 on: March 04, 2016, 12:39:17 PM »
You position seems incredibly nihilistic. You're basically invoking the transcendental argument. "nothing has any absolute value. Everything is unknowable and all axioms of understanding are synthetic". This is an intellectual culdesac. You posit to use this observation as justification for throwing out what you could call 'the reason axiom', while you prescribe the same phenomenology as justification to the validity of the flat earth hypothesis.

Wouldn't your actual stance be one of both earth science axioms being equally invalid, as all knowledge is apparently synthetic a-posteriori? How can you claim that there is 'any way' to substantiate the flat earth theory (asnd so claim to support it) if your argument is of the universal inaplicability of rationality onto prescribed axioms of observation?

your reasoning seems to completely defeat it's self. I don't understand you angle.
I'd be fine conceding that flat earth theory is equally prone to these issues. However, they don't seem as deeply entrenched in our view and we are actively aware of them; we are even attempting to deal with them since the 1900s with zeteticism. So its a hesitant acceptance of your point.

My beef here is when we are force fed science through the media and the academic fashion show and told it is true when we all know through the philosophy of science that there is no such thing as truth in science, simply a particular angle to look at reality. Since WWII science has been made into a religion, and we have stepped back before the enlightenment and are simply taking our dogma instead of from the church from the Academic establishment which has its own set of prejudices and motives, some equally as nefarious if not more so than the Church at the time.

We have lost empiricism and we have lost falsification. We are left with a Big Bang creation story, magical dark matter and energy, and other ad hoc patches to our understanding that in the past would have led to a revolution and thus progress. Instead we cling to our dogma and don't even question the status quo - despite the fact that questioning and disagreeing with scientific 'fact' is how we progress scientific understanding, not by rotely solving puzzles based off the consequences of our beliefs. Thats just how we get microwave ovens, and bigger bombs and gross tasting tomatos and what not. Feats of engineering, not truth.

Even scientists have strong motivation not to change their work - are they to throw away their entire life-long specialization for a new idea? As noted in the past, science does not advance through convincing others the new idea is right, but by waiting for those against the idea to die. For a scientist to function in normal science he MUST take the current understanding as dogma. How else could he hope to perform, for example, curve fitting? He is not interested in advancement of understanding, but instead creating an inward network of consequences to the last revolutions axioms until it comes a time when they can no longer hold together due to the paradox then created (and which some might argue is inevitable due to formalism's failure. However I have strong evidence we need to take in suspect Godel's work as well as Cantor's Slash.)

We are far too often looking for coherency rather than advancement. The flat earth is what advancement looks like. Something that appears patently false but makes sense. It can be defended long enough for it to "grow" up into theory, and a new language for us to find new paradox within through normal puzzle solving science, and thus raise our understanding.

I would go so far as to say we need to have a modular based science. Look at the early success of science in cultures where multiple worldviews are prevalent, specifically Greece and Rome. We are in the modular age, and yet science has yet to catch up with the rest of society in our understanding of some pretty basic stuff.

John, you complete pillow, you're completely ignoring that there are various different ways of measuring interplanetary distances and angles, which don't ALL rely on ONE principle or assumption on which you cast doubt (such as the speed of light, of which itself there are several methods of measuring). Different methods can be used to cross check each other's validity. And those cross checks match every time.
You're clearly intelligent enough to be aware of this, so to see you deliberately playing the numpty is kind of pathetic. Really, I expected better.
Yes and they are all based off of the same set of base assumptions. If they are not, then I would have to question the validity of the model based on its use of mutually exclusive base premises - in short its self-coherence. We also have holes and paradoxes within each of these different methods fields that have yet to be explained, thus putting into question the validity of each of these methods and their foundations.

Quote
My beef here is when we are force fed science through the media and the academic fashion show and told it is true when we all know through the philosophy of science that there is no such thing as truth in science, simply a particular angle to look at reality.
Maybe this is a lack of faith in humanity (trigger warnings aside). When scientists say something is true. This is because it has been found to be accurate through testing and experimentation. It isn't a claim for fundamental truth. It's a claim of validity and accuracy to a professional standard of scrutiny. The problem we hit here for you is this angle of self-reference. In your understanding it is only proof that the model makes logical sense. But, as you say, if it only brings new engineering feats, then where are those feats based if not in reality? If the model can be used to create microwaves, alter the genetics of tomatoes, or tap the atom to create bigger bombs. Isn't that in it's self proof that the models of representation of reality, are an accurate representation? doesn't it simply follow that if the model had no relation to reality, that predictions based on the models, wouldn't correlate to what happens when the predictions are applied physically back onto reality? It's inescapably connected. If the observed effect of the cause (the experimentation) is accurate to the hypothesized prediction, the model is accurate. It doesn't matter what 'names' we give things. 1 meter, 3 newtons, gravity, acceleration, based ten numbering e.t.c. The model is arbitrary, this is very well understood. It's a model, not reality it's self. But it's accurate entirely because the objects of reality that these components of the model represent are universally agreed upon and understood, and the methods of relating those things are understood as basic components of understanding (2 sets of 4 things creates 8 things. you can express this as 4+4 or2*4 e.t.c.) the method of expression is arbitrary, but you 'must' concede that these things do have a relation to reality in so much as they are universally agreed upon references to universally observed components of reality.

Quote
are simply taking our dogma instead of from the church from the Academic establishment
To me, this opinion can only come from a presumption of something not understood, through a position of naivety. Generally in science and academia things are scrutinized more so than in any other field. People really don't just passively take these claims. they are broken down, analyzed and understood. The fundamental difference between religious and scientific claim is that scientific claim requires rigorous substantiation. If things don't literally logically conclude, or are found to be inaccurate, they are dismissed as false or inaccurate. To argue against this is to literally undermine the fabric of rational thought. Those that are in a position to justify the validity or invalidity of such scientific claims are those that have gone through the process of understanding, to such a high degree of expertise, the entire cannon of intellectual material required to engage with such complex claims. In so much as they fully understand the language and implications involved in the claims being made, and can call validation or invalidation based upon the method of reasoning we, as humans, have come to build over our development, as the definitive set of models that accurately describe reality. Again, to question this is to question the literal fabric of rationality, Aristotelian logic, and reasoning. To say that this process, and the conclusions it has come to are 'essentially' invalid, is by definition de-evolution level disregard. It's implying that we have to go right back to the primal drawing board of human intellectual development and reassess the foundation upon we come to rational thought forms. I don't know about you. you but is quite ridiculous. Science works, it's accurate, it's true, precisely because it's the model that is accurate. It's the one that has been shown to work. The collection of theories that has stood the test of time, and repeated experimentation. It's the anthropic principle. Our model says reality is this way, because it 'is'. Because if it were any other way, the model would be different. Like I said, any argument against this is essentially down to a misunderstanding about what rational thought, by definition 'is'.

Quote
We are far too often looking for coherency rather than advancement.
Coherency is advancement.

Quote
He is not interested in advancement of understanding, but instead creating an inward network of consequences to the last revolutions axioms until it comes a time when they can no longer hold together due to the paradox then created
Again, your framing what is essentially the same thing in two different ways. Understanding is an axiom, a model. It is all we can possibly have (phenomenological argument). We can see that it is accurate and that it applies to reality (and so we can deduce things from it, like the earth is spherical) through observation. Indeed what we are doing is advancing an axiom of thought and a model of understanding reality, because that is precisely the tool upon which we can literally comprehend reality in any meaningful way in the first place. Again, challenging this is challenging the definition of rational thought by drawing attention to the synthetic nature of the fabric through which we are able to comprehend complex forms. You might as well give up on reality all together. Or you can trust that the model we have collectively developed since the dawn of man, has some credibility to it. Especially if you recognise that it often leads to evolutions in technology (application of reason onto nature).


Re: Why no Whistleblowers?
« Reply #14 on: March 04, 2016, 01:12:46 PM »
dark matter

We've mapped dark matter, we can't see it directly but we can measure the effect on space-time curvature based on it's mass. from this we have quite accurately modeled the form of dark matter in large portions of the observable universe.



http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0353

This is actually a great example of a model being accurate precisely because it predicts something that has later been proven experimentally. Dark matter isn't just an hypothesis.

Re: Why no Whistleblowers?
« Reply #15 on: March 04, 2016, 01:35:04 PM »
Correct, there are many different methods of verifying the distances of planets than simply using a mathematical formula.  Your skepticism is clearly clouding your ability to view evidence clearly and I wonder how you came to the conclusion that the earth is flat.  Claiming NASA is a derelict organization or that you believe that Werhner Von Braun was an evil NAZI scientist is not justification for subscribing to such an outlandish worldview.  Has NASA lied in the past?  Quite probably.  Is it at the center of a massive global conspiracy to hide what should otherwise be a self-evident truth about the world being flat; most certainly not.

You stated that not all participants needed to be aware of all the relevant facts for a conspiracy to remain a secret.  While this might apply to certain projects or military expeditions, it could not logically involve such a massive number of scientists, pilots, sea captains, military personnel, travelers, professors, engineers, astronauts, etc..  You cannot "compartmentalize" all of society and based on your logic that is exactly what you expect us to believe.  I cannot accept the theory of a flat earth already because the scientific method has accounted in large part for the physical structure of our earth, solar systems and galaxy.  But even if was skeptical of what science has quite comprehensively tested and proven, I cannot accept that a conspiracy on such a level managed by unnamed authority figures over five centuries can remain contained. 

My belief is that those that subscribe to the flat earth theory are largely disenfranchised people that view all of authority with deep suspicion and therefore come to illogical or misguided conclusions because of a lack of knowledge in that particular subject. 

As I said before, there have been no credible whistleblowers bringing this grand conspiracy light.  No Edward Snowdens.  No WikiLeak published secret government documents confirming your claims.  Just a lot of unsubstantiated claims based on poor research or outright insanity. 

 

Re: Why no Whistleblowers?
« Reply #16 on: March 04, 2016, 02:05:50 PM »
I honestly couldn't have put it better myself. To go back on topic (after my tangent) I have to agree with the above post. Such a grand conspiracy couldn't possibly be kept so completely for so long. If it were, then the world wouldn't be one so open for us controlled folk to even postulate such ideas and "truths". If the control were so complete, a truth such as this wouldn't even be allowed to enter the public lexicon. The idea that the earth is flat, is in it's self proof that such a conspiracy to keep it secret is so unlikely as to be obviously false.

So the question remains, where is the substantiated evidence that this conspiracy is real? (I did ask this in my OP, but it was left alone)
« Last Edit: March 04, 2016, 02:10:16 PM by TigerWidow »

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Why no Whistleblowers?
« Reply #17 on: March 04, 2016, 02:12:04 PM »
Why are there no whistleblowers? Because they killed them all.
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

Re: Why no Whistleblowers?
« Reply #18 on: March 04, 2016, 02:45:06 PM »
Luke, I've always wanted to ask.  What is this avatar you have.  What does it mean.

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Why no Whistleblowers?
« Reply #19 on: March 04, 2016, 07:22:23 PM »
Luke, I've always wanted to ask.  What is this avatar you have.  What does it mean.

My avatar is a picture of a gun and a Bible. I'm a strong Christian and a strong advocate for the second amendment and I believe neither of those conflict. Hence the bible passage as my username. What does it have to do with flat earth vs globe? It doesn't. It's my signature for other people on other forums to recognize that I'm the same person. I also go by Maccabee when my current name has been taken or for some other reason I can't use it.
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

rabinoz

  • 22623
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Why no Whistleblowers?
« Reply #20 on: March 04, 2016, 07:23:15 PM »
So, why has no one blown the lid on this?  Given the huge number of scientists and professionals that would have first-hand knowledge that the world is flat, why exactly has not one of them released confidential documents on Wikileaks...now SURELY Julian Desange knows that the world is flat, right?! LOL.
Considering the number of whistleblowers we have right up to Julian Assange,
there seems to be only one logical answer to the OP.
There is simply no conspiracy, other that in the minds of a small number of conspiracy lovers.
Every day I see more and more areas where the globe is simply taken for granted as a matter of course.

One of the most recent I have looked at is the placing of towers for microwave links.
 It is taken as a matter of course that these are placed allowing for the curvature of the globe. Links can cover quite large line-of-sight distances, but terrestrial links were commonly limited to 50 km or so depending on terrain.
Quote
from: http://www.dpstele.com/network-monitoring/microwave/radio.php
Microwave Radio Transmission uses Line of Sight Technology to Transfer Data from Tower to Tower.
Microwave radio is known as a "line of sight" technology. This is because microwave data is sent between two microwave radio towers in different locations
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Due to this need for a clear line of sight, microwave radio towers must be located within miles of one another. The round shape of the Earth prevents larger spacing. To increase the gap between towers, antennas are commonly located high atop microwave radio towers.
Of course with fibre-optic cables these links are not as common, but are still used where the terrain or other considerations makes fibre-optic cables not feasible.

Much longer micro-wave links have been built, such as:
Quote
The longest microwave radio relay known up to date crosses the Red Sea with 360 km hop between Jebel Erba (2170m a.s.l., 2044'46.17"N 3650'24.65"E, Sudan) and Jebel Dakka (2572m a.s.l., 21 5'36.89"N 4017'29.80"E, Saudi Arabia).
These long distances can only be achieved with very high antenna positions (on mountain tops - just look where 2044'46.17"N 3650'24.65"E, Sudan and 21 5'36.89"N 4017'29.80"E, Saudi Arabia are - on quite high mountains. Guess what, the "hump" due to curvature is 2,545 m, but refraction allows a bit more reliable range.

Yes, limited by the curvature of the globe earth. So these designers of microwave links are in on the "big secret" and waste all this money making short links or putting towers up on 2,500 m mountains! The number in this conspiracy grows! Everywhere you look little bits or evidence crop up that just do not fit on a flat earth.
Just look at: http://urgentcomm.com/mag/radio_designing_microwave_radio



*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 15660
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Why no Whistleblowers?
« Reply #21 on: March 05, 2016, 10:32:53 AM »
You position seems incredibly nihilistic. You're basically invoking the transcendental argument. "nothing has any absolute value. Everything is unknowable and all axioms of understanding are synthetic". This is an intellectual culdesac. You posit to use this observation as justification for throwing out what you could call 'the reason axiom', while you prescribe the same phenomenology as justification to the validity of the flat earth hypothesis.

Wouldn't your actual stance be one of both earth science axioms being equally invalid, as all knowledge is apparently synthetic a-posteriori? How can you claim that there is 'any way' to substantiate the flat earth theory (asnd so claim to support it) if your argument is of the universal inaplicability of rationality onto prescribed axioms of observation?

your reasoning seems to completely defeat it's self. I don't understand you angle.
I'd be fine conceding that flat earth theory is equally prone to these issues. However, they don't seem as deeply entrenched in our view and we are actively aware of them; we are even attempting to deal with them since the 1900s with zeteticism. So its a hesitant acceptance of your point.

My beef here is when we are force fed science through the media and the academic fashion show and told it is true when we all know through the philosophy of science that there is no such thing as truth in science, simply a particular angle to look at reality. Since WWII science has been made into a religion, and we have stepped back before the enlightenment and are simply taking our dogma instead of from the church from the Academic establishment which has its own set of prejudices and motives, some equally as nefarious if not more so than the Church at the time.

We have lost empiricism and we have lost falsification. We are left with a Big Bang creation story, magical dark matter and energy, and other ad hoc patches to our understanding that in the past would have led to a revolution and thus progress. Instead we cling to our dogma and don't even question the status quo - despite the fact that questioning and disagreeing with scientific 'fact' is how we progress scientific understanding, not by rotely solving puzzles based off the consequences of our beliefs. Thats just how we get microwave ovens, and bigger bombs and gross tasting tomatos and what not. Feats of engineering, not truth.

Even scientists have strong motivation not to change their work - are they to throw away their entire life-long specialization for a new idea? As noted in the past, science does not advance through convincing others the new idea is right, but by waiting for those against the idea to die. For a scientist to function in normal science he MUST take the current understanding as dogma. How else could he hope to perform, for example, curve fitting? He is not interested in advancement of understanding, but instead creating an inward network of consequences to the last revolutions axioms until it comes a time when they can no longer hold together due to the paradox then created (and which some might argue is inevitable due to formalism's failure. However I have strong evidence we need to take in suspect Godel's work as well as Cantor's Slash.)

We are far too often looking for coherency rather than advancement. The flat earth is what advancement looks like. Something that appears patently false but makes sense. It can be defended long enough for it to "grow" up into theory, and a new language for us to find new paradox within through normal puzzle solving science, and thus raise our understanding.

I would go so far as to say we need to have a modular based science. Look at the early success of science in cultures where multiple worldviews are prevalent, specifically Greece and Rome. We are in the modular age, and yet science has yet to catch up with the rest of society in our understanding of some pretty basic stuff.

John, you complete pillow, you're completely ignoring that there are various different ways of measuring interplanetary distances and angles, which don't ALL rely on ONE principle or assumption on which you cast doubt (such as the speed of light, of which itself there are several methods of measuring). Different methods can be used to cross check each other's validity. And those cross checks match every time.
You're clearly intelligent enough to be aware of this, so to see you deliberately playing the numpty is kind of pathetic. Really, I expected better.
Yes and they are all based off of the same set of base assumptions. If they are not, then I would have to question the validity of the model based on its use of mutually exclusive base premises - in short its self-coherence. We also have holes and paradoxes within each of these different methods fields that have yet to be explained, thus putting into question the validity of each of these methods and their foundations.

Quote
My beef here is when we are force fed science through the media and the academic fashion show and told it is true when we all know through the philosophy of science that there is no such thing as truth in science, simply a particular angle to look at reality.
Maybe this is a lack of faith in humanity (trigger warnings aside). When scientists say something is true. This is because it has been found to be accurate through testing and experimentation.
Or they made it up. Because scientists behave badly and shirk their responsibility to those funding them to tell the truth. Some people can't read let alone discover for themselves due to social constraints. They pay taxes knowing that some will go to Academia to fund smarter people figuring out the issues they can't. And they are routinely lied to and duped. NASA for instance steals from the working class everytime they pull of their con job of inventing a technology with tax payer money and then selling it to the private sector so the tax payers again have to pay for the development costs if they wish to use it. A despicable scam that places academia in a position worse than the bourgeois.

Quote
It isn't a claim for fundamental truth. It's a claim of validity and accuracy to a professional standard of scrutiny.
Except they do make claims that it is a fundamental truth. And then news organizations do the same. People don't know the difference and can base their life and decisions off these claims that they are led to believe are truth - they would not be so happy to know it is essentially guesswork with more steps.

Quote
The problem we hit here for you is this angle of self-reference. In your understanding it is only proof that the model makes logical sense.

No, context makes data make sense.

Quote
But, as you say, if it only brings new engineering feats, then where are those feats based if not in reality? If the model can be used to create microwaves, alter the genetics of tomatoes, or tap the atom to create bigger bombs. Isn't that in it's self proof that the models of representation of reality, are an accurate representation?

Not necessarily. If in the dark ages I can engineer a machine to "build" newts by starting a fire, does this then say that newts are made by fire? Or is it an application that happens to work despite there being more reasonable other explanations out there we were not aware of?

Quote
doesn't it simply follow that if the model had no relation to reality, that predictions based on the models, wouldn't correlate to what happens when the predictions are applied physically back onto reality? It's inescapably connected. If the observed effect of the cause (the experimentation) is accurate to the hypothesized prediction, the model is accurate. It doesn't matter what 'names' we give things. 1 meter, 3 newtons, gravity, acceleration, based ten numbering e.t.c. The model is arbitrary, this is very well understood. It's a model, not reality it's self. But it's accurate entirely because the objects of reality that these components of the model represent are universally agreed upon and understood, and the methods of relating those things are understood as basic components of understanding (2 sets of 4 things creates 8 things. you can express this as 4+4 or2*4 e.t.c.) the method of expression is arbitrary, but you 'must' concede that these things do have a relation to reality in so much as they are universally agreed upon references to universally observed components of reality.
Except that its also a large argument in academia if mathematics actually does have any relation to reality. Thus models created through use of mathematics are equally suspect until we can solve that issue. 

To your point though, you can have two models that describe a situation exactly the same given the same empirical evidence and yet have vastly different axioms and calculations. This alone shows that since a model can accurately predict or be used it is not necessarily true.
Quote
Quote
are simply taking our dogma instead of from the church from the Academic establishment
To me, this opinion can only come from a presumption of something not understood, through a position of naivety. Generally in science and academia things are scrutinized more so than in any other field. People really don't just passively take these claims. they are broken down, analyzed and understood. The fundamental difference between religious and scientific claim is that scientific claim requires rigorous substantiation.
Religious claims had to go before boards of qualified experts where they were dissected, validated, and reviewed. Peer review is not something science has alone. In fact Galileo was jailed partly due to the peer review by both scientific experts of the time and religious experts of the time.


Quote
Quote
We are far too often looking for coherency rather than advancement.
Coherency is advancement.
Validate this claim for me. I am of course talking of internal coherency within a model. Advancement would be more in the kuhn sense when revolution occurs. The rest is not advancement but deduction.

Quote
Quote
He is not interested in advancement of understanding, but instead creating an inward network of consequences to the last revolutions axioms until it comes a time when they can no longer hold together due to the paradox then created
Again, your framing what is essentially the same thing in two different ways. Understanding is an axiom, a model. It is all we can possibly have (phenomenological argument). We can see that it is accurate and that it applies to reality (and so we can deduce things from it, like the earth is spherical) through observation. Indeed what we are doing is advancing an axiom of thought and a model of understanding reality, because that is precisely the tool upon which we can literally comprehend reality in any meaningful way in the first place.
While all we can have is a model, that does not mean our model is correct; sure its a useful lie - a tool if you will. I will tentatively accept that for argument. However I don't see the relevance here, as is the flat earth theory not also a tool?

By what metric would you choose to measure the two theories when we have seen science in the historical sense is without method, or at least without method we can identify?
Quantum Ab Hoc

Re: Why no Whistleblowers?
« Reply #22 on: March 05, 2016, 11:16:13 AM »
I still don't see why the method given to find the distance of Venus is wrong, the only assumption is that all light waves move at the same speed when viewed from the same reference frame, got any evidence that shows that is wrong?

Re: Why no Whistleblowers?
« Reply #23 on: March 05, 2016, 11:39:23 AM »
Just prove one point; that the "sun" is 3,000 miles away (or whatever number you claim is the correct distance).  You have ample scientific equipment to prove this.  Commission a university planetarium.  Use an appropriate telescope to prove that both the sun and moon can be viewed at all times of the day and night from any point on the flat earth.  Why of course this should be manageable.  Once you can come back with this proof I will agree that you have a strong case.  All of the other unsubstantiated claims and refutation of existing models means nothing.  Come back with hard proof of ANYTHING.

There is your challenge.   

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37806
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Why no Whistleblowers?
« Reply #24 on: March 05, 2016, 11:53:58 AM »
Who said there are no whistle blowers?  ???

Re: Why no Whistleblowers?
« Reply #25 on: March 05, 2016, 11:57:47 AM »
I did. Where is there one credible whistle blower with verifiable proof?  Wikileaks?  Press conference?  Leaked government documents?  Photos? 

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37806
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Why no Whistleblowers?
« Reply #26 on: March 05, 2016, 12:03:27 PM »
How about Math Boylan? 

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

?

Woody

  • 1144
Re: Why no Whistleblowers?
« Reply #27 on: March 05, 2016, 12:27:36 PM »
Given the massive scale of this 500 year old conspiracy that requires the involvement of millions of participants to keep the charade going (including military, international space agencies, physicists, engineers, pilots, marine navigators, professors, intellectuals, etc.) WHY has there never been a credible whistleblower exposing your claims?  Where are there intellectuals with credibility that claim the world is flat?  There is really NO WAY to contain a conspiracy as grand as this and the only people who propagate this nonsense are internet trolls.  One paranoid schizophrenic who probably looks like a Bond movie villain claims that Steven Hawking knows about this (and laughs with his "credible intellectual" colleagues) yet chooses not to share this information with the rest of the blind masses.  What insanity. 

So, why has no one blown the lid on this?  Given the huge number of scientists and professionals that would have first-hand knowledge that the world is flat, why exactly has not one of them released confidential documents on Wikileaks...now SURELY Julian Desange knows that the world is flat, right?! LOL.
Most of these people would not need to be involved. Each are acting in a compartmentalized fashion - they simply are working on their own part of the larger piece and would have to know nothing of the conspiracy at all.

For example, they built a spaceship, whether it went to the moon or not. So all the folks at Boeing or Lockheed would not need to be involved. Likewise it would be silly to include cafeteria workers, professors, intellectuals, and the engineers. They are all acting under the assumption that they are working on a piece of the puzzle and don't really look to getting more information than what they need to do their job well. They have no need, or want, to know about the "larger picture" except how it applies to them.

Only a few key players would end up needing to know the truth.

And they have blown the lid on this. Now you do say credible whistleblowers. What is the first thing you do to a whistleblower if you are the conspiracy?

Destroy his credibility in any way possible.

How many people do you think need be involved keeping the secrete that the Earth is flat?

How many people involved in the sciences?  Geochronology, meteorology, volcanology, seismology, petrology, oceanography, astronomy, geophysics to name a few. All are careers that would lead to someone discovering the Earth is flat.

How many surveyors?  When they conduct a geodetic survey they use methods and calculations successfully for a spherical planet.

How many satellite TV installers?  They need to use different directions and elevations for the dishes for different locations.

How many air or ship crews?  There must be some routes that the distances do not line up with what we are told they are.

What about amateur astronomers and radio operators?

How many need to be involved designing, building, launching functional things that we are told end up in space?

How many people needed to keep tabs on everything? Falsifying data? Keeping any unquestionable evidence of the flatness of our planet hidden? Enforcers needed to silence people one way or another?

How when history and the present day show many countries have difficulty cooperating did all the countries with space programs, scientist who conduct their own observations get on board with this?

When did this conspiracy start?  It had to be prior to the 1960's and NASA.

Who is likely the few in the know and how will/did they continue the deception after their deaths?

I can see a gain for getting people to believe the Earth is flat.  That is control.  People are turning more to science for answers which does not involve faith.  If "they" can get people to believe the Earth is flat and the center of the universe then it will be easier to get people to follow religious teachings.  If "they" then control the church then they can control us easier.  Questioning the policies and wars "they" want means you would be questioning God's wisdom and plan.  It is why coronations were performed by the Church.  It basically said God chose this person to lead you and you have to obey him.

How does getting people believing the Earth is round make money or give "them" power?

Money wise they are better off with instilling fear of other people and cultures and pumping money into military spending.  NASA and other stuff related to science receives about 2% of tax dollars for discretionary spending and less than 1% of the total federal budget.  Defense gets around 55% and 15% respectively, much more lucrative.  Why spend the time and effort for that 1-2% when it is much easier and profitable to keep people afraid of "those people over there" who want to destroy you, your family and take away your freedom.  Fear management works well and does not need to convince people the Earth is round.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37806
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Why no Whistleblowers?
« Reply #28 on: March 05, 2016, 12:31:20 PM »
Probably not many of them, since pretty much all of those professions have nothing to do with the shape of the Earth.  ::)

Re: Why no Whistleblowers?
« Reply #29 on: March 05, 2016, 01:19:06 PM »
Why would the people that trying to cover up that the earth is flat even invent space travel? Why invent something that expensive and then keep on spending money launching rockets if they knew the earth was flat? If it is all fake, why go to the length of inventing something that wasn't needed. According to flat earthers, these illuminate guys knew that the earth was flat way before we even could go to space. And that they have been lying to us for a long time.