New to flat earth! What is the motive of government agencies?

Hi, as the title says, I am new to the flat earth theory, I don't currently believe it, but I'm open to new ideas. However, I'm always skeptical when these ideas require large scale multi agency cooperation on the part of governments. I just want to know what the motive of government agencies is. Why do they "cover up" the flat earth? What do they stand to gain from being among the few that know the truth?

Given the example of the moon landing, the motive here is to beat the Russian space agency to a moon landing with a convincing hoax, I haven't seen anything as simple and understandable relating to the flat earth, but I would really like to.

Thanks in advance for your responses!

Hi

HI!

Why do they "cover up" the flat earth? What do they stand to gain from being among the few that know the truth?

Sweet sweet space money.

Thanks in advance for your responses!

You're welcome!

Run bad pixel.....just run while you still can!!

I came here originally to ask a logical question such as that, even mentioned something about the moon landing. Many other small questions as well looking for the "motivation".

Now here I am ingrained here, close to the gaze of Medusa. I am even cooking for space cowgirl!!

You go past 100 posts, that is the official point of no return...you have been warned.

F.Y.I. I never got an answer to my question either, otherwise I would answer for you. Money can answer for some...but not that much.

Quote from: BadPixel on June 12, 2016, 04:10:28 PM

Why do they "cover up" the flat earth? What do they stand to gain from being among the few that know the truth?

Sweet sweet space money.

NASA only gets about .5% of the federal budget, and if there was a cover-up, most of the money would go to sustaining it.  Try again. 

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on June 12, 2016, 04:20:16 PM

Quote from: BadPixel on June 12, 2016, 04:10:28 PM

Why do they "cover up" the flat earth? What do they stand to gain from being among the few that know the truth?

Sweet sweet space money.

NASA only gets about .5% of the federal budget, and if there was a cover-up, most of the money would go to sustaining it.  Try again.

Right, $18 billion is chump change!

Quote from: Blue_Moon on June 12, 2016, 06:22:59 PM

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on June 12, 2016, 04:20:16 PM

Quote from: BadPixel on June 12, 2016, 04:10:28 PM

Why do they "cover up" the flat earth? What do they stand to gain from being among the few that know the truth?

Sweet sweet space money.

NASA only gets about .5% of the federal budget, and if there was a cover-up, most of the money would go to sustaining it.  Try again.

Right, $18 billion is chump change!

In the context of total US spending, yeah it is.

What do you think they are doing with this sweet space money anyway?  I presume most of it must go on CGI...

Quote from: Blue_Moon on June 12, 2016, 06:22:59 PM

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on June 12, 2016, 04:20:16 PM

Quote from: BadPixel on June 12, 2016, 04:10:28 PM

Why do they "cover up" the flat earth? What do they stand to gain from being among the few that know the truth?

Sweet sweet space money.

NASA only gets about .5% of the federal budget, and if there was a cover-up, most of the money would go to sustaining it.  Try again.

Right, $18 billion is chump change!

It is when you have to fake and cover up an entire space program, especially when most of your employees work for contractors you're expected to pay.  The real money is in social security, Medicare, and defense. 

Does everybody forgot how NASA had $565 billion in accounting errors and couldn't account for another $19 Billion?

I guess they got better at fudging the numbers now that they know folks are looking.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on June 13, 2016, 08:34:31 AM

Quote from: Blue_Moon on June 12, 2016, 06:22:59 PM

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on June 12, 2016, 04:20:16 PM

Quote from: BadPixel on June 12, 2016, 04:10:28 PM

Why do they "cover up" the flat earth? What do they stand to gain from being among the few that know the truth?

Sweet sweet space money.

NASA only gets about .5% of the federal budget, and if there was a cover-up, most of the money would go to sustaining it.  Try again.

Right, $18 billion is chump change!

In the context of total US spending, yeah it is.

What do you think they are doing with this sweet space money anyway?  I presume most of it must go on CGI...

Nah, CGI isn't that expensive. Look at all those movies made with it every year. NASA's not making feature films, they're making clips.

Does everybody forgot how NASA had $565 billion in accounting errors and couldn't account for another $19 Billion?

I guess they got better at fudging the numbers now that they know folks are looking.

Source?

Quote from: John Davis on June 13, 2016, 11:20:38 AM

Does everybody forgot how NASA had $565 billion in accounting errors and couldn't account for another $19 Billion?

I guess they got better at fudging the numbers now that they know folks are looking.

Source?

Here's one article out of 134,000 results http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2004-05-20/news/0405200334_1_new-accounting-system-nasa-financial-statements

"basic accounting errors"

We are being far too hard on them. Its not like they are experts in mathematics.

Quote from: Blue_Moon on June 13, 2016, 12:13:25 PM

Quote from: John Davis on June 13, 2016, 11:20:38 AM

Does everybody forgot how NASA had $565 billion in accounting errors and couldn't account for another $19 Billion?

I guess they got better at fudging the numbers now that they know folks are looking.

Source?

Here's one article out of 134,000 results http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2004-05-20/news/0405200334_1_new-accounting-system-nasa-financial-statements

"basic accounting errors"

Back in 2004??  The Flat Earth Society website hadn't even been created by then!  Why are you still hounding them for a single mistake?

We are being far too hard on them. Its not like they are experts in mathematics.

It's not like the engineers handle the accounting, either. 

Also, that amount isn't that much when you take into acount there is a whole world beyond the USA borders.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on June 13, 2016, 12:21:42 PM

Quote from: Blue_Moon on June 13, 2016, 12:13:25 PM

Quote from: John Davis on June 13, 2016, 11:20:38 AM

Does everybody forgot how NASA had $565 billion in accounting errors and couldn't account for another $19 Billion?

I guess they got better at fudging the numbers now that they know folks are looking.

Source?

Here's one article out of 134,000 results http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2004-05-20/news/0405200334_1_new-accounting-system-nasa-financial-statements

"basic accounting errors"

Back in 2004??  The Flat Earth Society website hadn't even been created by then!  Why are you still hounding them for a single mistake?

Quote

We are being far too hard on them. Its not like they are experts in mathematics.

It's not like the engineers handle the accounting, either.

Because its a 565$ billion dollar mistake. Single mistake?

Hardly. Stealing money from the public, losing true record of man kinds greatest achievement, giving the Dutch a piece of wood and calling it a moon rock, driving across the country in diapers, using COCAINE in their bathrooms, the OCO, the DART, Helios, SBRIRS, and let's not forget - NASA television. Because what we need out of a national aeronautics and space association is shitty daytime television.

Also, it is believed by many the Flat Earth Society is the oldest continuous society in existence.

Also, it is believed by many the Flat Earth Society is the oldest continuous society in existence.

I suspect there are organisations older than 12 years.   

Nah, CGI isn't that expensive. Look at all those movies made with it every year. NASA's not making feature films, they're making clips.

So the continuous live stream from the ISS is real then?  Cool, looks like the world is round.

Oh, and decent CGI is very expensive.

Quote from: John Davis on June 13, 2016, 01:11:11 PM

Also, it is believed by many the Flat Earth Society is the oldest continuous society in existence.

I suspect there are organisations older than 12 years.   

We are hardly 12 years old. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/featured/Flat-Earth-Historical-Figures-People

Johnson dated it before Rowbotham even, saying that Jesus himself was a member.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on June 13, 2016, 11:28:59 AM

Nah, CGI isn't that expensive. Look at all those movies made with it every year. NASA's not making feature films, they're making clips.

So the continuous live stream from the ISS is real then?  Cool, looks like the world is round.

Oh, and decent CGI is very expensive.

Not if its inhouse. And a lot of NASA's work can't even be considered "decent" CGI. They get the benefit that they are the system of record, so their work will always appear legit because its only referenced to itself.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on June 13, 2016, 01:23:30 PM

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on June 13, 2016, 11:28:59 AM

Nah, CGI isn't that expensive. Look at all those movies made with it every year. NASA's not making feature films, they're making clips.

So the continuous live stream from the ISS is real then?  Cool, looks like the world is round.

Oh, and decent CGI is very expensive.

Not if its inhouse. And a lot of NASA's work can't even be considered "decent" CGI. They get the benefit that they are the system of record, so their work will always appear legit because its only referenced to itself.

It's not in-house.  NASA is mostly contractors, remember?  And it's supported by all the other space agencies. 

Of course. The other space agencies wouldn't want their work to look fake now, would they?

Are you saying the media sent back from their 'exploration' is outsourced to contractors?

Of course. The other space agencies wouldn't want their work to look fake now, would they?

Are you saying the media sent back from their 'exploration' is outsourced to contractors?

It's consistent with what the contractor supplies.  And if NASA just used CGI all the time, that would be outsourced to other established companies with more experience. 

Who has more experience faking space than NASA? Why outsource anything when whatever you make will seem real because you are the system of record?

Of course its consistent with what the contractor supplies. They supply what NASA tells them to.

Who has more experience faking space than NASA? Why outsource anything when whatever you make will seem real because you are the system of record?

Of course its consistent with what the contractor supplies. They supply what NASA tells them to.

Again, you're assuming that they fake space, when they obviously have no motive or means to do so. 

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on June 13, 2016, 11:28:59 AM

Nah, CGI isn't that expensive. Look at all those movies made with it every year. NASA's not making feature films, they're making clips.

So the continuous live stream from the ISS is real then?  Cool, looks like the world is round.

Oh, and decent CGI is very expensive.

It's not like they have to make elaborate images.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on June 13, 2016, 01:23:30 PM

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on June 13, 2016, 11:28:59 AM

Nah, CGI isn't that expensive. Look at all those movies made with it every year. NASA's not making feature films, they're making clips.

So the continuous live stream from the ISS is real then?  Cool, looks like the world is round.

Oh, and decent CGI is very expensive.

It's not like they have to make elaborate images.

Sarcasm noted. 

Isn't like 95% of their output of media 'Artist renderings' anyways?

Guess they got sick of throwing out the stuff that didn't make the cut.

They probably have a program set up where they only need to "rotate" the image and change the cloud patterns.

Isn't like 95% of their output of media 'Artist renderings' anyways?

Guess they got sick of throwing out the stuff that didn't make the cut.

It's hard to get a good view of a satellite in space.  What more do you need?