1..The reason we speculate about a Conspiracy is because we know the earth is flat.
2..Note you said unlikely
3..What you're actually pointing out is the trend that shows the Conspiracy getting more and more adept at being secretive and covering things up......
4...hope you noted again that you said unlikely
5...you can't prove the Conspiracy doesn't exist...You can show how unlikely it is and how improbable, but you can't actually prove that it doesn't exist. ...it would only demonstrate how unlikely it is...
6...only way to get rid of the conspiracy is to get rid of the idea of a flat earth. So long as the earth is flat then a Conspiracy must exist.
Ok.
1...You "know" something based on indirect evidence...That is not knowledge, that is belief. I'm sure you know the story of the three blind men and the elephant.
2...I said "Unlikely" because I was using a logical argument, it is logically impossible to disprove the existence of something, but just as I can say it is unlikely that all the molecules at on point of your chair will have the energy to spontaneously combust, even though it is theoretically possible, a high enough improbability is enough to discount a theory (unless you have an infinite improbability drive active).
3...That is not "Shown", that is a possible conclusion, but not the only, nor the most likely conclusion.
4 + 5..As in #2
6...Science is based on theory and observation. When enough evidence has been gathered to make a theory unlikely it is discounted, when enough evidence is gathered to verify a theory it becomes a law. You can not prove that there is not an object who's density is greater than the surrounding air that will not will fall that when dropped, however based on observation and theory it can be stated there is no such object.
But to turn the tables, you can not prove that there is a conspiracy without either providing direct evidence, or at least proving the world flat.
There have been almost no threads that even try to prove a flat earth, the closest try to prove that some aspect needed for the flat earth to work has some theoretical possibility, with little or no value given to the probability.
The FE's tend explain away observation, the RE's (Ok at least some of us..Some RE'rs are just obnoxious) try to present observations that are consistent with a global earth.
What observations of a flat earth have been made that are not consistent with a global earth of very large dimensions?
The argument is made that you have nothing to prove, because you know it to be flat. How do you "Know"? What supports you knowledge.