NASA Conspiracy History
« on: July 15, 2017, 02:08:24 PM »
If I may ask, why does the history of the NASA conspiracy in the FAQ section only start with Apollo 1?
« Last Edit: July 15, 2017, 02:10:26 PM by Urania_Clio »

*

Online Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2259
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: NASA Conspiracy History
« Reply #1 on: July 15, 2017, 02:35:27 PM »
If I may ask, why does the history of the NASA conspiracy in the FAQ section only start with Apollo 1?

It doesn't say that.

Re: NASA Conspiracy History
« Reply #2 on: July 15, 2017, 04:42:17 PM »
Apologies, that was poorly phrased.

What I meant to ask was why the section entitled "Evidence for the Conspiracy" starts with Apollo. If the Mercury and Gemini programs preceded Apollo, then surely there should be evidence from those two programs as well? There's a quick reference to a statement made by LBJ in 1958, but no mention is made of the programs that ran before Apollo started in 1963.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2017, 04:46:15 PM by Urania_Clio »

*

Online Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2259
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: NASA Conspiracy History
« Reply #3 on: July 15, 2017, 04:49:15 PM »
Apologies, that was poorly phrased.

What I meant to ask was why the section entitled "Evidence for the Conspiracy" starts with Apollo. If the Mercury and Gemini programs preceded Apollo, then surely there should be evidence from those two programs as well?

Sure, there is evidence from those programs as well. We have mostly just been adding things as they come up in discussion.

« Last Edit: July 15, 2017, 04:52:45 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: NASA Conspiracy History
« Reply #4 on: July 15, 2017, 05:00:36 PM »
So, the primary research methodology for finding material for the wiki is a simple Google search?

*

Online Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2259
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: NASA Conspiracy History
« Reply #5 on: July 15, 2017, 05:01:59 PM »
So, the primary research methodology for finding material for the wiki is a simple Google search?

No, we discuss its veracity first. Did you not see the part where I said discussion?

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 175
    • View Profile
Re: NASA Conspiracy History
« Reply #6 on: July 15, 2017, 06:02:28 PM »
Apologies, that was poorly phrased.

What I meant to ask was why the section entitled "Evidence for the Conspiracy" starts with Apollo. If the Mercury and Gemini programs preceded Apollo, then surely there should be evidence from those two programs as well?

Sure, there is evidence from those programs as well. We have mostly just been adding things as they come up in discussion.



So the video says that the helmet rotated - and I agree, it certainly looks that way...but that should be no surprise to anyone...because they could rotate!

    https://hubpages.com/education/NASA-Project-Gemini-Space-Suit

The suit was called "The Clark Suit" which didn't have a rotating helmet.  BUT...

"The Clark suit was adapted to use the helmet designed by BF Goodrich, a removable fiberglass helmet which connected via a locking ring on the suit. The ring had rotating bearings, allowing the astronaut to turn his head from side to side."

In those early gemini missions, the crew had to wear their helmets throughout the entire flight - and the need to swivel was imperative so that they could operate the spacecraft.

In subsequent missions, they allowed the crew to fly without helmets - and clip them on during EVA.  The nature of the process of donning the helmet was simplified by eliminating the rotation ring...which is why the later helmets couldn't rotate.

No mystery, no conspiracy - just some idiot who couldn't be bothered to Google "Gemini spacesuit construction" before they fired off their diatribe.  It took me all of three minutes to look up the truth...but if you're a conspiracy theorist, it's far more entertaining to make YouTube videos than it is to seek out truth and enlightenment.   Those people are really beneath contempt...idiots one and all.

There has been quite a lot of study into conspiracy theories - and it's possible to devise an equation that relates the number of people involved to the amount of time it can be kept quiet.   The theory fits perfectly a number of real conspiracies that were eventually revealed.

Plugging the moon landing conspiracy into that equation...there were about 400,000 NASA employees who would have been "in the know" at the time - and the equation predicts that if that were the case, then the truth would have been revealed in about 3.7 years.    You can use the equation in reverse too.  So for the moon landing conspiracy to have lasted 50 years, there would have had to be at most 250 people who were "in on it"...and that's nowhere near enough to have "disappeared" a bunch of Saturn V rockets that were so painstakingly built by the other 399,750 people.

When you expand this conspiracy to include all of the other space agencies around the world - plus astronomers and other people with access to the scientific tools needed to show that the Earth could be flat...and plug THAT number into the math model - the answer is less than 3 months.

That's how long this could all have been kept quiet.

Here is the original scientific paper:

    http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0147905

I guess none of you FE'ers will read it...

Re: NASA Conspiracy History
« Reply #7 on: July 15, 2017, 07:27:01 PM »
I'm just trying to understand the epistemology of non-mainstream cosmologies. If I could ask a further question, how do you decide on whether a source of information is reliable enough to include in your wiki? I know that you said you have discussions about this, but what are your criteria for inclusion?

*

Online Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2259
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: NASA Conspiracy History
« Reply #8 on: July 15, 2017, 09:16:09 PM »
I'm just trying to understand the epistemology of non-mainstream cosmologies. If I could ask a further question, how do you decide on whether a source of information is reliable enough to include in your wiki? I know that you said you have discussions about this, but what are your criteria for inclusion?

We talk about it and investigate its veracity, like we did here. It is now up to us to come up with a legitimate rebuttal to the information 3DGeek provided, and if one cannot be created then the information won't go into the wiki.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2017, 09:39:12 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: NASA Conspiracy History
« Reply #9 on: July 16, 2017, 11:55:53 AM »
That makes sense. As I said previously, I'm just trying to understand the process of knowledge creation in various schools of thought, and how that process affects what information will be regarded, for lack of a better term, 'canon' within that specific group.

Re: NASA Conspiracy History
« Reply #10 on: July 16, 2017, 03:39:50 PM »
I'm just trying to understand the epistemology of non-mainstream cosmologies. If I could ask a further question, how do you decide on whether a source of information is reliable enough to include in your wiki? I know that you said you have discussions about this, but what are your criteria for inclusion?

We talk about it and investigate its veracity, like we did here. It is now up to us to come up with a legitimate rebuttal to the information 3DGeek provided, and if one cannot be created then the information won't go into the wiki.

You do understand that everything in your wiki can be easily refuted with easily verifiable facts, right?

*

Online Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2259
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: NASA Conspiracy History
« Reply #11 on: July 17, 2017, 04:20:39 AM »
I'm just trying to understand the epistemology of non-mainstream cosmologies. If I could ask a further question, how do you decide on whether a source of information is reliable enough to include in your wiki? I know that you said you have discussions about this, but what are your criteria for inclusion?

We talk about it and investigate its veracity, like we did here. It is now up to us to come up with a legitimate rebuttal to the information 3DGeek provided, and if one cannot be created then the information won't go into the wiki.

You do understand that everything in your wiki can be easily refuted with easily verifiable facts, right?

Since it is so easy, why have you yet to do it?

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 175
    • View Profile
Re: NASA Conspiracy History
« Reply #12 on: July 17, 2017, 02:56:58 PM »
I'm just trying to understand the epistemology of non-mainstream cosmologies. If I could ask a further question, how do you decide on whether a source of information is reliable enough to include in your wiki? I know that you said you have discussions about this, but what are your criteria for inclusion?

We talk about it and investigate its veracity, like we did here. It is now up to us to come up with a legitimate rebuttal to the information 3DGeek provided, and if one cannot be created then the information won't go into the wiki.

You do understand that everything in your wiki can be easily refuted with easily verifiable facts, right?

Since it is so easy, why have you yet to do it?

I think the RET community has very effectively done that - many, many times over in the pages of this very forum.   Pick any page on the Wiki that disagrees with RET and I'll be very happy to give you a refutation with easily verifiable facts.

Hey - let's just start with the very first page:

PAGE 1:  https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Flat_Earth_Wiki

  "(Rowbotham's) experimental evidence is very easily reproducible and requires only access to a long body of standing water and a little trig to conclude that water is not convex, that the surface of the earth does not curve as round earth doctrine mathematically predicts."

...OK - so in refutation, I present: Alfred Russel Wallace's 1870 experiment which refuted Rowbotham.  Wallace was a qualified surveyor and the matter of whether his experiment was correct or not made him the subject of death threats from one of Rowbotham's supporters (who went to jail over that!).   Because Wallace had done his experiment to win a bet (and was adjudged to have won it) - the matter went to court - and Wallace won the case.  Henry Yule Oldham was able to repeat the experiment - and found Wallace to be correct.  Ulysses Grant Morrow also repeated the experiment and came to the conclusion that the Earth was concave - and so we may conclude that this experiment is not a reliable source of information.

I have not, personally, done this experiment - but the undeniable FACT that it produces wildly varying conclusions says that without deeper understanding, it's simply not valid evidence.

Incidentally, Rowbotham was a nut-job.  He was a huge supporter of "Owenism" (the failed idea of setting up rural communes for the poor) and Phrenology (That you could tell someone's mental orientation by feeling the bumps on their heads).   He also lied about his "scientific" investigations.  In 1864 he agreed to a test of his flat earth theory at Plymouth Hoe, witnessed by Richard A. Proctor, a writer on astronomy and a large number of journalists and other observers.  They proceeded to the beach where a telescope had been set up. His opponents had claimed that only the lantern of the Eddystone Lighthouse, some 14 miles out to sea, would be visible. In fact, only half the lantern was visible, yet Rowbotham claimed his opponents were wrong...despite the "clear" evidence of his eyes.   He subsequently claimed that refraction was the cause of this observation...conveniently ignoring the fact that refraction effects would utterly invalidate his previous observations.

So - there, Page 1 is refuted.

PAGE 2: https://wiki.tfes.org/Circumnavigation

...oh...wait - even you don't believe in this map anymore - right?  Maybe we should count this one as "self-refuted".

"Circumnavigation on an FE is achieved because on a compass East and West are always at right angles to North. Traveling Eastwards continuously takes you in a circle around the North Pole. East and West are curved."

...true - but you conveniently ignore circumnavigation in a north-south direction.  Ooopsie!

Honestly - you can't account for the MANY issues of airplane flight times, distances and fuel capacities in the Southern Hemisphere...this is an utter bust.   Just look at those Qantas airline schedules.

" Q. Can't we just circumnavigate the earth by traveling in a straight line without a navigational aid?"
" A. It is not possible to travel in a perfectly straight line for very long without a navigational aid."

...I guess you never heard of an inertial navigation system?   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_navigation_system
...well, never mind - it's irrelevant.   Qantas flight times...international shipping times and charges...many *MANY* data points about the size of the pacific and south atlantic oceans just don't work out in FET...and the mathematics of topology PROVE that there is no fancy map you can possibly come up with that will fix the problem.   The only map representations that produce the right answers are a round earth or the weird-as-all-hell "concave earth" nonsense.  FET can't ever get this right, no matter how you slice it.

PAGE 3: https://wiki.tfes.org/Erathostenes_on_Diameter

(Eratosthenes...in the original Greek: Ἐρατοσθένης - see the theta there after the sigma - it would have been nice if you could have spelled his name correctly.)

The problem with this "proof" that FET works is that you use Eratosthenes to calculate the elevation of the FET Sun - it should be: 500/sin(7'12") - which works out at 3,968 miles - not the 3,000 you claim elsewhere.  That's a pretty large error - and one that you really can't sweep under the rug.  If you used 3,000 in your "Bishop Equation/Constant" then you're a LONG way off!

PAGE 4: https://wiki.tfes.org/Formation_of_Mountains_and_Volcanoes

This page basically says that mountains and volcanoes operate in the same way they do in RET...much of what it says here is therefore unimportant.  However the first paragraph offers some problems:

"Mountains are created over long periods of time by tremendous forces within the flat earth. Below the crust there is tremendous pressure due to acceleration, which has created a vast underground ocean of magma within the earth's mantle."

...this says that "acceleration" is the cause for volcanoes.   The "universal acceleration" theory is busted by the fact that gravity is greater at the north pole and less at the equator...a commonly observed fact.   Universal acceleration also cannot conveniently account for why sun, moon, stars and planets do not come crashing to earth.   One might claim that universal acceleration simply applied to all objects at once - but then the crust would be pushed upwards by the same force as the magma - and then there would be no pressure and not volcanoes.

...look - I could go on.  But I maintain that there is not one single page of the Wiki that isn't riddled with errors and inconsistencies...and it can ALL be refuted with very simple observations.

Re: NASA Conspiracy History
« Reply #13 on: July 19, 2017, 03:03:59 AM »
I'm just trying to understand the epistemology of non-mainstream cosmologies. If I could ask a further question, how do you decide on whether a source of information is reliable enough to include in your wiki? I know that you said you have discussions about this, but what are your criteria for inclusion?

We talk about it and investigate its veracity, like we did here. It is now up to us to come up with a legitimate rebuttal to the information 3DGeek provided, and if one cannot be created then the information won't go into the wiki.

You do understand that everything in your wiki can be easily refuted with easily verifiable facts, right?

Since it is so easy, why have you yet to do it?

Are you trying to imply that because I have not spent the time myself refuting every fact on your wiki that it hasn't already been done? (see 3DGeek's comment above).  Have you spent your time refuting every single fact that indicates that the information in your wiki is completely false?

It is time for you to give up this complete and utter bullshit, Tom.  Every comment you make is a clear deflection from the topic, and it is very apparent to anyone who does not suffer from severe delusions that you are completely full of it.  The topic at this point is less about the shape of the planet we live on and more about the obvious psychological disorder that has to be involved in this absolute nonsense.

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5332
  • Boom
    • View Profile
Re: NASA Conspiracy History
« Reply #14 on: July 19, 2017, 03:24:31 AM »

Are you trying to imply that because I have not spent the time myself refuting every fact on your wiki that it hasn't already been done?

You haven't refuted a single thing beyond your method of "nuh uh." Similar to how a child behaves when they don't know what they are talking about but still insist they are right. Well done, friend.
Please make sure to check out these resources to ensure that your time at tfes.org is enjoyable and productive.

1. The Rules

2. The FAQ

3. The Wiki

You're doing God's work, junker.

Re: NASA Conspiracy History
« Reply #15 on: July 20, 2017, 05:36:40 PM »
A hypothetical parallel discussion between two persons, A & B.

A: Mount Everest isn't real.
B: That's silly, of course it's real.
A: I've never seen it, have you?
B: Well no. But other people have and they've written books, taken photographs and recorded videos while climbing it. I've seen some of those.
A: They're all lying, the photos are fake and the videos are produced in movie studios.
B: What?! That's nuts. It's on every fricken map of Asia.
A: The mapmakers are in on it too. They're all trying to hide the truth from us.
B: Okay, you're a looney. We're done here.
A: You haven't proven that I'm wrong so I win the debate.

Re: NASA Conspiracy History
« Reply #16 on: July 20, 2017, 06:04:09 PM »
Apologies, that was poorly phrased.

What I meant to ask was why the section entitled "Evidence for the Conspiracy" starts with Apollo. If the Mercury and Gemini programs preceded Apollo, then surely there should be evidence from those two programs as well?

Sure, there is evidence from those programs as well. We have mostly just been adding things as they come up in discussion.



This evidence is equal in veracity to that in Earth Not a Globe. Well chosen.