The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: Desmondo on November 15, 2014, 06:42:03 PM
-
I was just wondering how many people you think are in on the conspiracy? I've looked at the wiki, but it doesn't seem to give any figures. Just thinking about it though, you'd have:
1) All the pilots in the world (according to another thread, they are all paid to 'circle around a bit' to make up for the quicker journeys a flat earth would provide) - there are at least 800,000 pilots in the US alone, and there are thus probably at least over a million in the world. And none have ever said anything?
2) Every space agency that has claimed to have launched something into space. Because either they're lying, or they've seen the earth from a satellite/shuttle etc and have been taken in by the conspiracy. Why would countries like N Korea want to be part of the conspiracy. Surely it would be a massive propaganda coup to give evidence that the US has been lying for decades.
3) GPS companies. So how does GPS work then?
4) Phone companies.
5) probably more that I haven't thought of yet
And why hasn't this site been shut down, if the conspiracy has the power to successfully silence so many people?
Thanks in advance for the answers, and sorry for the length :)
-
1) Most pilots aren't aware that the Earth is flat. They just go along with their pilot training, which teaches them the "circle around a bit" (as you call it) technique. Many planes are entirely automated in the air as well, so pilots usually just sit back and smoke cigars and whatnot while the plane is actually flying. They don't know, and they probably don't care.
2) Yes, NASA is lying. Every other space agency across the Earth is lying. They're doing it for financial reasons. There are many raw materials littering the ice wall, many of which are very valuable. They're doing it for money, basically. And money is the most legitimate reason to do anything; almost all of society is based on this principle.
3) GPS works by sonar off reflectors on weather balloons high in the sky. It's a pretty simple concept, actually.
4) Why would phone companies be lying? They're using the same weather balloons.
5) Please get back to us.
-
1) Pilots don't have to be in on the conspiracy. They simply follow their instruments and go where the instruments tell them.
2) Countries pretend do go to space all the time. Have you not seen the fake Chinese space walk?
3) Positioning signals can be sent from ground based transmitters.
4) There are cables running under the oceans connecting all of the continents.
5) In the future, please only bring up one point that you wish to discuss at a time. Threads with multiple questions and answers can get confusing quickly. You will also get more detailed answers when people only have to answer one at a time.
-
Looks like Vauxhall and Jroa need to compare notes, or have a death match or something.
-
3) GPS works by sonar off reflectors on weather balloons high in the sky. It's a pretty simple concept, actually.
How would sonar work in the atmosphere?
-
Looks like Vauxhall and Jroa need to compare notes, or have a death match or something.
FE'ers are not required to agree. There are multiple working, theoretical models of FET. This is a good thing and a sign of a healthy theory.
-
1) So all the instruments have been built so that they lie to the pilots, while autopilot circles the plane around? And none of the literally millions of pilots ever wondered why their plane kept banking when the autopilot said it was flying in a straight line? Because you can feel when a plane turns.
2) How do satellite pictures work?
3) But I don't get why the GPS companies would have talked about satellites in the first place. Surely it would have been easier to just say they were using weather balloons or ground signals, instead of lying about satellites and adding in a load of extra people and complication and possible whistle blowers into the conspiracy. Because at this point, anyone whose job is to do with monitoring the GPS satellites or anything will know that they don't really exist.
4) Again, why would phone companies make up the satellite story in the first place? It just adds so much more complication to the whole conspiracy.
-
5) In the future, please only bring up one point that you wish to discuss at a time. Threads with multiple questions and answers can get confusing quickly. You will also get more detailed answers when people only have to answer one at a time.
Sorry about that. I've got a few more questions to ask. Should I start a new thread or post them on this one?
-
FE'ers are not required to agree. There are multiple working, theoretical models of FET. This is a good thing and a sign of a healthy theory.
I think this is a little misleading. Some FEers eschew "theory", embracing instead the zetetic philosophy, which allows only the correct interpretation.
For example, see: THE term Zetetic is derived from the Greek verb Zeteo; which means to search, or examine; to proceed only by inquiry; to take nothing for granted, but to trace phenomena to their immediate and demonstrable causes. It is here used in contradistinction from the word "theoretic," the meaning of which is, speculative--imaginary--not tangible,--scheming, but not proving.
and reference: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za04.htm
Tom Bishop and pizzaplanet have been vocal on the issue as well. I encourage the use of the Forum's advanced search function to explore their points.
-
FE'ers are not required to agree. There are multiple working, theoretical models of FET. This is a good thing and a sign of a healthy theory.
I think this is a little misleading. Some FEers eschew "theory", embracing instead the zetetic philosophy, which allows only the correct interpretation.
For example, see: THE term Zetetic is derived from the Greek verb Zeteo; which means to search, or examine; to proceed only by inquiry; to take nothing for granted, but to trace phenomena to their immediate and demonstrable causes. It is here used in contradistinction from the word "theoretic," the meaning of which is, speculative--imaginary--not tangible,--scheming, but not proving.
and reference: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za04.htm
Tom Bishop and pizzaplanet have been vocal on the issue as well. I encourage the use of the Forum's advanced search function to explore their points.
Pure zetetics do not produce theoretical models of FET. They do not go farther than pointing out that the Earth is flat, and other easily provable facts. The zetetic model is that from which all theoretical models follow. Those of us who refer to zeteticism and still theorize are neo-zetetics. I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here, but we're definitely getting off topic and I'm really not sure a semantic argument about the definition of zeteticism is one worth having. I definitely don't want to have it.
-
Tom Bishop and pizzaplanet have been vocal on the issue as well.
For clarity, I was vocal only in objecting your dislike of the term "conspiracy theory", largely due to your repeated assertion that a word can only have one meaning. At no point did I mention zeteticism vs theories. We ended that thread with me requesting that you form your views coherently and you refusing to do so.
A cursory search for the term "zetetic" in my posts brings up 2 results, both of which refer to the Zetetic Council, and one only comes up because the word was used in a quote. The exact same results come up for just "zetet". If we go for "zet", the anime Sayonara, Zetsubou-Sensei joins the list. It is therefore safe to assume that I wasn't vocal on the issue of zeteticism (or any derived terms) at all.
Please refrain from misinforming newcomers. It's just poor taste. If your intention was not to misinform - well, you've done it anyway. Please make sure that you verify your claims before making them. Perhaps taking your own advice to [engage in] the use of the Forum's advanced search function would be a good start?
-
Sorry about that. I've got a few more questions to ask. Should I start a new thread or post them on this one?
Generally, I'd recommend separate threads. As you may have already seen (courtesy of ClockTower), threads here can easily get sidetracked, and thus we may miss things if we try lumping everything in one place. It just helps the flow of conversation.
-
Tom Bishop and pizzaplanet have been vocal on the issue as well.
For clarity, I was vocal only in objecting your dislike of the term "conspiracy theory", largely due to your repeated assertion that a word can only have one meaning. At no point did I mention zeteticism vs theories. We ended that thread with me requesting that you form your views coherently and you refusing to do so.
A cursory search for the term "zetetic" in my posts brings up 2 results, both of which refer to the Zetetic Council, and one only comes up because the word was used in a quote. The exact same results come up for just "zetet". If we go for "zet", the anime Sayonara, Zetsubou-Sensei joins the list. It is therefore safe to assume that I wasn't vocal on the issue of zeteticism (or any derived terms) at all.
Please refrain from misinforming newcomers. It's just poor taste. If your intention was not to misinform - well, you've done it anyway. Please make sure that you verify your claims before making them. Perhaps taking your own advice to [engage in] the use of the Forum's advanced search function would be a good start?
I refer you to your post:
My point stands, FET includes a conspiracy and is thereby not Science.
FET is not science by default (even though it does not intrinsically include a conspiracy). We reject the scientific method as something that's insufficient for the purpose of establishing the truth. This is something you've known for a long time. If you now claim that, after two pages of arguing and continuously failing at understanding simple human communication and set theory, you conclude the obvious, then I take that as a concession that you no longer have an argument, assuming you had one to begin with (which is generous).
-
3) GPS works by sonar off reflectors on weather balloons high in the sky. It's a pretty simple concept, actually.
How would sonar work in the atmosphere?
Pretty much the same way it works underwater. You are aware that air propagates sound, correct?
-
I refer you to your post:
My point stands, FET includes a conspiracy and is thereby not Science.
FET is not science by default (even though it does not intrinsically include a conspiracy). We reject the scientific method as something that's insufficient for the purpose of establishing the truth. This is something you've known for a long time. If you now claim that, after two pages of arguing and continuously failing at understanding simple human communication and set theory, you conclude the obvious, then I take that as a concession that you no longer have an argument, assuming you had one to begin with (which is generous).
Are you arguing with PP about what he meant when he said that? Are you seriously that narcissistic? Besides, rejecting the scientific method does not automatically make one a pure zeteticist.
-
I refer you to your post:
My point stands, FET includes a conspiracy and is thereby not Science.
FET is not science by default (even though it does not intrinsically include a conspiracy). We reject the scientific method as something that's insufficient for the purpose of establishing the truth. This is something you've known for a long time. If you now claim that, after two pages of arguing and continuously failing at understanding simple human communication and set theory, you conclude the obvious, then I take that as a concession that you no longer have an argument, assuming you had one to begin with (which is generous).
Are you arguing with PP about what he meant when he said that? Are you seriously that narcissistic? Besides, rejecting the scientific method does not automatically make one a pure zeteticist.
No, I'm not arguing at all. That was a quote. I never claimed that rejecting SM makes one a "pure zeteticist". I don't even know what one is. Rowbotham defines the term zetetic as contradictory to "theoretic" on page 1 of EnaG. The SM uses processes that often use theories. So you can't both use theory and claim to be zetetic, according to Rowbotham. Are you trying to argue that there's no true Scotsman?
-
There is no one in on a conspiracy to hide the flat earth. They are merely mistaken.
-
I adhere to the theory that GPS services are available because of "stratellites", which are basically satellites within the atmosphere.
-
There is no one in on a conspiracy to hide the flat earth. They are merely mistaken.
How does one merely mistake the photos they believe Neil took on the Apollo 11 mission? How did Neil merely mistake taking the photos?
-
There is no one in on a conspiracy to hide the flat earth. They are merely mistaken.
How does one merely mistake the photos they believe Neil took on the Apollo 11 mission? How did Neil merely mistake taking the photos?
From http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy
There is no Flat Earth Conspiracy. NASA is not hiding the shape of the earth from anyone. The purpose of NASA is not to 'hide the shape of the earth' or 'trick people into thinking it's round' or anything of the sort.
There is a Space Travel Conspiracy. The purpose of NASA is to fake the concept of space travel to further America's militaristic dominance of space. That was the purpose of NASA's creation from the very start: To put ICBMs and other weapons into space (or at least appear to). The motto "Scientific exploration of new frontiers for all mankind" was nothing more than a front.
See this quote from president Lyndon Johnson:
"Control of space means control of the world. From space, the masters of infinity would have the power to control the earth's weather, to cause drought and flood, to change the tides and raise the levels of the sea, to divert the gulf stream and change temperate climates to frigid. There is something more important than the ultimate weapon. And that's the ultimate position. The position of total control over the Earth that lies somewhere in outer space." —President Lyndon Johnson, Statement on Status of Nation's Defense and Race for Space, January 7, 1958
One month later, Lyndon Johnson and the Senate Special Committee on Space and Astronautics drafted a resolution to change the name of the US Army's Ballistic Missile Arsenal to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
NASA's early rocket research is well documented to have been a complete failure, plagued by one disaster after another. At some point, perhaps after the Apollo 1 disaster, it was decided to fake the space program outright and use rockets which only needed to fly into the air until they disappeared from sight. NASA went from nearly every launch being a failure to a near flawless track record, able to land man on the moon multiple times without error, and with only two public spectacles of failure in 45 years.
The earth is portrayed as round in NASA media because NASA thinks it's round. They are not running a real space program, so they wouldn't know what shape the earth truly takes. At the time of NASA's creation the general population already believed that the earth was round, based on the handed down teachings of the Ancient Greeks, which is why it was depicted in that manner. As with everyone else in the country, the people at NASA were taught the fiction of a globe earth from the cradle, so there was no doubt in their mind as how to display it.
-
There is no one in on a conspiracy to hide the flat earth. They are merely mistaken.
How does one merely mistake the photos they believe Neil took on the Apollo 11 mission? How did Neil merely mistake taking the photos?
From http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy
There is no Flat Earth Conspiracy. NASA is not hiding the shape of the earth from anyone. The purpose of NASA is not to 'hide the shape of the earth' or 'trick people into thinking it's round' or anything of the sort.
There is a Space Travel Conspiracy. The purpose of NASA is to fake the concept of space travel to further America's militaristic dominance of space. That was the purpose of NASA's creation from the very start: To put ICBMs and other weapons into space (or at least appear to). The motto "Scientific exploration of new frontiers for all mankind" was nothing more than a front.
See this quote from president Lyndon Johnson:
"Control of space means control of the world. From space, the masters of infinity would have the power to control the earth's weather, to cause drought and flood, to change the tides and raise the levels of the sea, to divert the gulf stream and change temperate climates to frigid. There is something more important than the ultimate weapon. And that's the ultimate position. The position of total control over the Earth that lies somewhere in outer space." —President Lyndon Johnson, Statement on Status of Nation's Defense and Race for Space, January 7, 1958
One month later, Lyndon Johnson and the Senate Special Committee on Space and Astronautics drafted a resolution to change the name of the US Army's Ballistic Missile Arsenal to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
NASA's early rocket research is well documented to have been a complete failure, plagued by one disaster after another. At some point, perhaps after the Apollo 1 disaster, it was decided to fake the space program outright and use rockets which only needed to fly into the air until they disappeared from sight. NASA went from nearly every launch being a failure to a near flawless track record, able to land man on the moon multiple times without error, and with only two public spectacles of failure in 45 years.
The earth is portrayed as round in NASA media because NASA thinks it's round. They are not running a real space program, so they wouldn't know what shape the earth truly takes. At the time of NASA's creation the general population already believed that the earth was round, based on the handed down teachings of the Ancient Greeks, which is why it was depicted in that manner. As with everyone else in the country, the people at NASA were taught the fiction of a globe earth from the cradle, so there was no doubt in their mind as how to display it.
So your answer was wrong., There is a conspiracy that hides the shape of the earth, though its original purpose was to fake a space program. Now then would you answer the OP: How many people are in on the conspiracy?
Also LBJ was not president in 1958.
-
Also LBJ was not president in 1958.
Yes, the remark was made before he was president. United States presidents have been widely known to say things years prior to their appointment.
Nonetheless, I will edit the sentence to satisfy your pointless pedantry.
-
So your answer was wrong., There is a conspiracy that hides the shape of the earth, though its original purpose was to fake a space program. Now then would you answer the OP: How many people are in on the conspiracy?
As I said, there is no conspiracy to hide the flat earth. As per the earth's shape they are merely mistaken.
Also LBJ was not president in 1958.
LBJ was a senator at the time, but President is a title which is for life. Clinton and Bush Sr. are still greeted as "Mr. President". It is also not incorrect to state "This is a picture President Obama drew at 8 years old".
-
So your answer was wrong., There is a conspiracy that hides the shape of the earth, though its original purpose was to fake a space program. Now then would you answer the OP: How many people are in on the conspiracy?
As I said, there is no conspiracy to hide the flat earth. As per the earth's shape they are merely mistaken.
Also LBJ was not president in 1958.
LBJ was a senator at the time, but President is a title which is for life. Clinton and Bush Sr. are still greeted as "Mr. President". It is also not incorrect to state "This is a picture President Obama drew at 8 years old".
Again, the OP's question in the subject of this thread asks about "the conspiracy". Please do answer the OP.
I suggest "later president" or "then senator", but as long as you weren't trying to imply that he said it as President, I'm fine with the imprecision.
-
I suggest "later president" or "then senator", but as long as you weren't trying to imply that he said it as President, I'm fine with the imprecision.
Why? Honestly, why does it matter? Why do you come into these threads just to spout semantics?
He said it. It doesn't matter when, or where, or what the hell he was wearing, or what kind of car he was driving at the time. He said it. That's the important part. You do realize that, right?
-
I suggest "later president" or "then senator", but as long as you weren't trying to imply that he said it as President, I'm fine with the imprecision.
Why? Honestly, why does it matter? Why do you come into these threads just to spout semantics?
He said it. It doesn't matter when, or where, or what the hell he was wearing, or what kind of car he was driving at the time. He said it. That's the important part. You do realize that, right?
While you're rather inaccurate with this post arguing just semantics, I do hope that you can address the OP's question as asked in the thread's subject. Thanks.
-
I suggest "later president" or "then senator", but as long as you weren't trying to imply that he said it as President, I'm fine with the imprecision.
Why? Honestly, why does it matter? Why do you come into these threads just to spout semantics?
He said it. It doesn't matter when, or where, or what the hell he was wearing, or what kind of car he was driving at the time. He said it. That's the important part. You do realize that, right?
While you're rather inaccurate with this post arguing just semantics, I do hope that you can address the OP's question as asked in the thread's subject. Thanks.
I believe Tom Bishop already answered the question. Didn't he? Just scroll up a bit.
I just interjected to remind you how terrible your debating skills are.
-
I suggest "later president" or "then senator", but as long as you weren't trying to imply that he said it as President, I'm fine with the imprecision.
Why? Honestly, why does it matter? Why do you come into these threads just to spout semantics?
He said it. It doesn't matter when, or where, or what the hell he was wearing, or what kind of car he was driving at the time. He said it. That's the important part. You do realize that, right?
While you're rather inaccurate with this post arguing just semantics, I do hope that you can address the OP's question as asked in the thread's subject. Thanks.
I believe Tom Bishop already answered the question. Didn't he? Just scroll up a bit.
I just interjected to remind you how terrible your debating skills are.
Nope, he did not answer the OP's subject question: " How many people are in on the conspiracy?" Note that the question does not speak to the original motive for the alleged collusion. Please pay better attention.
-
As I said, there is no conspiracy to hide the flat earth. As per the earth's shape they are merely mistaken.
Please pay better attention.
-
As I said, there is no conspiracy to hide the flat earth. As per the earth's shape they are merely mistaken.
Please pay better attention.
And again, compare the question that Tom Bishop answered in error and the question the OP subject asks.
(http://i.imgur.com/1P9stC3.png)
-
How can there be people in on a conspiracy that doesn't even exist? ???
-
How can there be people in on a conspiracy that doesn't even exist? ???
Who said they were? Surely people can be in on the ("Space Race") conspiracy and providing (or causing others to provide) false data about the shape of the earth, such as the accurate measurements of the distance from the earth to the moon. Wouldn't someone have to be actively conspiring to have many observers independently over decades come up consistently with the RET value of more than 200,000 miles?
Again, please address the OP's subject's question: "How many people are in on the conspiracy?".
-
How can there be people in on a conspiracy that doesn't even exist? ???
Who said they were? Surely people can be in on the ("Space Race") conspiracy and providing (or causing others to provide) false data about the shape of the earth, such as the accurate measurements of the distance from the earth to the moon. Wouldn't someone have to be actively conspiring to have many observers independently over decades come up consistently with the RET value of more than 200,000 miles?
Again, please address the OP's subject's question: "How many people are in on the conspiracy?".
How many people know what really happened on 9/11?
-
How can there be people in on a conspiracy that doesn't even exist? ???
Who said they were? Surely people can be in on the ("Space Race") conspiracy and providing (or causing others to provide) false data about the shape of the earth, such as the accurate measurements of the distance from the earth to the moon. Wouldn't someone have to be actively conspiring to have many observers independently over decades come up consistently with the RET value of more than 200,000 miles?
Again, please address the OP's subject's question: "How many people are in on the conspiracy?".
How many people know what really happened on 9/11?
Irrelevant. Again, please address the OP. Thanks.
-
How can there be people in on a conspiracy that doesn't even exist? ???
Who said they were? Surely people can be in on the ("Space Race") conspiracy and providing (or causing others to provide) false data about the shape of the earth, such as the accurate measurements of the distance from the earth to the moon. Wouldn't someone have to be actively conspiring to have many observers independently over decades come up consistently with the RET value of more than 200,000 miles?
Again, please address the OP's subject's question: "How many people are in on the conspiracy?".
How many people know what really happened on 9/11?
Irrelevant. Again, please address the OP. Thanks.
Sure, the content of the question is irrelevant. But I'm essentially asking you the same question you're asking me.
How am I supposed to know how many people are in this supposed 'conspiracy'?
-
How can there be people in on a conspiracy that doesn't even exist? ???
Who said they were? Surely people can be in on the ("Space Race") conspiracy and providing (or causing others to provide) false data about the shape of the earth, such as the accurate measurements of the distance from the earth to the moon. Wouldn't someone have to be actively conspiring to have many observers independently over decades come up consistently with the RET value of more than 200,000 miles?
Again, please address the OP's subject's question: "How many people are in on the conspiracy?".
How many people know what really happened on 9/11?
Irrelevant. Again, please address the OP. Thanks.
Sure, the content of the question is irrelevant. But I'm essentially asking you the same question you're asking me.
How am I supposed to know how many people are in this supposed 'conspiracy'?
I would expect you to apply the same academic prowess as you use with AWT. You know, research, experiment, hypothesis and the other parts of SM.
When I claim that there's a conspiracy hiding hiding the truth about RET, then your challenge would be relevant to that conspiracy, but not before.
ETF: double word error
-
When I claim that there's a conspiracy hiding hiding the truth about RET, then your challenge would be relevant to that conspiracy, but not before.
What?
-
The deep space data is fake, but the distance of celestial bodies is competed via trigonometry, using 19th century methods which assume a round earth and big solar system. We get different values if the triangles in the parallax calculations use a flat surface.
-
The deep space data is fake, but the distance of celestial bodies is competed via trigonometry, using 19th century methods which assume a round earth and big solar system. We get different values if the triangles in the parallax calculations use a flat surface.
Okay, so then you should be able to show that the 19th century methods assume a round earth and get a "big" solar system, say the earth orbits the sun at about a radius of 93 million miles, but these process in EnaG should be more accurate and produce much smaller distances.
Please show us the correct way to measure the distance between the earth and the sun. Remember we've already reviewed EnaG and found Rowbotham totally wrong when we critiqued EnaG.
-
The deep space data is fake, but the distance of celestial bodies is competed via trigonometry, using 19th century methods which assume a round earth and big solar system. We get different values if the triangles in the parallax calculations use a flat surface.
Okay, so then you should be able to show that the 19th century methods assume a round earth and get a "big" solar system, say the earth orbits the sun at about a radius of 93 million miles, but these process in EnaG should be more accurate and produce much smaller distances.
Please show us the correct way to measure the distance between the earth and the sun. Remember we've already reviewed EnaG and found Rowbotham totally wrong when we critiqued EnaG.
The methods are correct for both RET and FET distances to the sun. If the earth is round, one distance is computed to get the Round Earth value and if the earth is flat another distance is computed to get the Flat Earth value, using the same method. It's not a matter of an incorrect method -- it's a matter of an incorrect model.
-
The methods are correct for both RET and FET distances to the sun. If the earth is round, one distance is computed to get the Round Earth value and if the earth is flat another distance is computed to get the Flat Earth value, using the same method. It's not a matter of an incorrect method -- it's a matter of an incorrect model.
Nope. FET distance measurement techniques are just wrong. Rowbotham can't use trigonometry correctly in EnaG. The Wiki entry uses only two latitudes and just ignores the other possibilities that provide inconsistent results.
Also if you're using the wrong model, you're using the wrong method.
Show us your calculation for the distance to the sun on the equinox from 20o N and 50o S please. Why don't you get the same value?
-
The methods are correct for both RET and FET distances to the sun. If the earth is round, one distance is computed to get the Round Earth value and if the earth is flat another distance is computed to get the Flat Earth value, using the same method. It's not a matter of an incorrect method -- it's a matter of an incorrect model.
Nope. FET distance measurement techniques are just wrong. Rowbotham can't use trigonometry correctly in EnaG. The Wiki entry uses only two latitudes and just ignores the other possibilities that provide inconsistent results.
Also if you're using the wrong model, you're using the wrong method.
Show us your calculation for the distance to the sun on the equinox from 20o N and 50o S please. Why don't you get the same value?
What is the angle of the sun at on those latitudes?
-
The deep space data is fake, but the distance of celestial bodies is competed via trigonometry, using 19th century methods which assume a round earth and big solar system. We get different values if the triangles in the parallax calculations use a flat surface.
Not entirely true. Parallax only works for relatively close deep space objects (up to about 100 ly). A variety of other techniques involving various standard candles (http://universe-review.ca/R02-07-candle.htm) are used for more distant objects.
-
The methods are correct for both RET and FET distances to the sun. If the earth is round, one distance is computed to get the Round Earth value and if the earth is flat another distance is computed to get the Flat Earth value, using the same method. It's not a matter of an incorrect method -- it's a matter of an incorrect model.
Nope. FET distance measurement techniques are just wrong. Rowbotham can't use trigonometry correctly in EnaG. The Wiki entry uses only two latitudes and just ignores the other possibilities that provide inconsistent results.
Also if you're using the wrong model, you're using the wrong method.
Show us your calculation for the distance to the sun on the equinox from 20o N and 50o S please. Why don't you get the same value?
What is the angle of the sun at on those latitudes?
It doesn't really matter, but for simplicity, assume that it's solar noon on the day of an equinox.
-
The methods are correct for both RET and FET distances to the sun. If the earth is round, one distance is computed to get the Round Earth value and if the earth is flat another distance is computed to get the Flat Earth value, using the same method. It's not a matter of an incorrect method -- it's a matter of an incorrect model.
Nope. FET distance measurement techniques are just wrong. Rowbotham can't use trigonometry correctly in EnaG. The Wiki entry uses only two latitudes and just ignores the other possibilities that provide inconsistent results.
Also if you're using the wrong model, you're using the wrong method.
Show us your calculation for the distance to the sun on the equinox from 20o N and 50o S please. Why don't you get the same value?
What is the angle of the sun at on those latitudes?
It doesn't really matter, but for simplicity, assume that it's solar noon on the day of an equinox?
So what is the angle of the sun at those latitudes?
-
The methods are correct for both RET and FET distances to the sun. If the earth is round, one distance is computed to get the Round Earth value and if the earth is flat another distance is computed to get the Flat Earth value, using the same method. It's not a matter of an incorrect method -- it's a matter of an incorrect model.
Nope. FET distance measurement techniques are just wrong. Rowbotham can't use trigonometry correctly in EnaG. The Wiki entry uses only two latitudes and just ignores the other possibilities that provide inconsistent results.
Also if you're using the wrong model, you're using the wrong method.
Show us your calculation for the distance to the sun on the equinox from 20o N and 50o S please. Why don't you get the same value?
What is the angle of the sun at on those latitudes?
It doesn't really matter, but for simplicity, assume that it's solar noon on the day of an equinox?
So what is the angle of the sun at those latitudes?
What does FET say that the angle of the sun should be at those latitudes at solar noon on the day of an equinox? Are they supposed to be different from what RET predicts?
-
The deep space data is fake, but the distance of celestial bodies is competed via trigonometry, using 19th century methods which assume a round earth and big solar system. We get different values if the triangles in the parallax calculations use a flat surface.
Okay, so then you should be able to show that the 19th century methods assume a round earth and get a "big" solar system, say the earth orbits the sun at about a radius of 93 million miles, but these process in EnaG should be more accurate and produce much smaller distances.
Please show us the correct way to measure the distance between the earth and the sun. Remember we've already reviewed EnaG and found Rowbotham totally wrong when we critiqued EnaG.
The methods are correct for both RET and FET distances to the sun. If the earth is round, one distance is computed to get the Round Earth value and if the earth is flat another distance is computed to get the Flat Earth value, using the same method. It's not a matter of an incorrect method -- it's a matter of an incorrect model.
Radar bounce is used to calculate the distance to Venus and from there the trigonometry to calculate the distance to the sun has nothing to do with a RE. It assume the Earth is a vertex on the triangle, nothing more.
-
...
Radar bounce is used to calculate the distance to Venus and from there the trigonometry to calculate the distance to the sun has nothing to do with a RE. It assume the Earth is a vertex on the triangle, nothing more.
Just to try to help here... RS is right, RADAR bounce is one accepted and RET-consistent method to measure the distance to Venus and the sun. Tom Bishop is trying (and rather weakly) to claim that the transit technique (see: http://www.space.com/18529-distance-to-venus.html (http://www.space.com/18529-distance-to-venus.html))would apply in either case of a flat or global earth. However, he should note that both results are disproof of FET.
-
RADAR signals do not travel at the same speed when the medium changes. I know you RE'ers like to think it does, though. ::)
-
RADAR signals do not travel at the same speed when the medium changes. I know you RE'ers like to think it does, though. ::)
You attack a straw man. Show your evidence that the measurement failed to consider RADAR's varying velocity according to medium and that such an oversight results in a value that does not disprove FET. See, for example, http://www.astroevents.no/distance.html (http://www.astroevents.no/distance.html)
-
RADAR signals do not travel at the same speed when the medium changes. I know you RE'ers like to think it does, though. ::)
You attack a straw man. Show your evidence that the measurement failed to consider RADAR's varying velocity according to medium and that such an oversight results in a value that does not disprove FET. See, for example, http://www.astroevents.no/distance.html (http://www.astroevents.no/distance.html)
Any kind of EM signal will pass through a constantly changing medium if pointed from the Earth to any of the celestrial objects.
Or, are you denying this?
-
RADAR signals do not travel at the same speed when the medium changes. I know you RE'ers like to think it does, though. ::)
What does RADAR have to do with using the transit of Venus to measure the solar system? ???
-
Poor markjo. I am referring to the RADAR bounces. I know your age is getting to you, but please, try to stay on track with us young falks.
-
Any kind of EM signal will pass through a constantly changing medium if pointed from the Earth to any of the celestrial objects.
Or, are you denying this?
Technically you're wrong. An EM signal could be pointed at the sun at local midnight and not pass through any medium. Regardless, so what?
Do point us to the method the FET has used to measure the distance from earth to the sun given that the media constantly change.
Please cease the personal attacks.
-
Technically you're wrong. An EM signal could be pointed at the sun at local midnight and not pass through any medium. Regardless, so what?
There is no air between the Earth and sun at midnight? Are you just making stuff up again?
-
Technically you're wrong. An EM signal could be pointed at the sun at local midnight and not pass through any medium. Regardless, so what?
There is no air between the Earth and sun at midnight? Are you just making stuff up again?
You do need to recall that objects like the earth can prevent the propagation of EM signals.
Again, regardless, so what?
Again, I kindly ask that you to refrain from personal attacks.
-
Technically you're wrong. An EM signal could be pointed at the sun at local midnight and not pass through any medium. Regardless, so what?
There is no air between the Earth and sun at midnight? Are you just making stuff up again?
You do need to recall that objects like the earth can prevent the propagation of EM signals.
Again, regardless, so what?
Again, I kindly ask that you to refrain from personal attacks.
It is a personal attack when I call bull shit on you?
-
Technically you're wrong. An EM signal could be pointed at the sun at local midnight and not pass through any medium. Regardless, so what?
There is no air between the Earth and sun at midnight? Are you just making stuff up again?
You do need to recall that objects like the earth can prevent the propagation of EM signals.
Again, regardless, so what?
Again, I kindly ask that you to refrain from personal attacks.
,
It is a personal attack when I call bull shit on you?
I'll let your good conscience guide you on that trip of self-reflection. Happy trails.
Now to the topic: How does RADAR's having to pass through various, even constantly changing, media correct the RADAR-based measurements to celestial objects to no longer disprove FET?
-
RADAR signals do not travel at the same speed when the medium changes. I know you RE'ers like to think it does, though. ::)
Considering refractive indices could not even get the AU down one order of magnitude, this does nothing to help the FE case.
-
Radar bounce experiments are typically government funded or NASA affiliated.
-
Radar bounce experiments are typically government funded or NASA affiliated.
So how many people are involved in faking the RADAR bounce results? How about the atypical case when a government or NASA is not involved?
-
Radar bounce experiments are typically government funded or NASA affiliated.
I'm sure you have a point. Please make it.
-
Radar bounce experiments are typically government funded or NASA affiliated.
Unlikely, please provide evidence, particularly for work outside the US.
-
Radar bounce experiments are typically government funded or NASA affiliated.
Unlikely, please provide evidence, particularly for work outside the US.
Here's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Diana) a famous one regarding radar bounce off the moon, conducted by the US Army. What they were really doing is up for debate, but it was obviously funded by the government.
Please remember to donate to wikipedia if you visit that link.
-
Radar bounce experiments are typically government funded or NASA affiliated.
Unlikely, please provide evidence, particularly for work outside the US.
Here's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Diana) a famous one regarding radar bounce off the moon, conducted by the US Army. What they were really doing is up for debate, but it was obviously funded by the government.
Please remember to donate to wikipedia if you visit that link.
One example of "funding" inside the US is the best you can do? The very fair question asked for evidence of your outlandish claim.
-
You claimed it was unlikely that the government funded radar bounce experiments. I provided an example clearly showing that they do fund radar bounce experiments. What's the problem here?
-
You claimed it was unlikely that the government funded radar bounce experiments. I provided an example clearly showing that they do fund radar bounce experiments. What's the problem here?
I did not claim that it was unlikely that the government funded RADAR bounce experiments.
-
I'm not doing this with you today, Gulliver. Please reread your own posts if you're confused.
-
I'm not doing this with you today, Gulliver. Please reread your own posts if you're confused.
And again Vx runs away. Have a good cry.
-
I recall a large thread on the .org forum where we challenged Round Earthers to find a radar or laser bounce moon experiment which was not connected to NASA or the US government, or its ilk space agencies abroad. Out of 15+ experiments we looked at, all were connected in some way.
-
What about the HAM radio moon bounces? Were they all government connected?
http://www.k4lrg.org/Projects/K4MSG_EME/
-
http://www.qsl.net/dl4yhf/speclab/earth_venus_earth.htm
-
I recall a large thread on the .org forum where we challenged Round Earthers to find a radar or laser bounce moon experiment which was not connected to NASA or the US government, or its ilk space agencies abroad. Out of 15+ experiments we looked at, all were connected in some way.
So what? I thought there was only a spaceflight conspiracy or has it's scope somehow broadened? If so, I would love to see some evidence, otherwise this has to be consigned to the trash heap of tin foil hats.
-
What about the HAM radio moon bounces? Were they all government connected?
http://www.k4lrg.org/Projects/K4MSG_EME/
The software they're pushing was programmed by Joseph Taylor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Hooton_Taylor,_Jr.), a hireling who works at several government funded observatories.
So what? I thought there was only a spaceflight conspiracy or has it's scope somehow broadened? If so, I would love to see some evidence, otherwise this has to be consigned to the trash heap of tin foil hats.
The government's interest in bouncing lasers and radio waves off of the moon are part of the developments leading up to the Apollo missions. In fact, after the Apollo 11, the government went around claiming that a specially developed quadrillion-watt ruby laser they developed was able to transmit beams out of the earth's atmosphere, bounce it off of the Apollo reflector and return to earth. This "proved" to the world that Apollo 11 actually occurred, and stands as one of the first things people jump to when looking for proof of the Apollo missions, neglecting to understand that this proof comes straight from the horse's mouth.
-
What about the HAM radio moon bounces? Were they all government connected?
http://www.k4lrg.org/Projects/K4MSG_EME/
The software they're pushing was programmed by Joseph Taylor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Hooton_Taylor,_Jr.), a hireling who works at several government funded observatories.
First of all, I'm not sure that I'd refer to a Nobel Prize winning astrophysicist as "a hireling".
Secondly, so what? Did the government tell Taylor to write the HAM radio software?
Thirdly, the WSJT (http://physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/k1jt/devel.html) protocol software is open source, so everyone is free to examine, or even contribute to, the source code to see for themselves if the protocol does what it claims.
-
What about the HAM radio moon bounces? Were they all government connected?
http://www.k4lrg.org/Projects/K4MSG_EME/
The software they're pushing was programmed by Joseph Taylor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Hooton_Taylor,_Jr.), a hireling who works at several government funded observatories.
So what? I thought there was only a spaceflight conspiracy or has it's scope somehow broadened? If so, I would love to see some evidence, otherwise this has to be consigned to the trash heap of tin foil hats.
The government's interest in bouncing lasers and radio waves off of the moon are part of the developments leading up to the Apollo missions. In fact, after the Apollo 11, the government went around claiming that a specially developed quadrillion-watt ruby laser they developed was able to transmit beams out of the earth's atmosphere, bounce it off of the Apollo reflector and return to earth. This "proved" to the world that Apollo 11 actually occurred, and stands as one of the first things people jump to when looking for proof of the Apollo missions, neglecting to understand that this proof comes straight from the horse's mouth.
We are not talking about Apollo. We are talking about bouncingn radar off of Venus. Do you have evidence that all of these experiments have been faked? If not, your claim cannot be taken seriously.
-
We are not talking about Apollo. We are talking about bouncingn radar off of Venus. Do you have evidence that all of these experiments have been faked? If not, your claim cannot be taken seriously.
As I recall, the conspiracy has been bouncing RADAR off of the moon and Venus before any satellites were supposedly launched and they realized that sustained space flight was impossible. That begs the question, what was the motivation to falsify such results?
-
The idea that certain governments are not in on the control is another lie. All governments are controlled by the same puppetmasters, and that includes NK, Cuba, Russia, you name it.
Watch the handshakes.
H was a British operative.
Notice all space agencies use the snake's tongue in their logos.
They play both sides against the middle.
Watch the movie "They Live" to see the Truth.
-
;
What about the HAM radio moon bounces? Were they all government connected?
http://www.k4lrg.org/Projects/K4MSG_EME/
The software they're pushing was programmed by Joseph Taylor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Hooton_Taylor,_Jr.), a hireling who works at several government funded observatories.
First of all, I'm not sure that I'd refer to a Nobel Prize winning astrophysicist as "a hireling".
Secondly, so what? Did the government tell Taylor to write the HAM radio software?
Thirdly, the WSJT (http://physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/k1jt/devel.html) protocol software is open source, so everyone is free to examine, or even contribute to, the source code to see for themselves if the protocol does what it claims.
Just because it's open source, it doesn't make it impervious. As I recall it was recently leaked by the Snowden documents that the NSA snuck code into public cryptographic standards by using highly complex and indecipherable advanced mathematics which only few could understand, and written in an inconvenient way. The random number generator produced keys which seemed random but were actually subtly not. This allowed the NSA, knowing how the number was tainted, to calculate the private key from a public key.
Since it was open source, everyone made the same literal justification you made in defense of legitimacy, the software passed several "code reviews," and the world proceeded to use it, basically giving the NSA free reign to access the most sensitive computers and networks as they pleased, without needing to hack anything.
The mere fact that this software was produced by someone receiving checks from the government invalidates its use as a tool for demonstrating the honesty of the government.
-
The mere fact that this software was produced by someone receiving checks from the government invalidates its use as a tool for demonstrating the honesty of the government.
So everyone who receives even the smallest benefit from the government cannot be trusted? Would that mean we couldn't trust even your integrity?
-
Just because it's open source, it doesn't make it impervious. As I recall it was recently leaked by the Snowden documents that the NSA snuck code into public cryptographic standards by using highly complex and indecipherable advanced mathematics which only few could understand, and written in an inconvenient way. The random number generator produced keys which seemed random but were actually subtly not. This allowed the NSA, knowing how the number was tainted, to calculate the private key from a public key.
Didn't Snowden work for the NSA? How can you trust anything that he has to say? After all, for all anyone knows, he could still be working for the government and all of those documents were either faked of harmless so that he could establish the cover of being a traitor and flee to Russia so that he could spy on them. After all, faking a few thousand leaks is child's play compared to covering up the true shape of the earth.
Since it was open source, everyone made the same literal justification you made in defense of legitimacy, the software passed several "code reviews," and the world proceeded to use it, basically giving the NSA free reign to access the most sensitive computers and networks as they pleased, without needing to hack anything.
Well, now that programmers know that that there may be suspicious code in the software, they have a better idea of what to look for in the next review.
The mere fact that this software was produced by someone receiving checks from the government invalidates its use as a tool for demonstrating the honesty of the government.
Yes, because everyone who has ever worked for the government, including myself, is a member of the conspiracy, ::)
-
Just because it's open source, it doesn't make it impervious. As I recall it was recently leaked by the Snowden documents that the NSA snuck code into public cryptographic standards by using highly complex and indecipherable advanced mathematics which only few could understand, and written in an inconvenient way. The random number generator produced keys which seemed random but were actually subtly not. This allowed the NSA, knowing how the number was tainted, to calculate the private key from a public key.
Since it was open source, everyone made the same literal justification you made in defense of legitimacy, the software passed several "code reviews," and the world proceeded to use it, basically giving the NSA free reign to access the most sensitive computers and networks as they pleased, without needing to hack anything.
The mere fact that this software was produced by someone receiving checks from the government invalidates its use as a tool for demonstrating the honesty of the government.
You're referring to Dual_EC_DRBG, yeah?
Everything you wrote here is wildly incorrect.
https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2007/11/did_nsa_put_a_secret.html
http://eprint.iacr.org/2006/190
http://eprint.iacr.org/2007/048
http://www.math.ntnu.no/~kristiag/drafts/dual-ec-drbg-comments.pdf
-
Well, now that programmers know that that there may be suspicious code in the software, they have a better idea of what to look for in the next review.
The point is that an entire world of programmers missed it in a very public open source security project used by millions of computers. Yet you are telling me that, simply because it it open source, that Joe Taylor's somewhat more obscure software project has probably been vetted so that all math is perfectly sound, the code is constructed to flow instantly without any subtle delays, and there are no hidden functions, all without the software reviewers, if it was even ever looked over, knowing what to look for.
Yes, because everyone who has ever worked for the government, including myself, is a member of the conspiracy, ::)
If you were working for the Army accounting office and gave us a study proving that there was no corruption in Army finances, your work would absolutely be invalid.
Legitimate evidence comes from an outside source - external auditors, peer review by unconnected persons, etc. This should not be difficult to understand.
-
The point is that an entire world of programmers missed it in a very public open source security project used by millions of computers. Yet you are telling me that, simply because it it open source, that Joe Taylor's somewhat more obscure software project has probably been vetted so that all math is perfectly sound, the code is constructed to flow instantly without any subtle delays, and there are no hidden functions, all without the software reviewers, if it was even ever looked over, knowing what to look for.
Did you not read the links I just posted? The backdoor wasn't missed. Wired was writing articles about it in 2007.
-
Suspicion in 2007 != proof. Programmers looked at the code up and down and couldn't find where the NSA tainted it. It was argued by defenders that the random key generator was 'random enough' given the time and hardware limited constraints an average public-private key needs to be generated, and that it was hard to create something truly mathematically random. If you throw more time and computing resources at random number generation, it was argued, the number would of course be more random. No direct evidence of foul play could be found. There was never any proof of a backdoor or malicious intent. The tool could be called 'weak' at worst. Suspicions stayed suspicions and the tool continued to be used world wide. Only until the Snowden leaks occurred was the tool renounced.
From a more recent 2014 article:
http://www.itworldcanada.com/post/second-nsa-security-tool-further-weakens-rsas-cryptography-kit
experts had previously aired suspicions about Dual Elliptic Curve, but it was only after Snowden’s leak of NSA documents that RSA and the National Institute of Standards and Technology renounced the technology.
If there was actual proof of a back door the tool would have been renounced in 2007. Programmers had the code, right there in front of them, with hundreds of people in the security community out to put the NSA's head on a stake, and couldn't find where it was tainted. Yet we're supposed to trust "code reviews".
-
Suspicion in 2007 != proof.
It looks like it is for you. After all, you seem to think that possibly tainted optional code contributed by the NSA to an encryption program is enough proof to distrust a niche HAM radio communication protocol because the original programmer worked for a observatory that received some government funds. Personally, I'd be a lot more worried by Facebook selling personal information to anyone who's willing to pay for it.
-
It is a story which shows why open source code cannot be trusted simply because it is reviewed by the community. Things can be hidden in plain sight. This runs against your justification that the code must be untainted because it is open source.
That the programmer receives a paycheck from government observatories is another, separate discrediting point. Legitimate evidences comes from external sources. Per the previous example; a study by an Army accountant proving that there was no corruption in Army finances is in no way valid.
-
It is a story which shows why open source code cannot be trusted simply because it is reviewed by the community. Things can be hidden in plain sight. This runs against your justification that the code must be untainted because it is open source.
Tom, I'm not sure if you understand how open source software works. Perhaps you should ask Parsifal explain it to you some time.
That the programmer receives a paycheck from government observatories is another, separate discrediting point.
??? Why should someone automatically distrust a weak signal HAM radio communication protocol written by an astrophysicist who worked at several national observatories?
Legitimate evidences comes from external sources. Per the previous example; a study by an Army accountant proving that there was no corruption in Army finances is in no way valid.
??? So you're saying that internal audits never find any problems or that GAO auditors shouldn't be trusted to track down fraud, waste or abuse within government agencies?
-
Tom, I'm not sure if you understand how open source software works. Perhaps you should ask Parsifal explain it to you some time.
Will Parsifal tell me that all open source software is reviewed by top experts and that there is no possible way to insert slight variances in the coding or the math involved to cause a delay or change the result of an output?
Why should someone automatically distrust a weak signal HAM radio communication protocol written by an astrophysicist who worked at several national observatories?
Because we want to know if those national observatories are honest when they do their moon bounce experiments.
We can't trust someone who works for those national observatories. That is a tainted source.
??? So you're saying that internal audits never find any problems or that GAO auditors shouldn't be trusted to track down fraud, waste or abuse within government agencies?
The GAO auditing the Army is a whole lot more legitimate than the Army auditing itself. The GAO can't be truly trustworthy, however, since it is still part of the government. It is still possible that someone high up at the GAO would have incentive to cover things up in some situation, perhaps at request of the president, or as not to cause embarrassment to the country.
-
It is a story which shows why open source code cannot be trusted simply because it is reviewed by the community. Things can be hidden in plain sight. This runs against your justification that the code must be untainted because it is open source.
That the programmer receives a paycheck from government observatories is another, separate discrediting point. Legitimate evidences comes from external sources. Per the previous example; a study by an Army accountant proving that there was no corruption in Army finances is in no way valid.
An anecdote !=evidence. A spy agency was caught spying and you want to use this as evidence that scientists are not doing science. It makes no sense.
-
Tom, I'm not sure if you understand how open source software works. Perhaps you should ask Parsifal explain it to you some time.
Will Parsifal tell me that all open source software is reviewed by top experts and that there is no possible way to insert slight variances in the coding or the math involved to cause a delay or change the result of an output?
I have a feeling that part of the review/testing process is to check the results of the new code against the results of the old code. Discrepancies in the results would likely raise suspicions.
Why should someone automatically distrust a weak signal HAM radio communication protocol written by an astrophysicist who worked at several national observatories?
Because we want to know if those national observatories are honest when they do their moon bounce experiments.
We can't trust someone who works for those national observatories. That is a tainted source.
Ummm... First of all, WSJT is not used for moon bounce experiments. It's used for long distance HAM radio communication where bouncing off the atmosphere, a meteor ion trail or the moon result in weak signals and/or low signal to noise ratios.
Secondly, by your reasoning, no on who has ever gone to college can be trusted because most colleges and/or students receive some sort of government funding or aid.
??? So you're saying that internal audits never find any problems or that GAO auditors shouldn't be trusted to track down fraud, waste or abuse within government agencies?
The GAO auditing the Army is a whole lot more legitimate than the Army auditing itself. The GAO can't be truly trustworthy, however, since it is still part of the government. It is still possible that someone high up at the GAO would have incentive to cover things up in some situation, perhaps at request of the president, or as not to cause embarrassment to the country.
Are you suggesting that outside auditors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accounting_scandals), such as Arthur Andersen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Andersen#Enron_scandal) are completely trustworthy? Also, did you know the the MCI scandal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MCI_Inc.#Accounting_scandals) was uncovered by internal auditors?
-
An anecdote !=evidence. A spy agency was caught spying and you want to use this as evidence that scientists are not doing science. It makes no sense.
Actually, the analogy showing a spy agency inserting an undetectable backdoor into the algorithm of an open source project is evidence that open source software can be undetectably tainted.
-
An anecdote !=evidence. A spy agency was caught spying and you want to use this as evidence that scientists are not doing science. It makes no sense.
Actually, the analogy shows that a spy agency inserting an undetectable backdoor into the algorithm of an open source project is evidence that open source software can be undetectably tainted.
But you have no evidence of any such tainting and other than this anecdote have no reason based in fact to believe that the code is not working as intended.
If we were to grant your point we are now forced to incorporate an entirely new and substantial entity into your conspiracy whose ability to operate with 100% clandestine efficiency is undreamt of in any other field of endeavor in human history. Please pipe the bloat on to your conspiracy theory.
-
I have a feeling that part of the review/testing process is to check the results of the new code against the results of the old code. Discrepancies in the results would likely raise suspicions.
What if the original code was tainted?
Ummm... First of all, WSJT is not used for moon bounce experiments. It's used for long distance HAM radio communication where bouncing off the atmosphere, a meteor ion trail or the moon result in weak signals and/or low signal to noise ratios.
Secondly, by your reasoning, no on who has ever gone to college can be trusted because most colleges and/or students receive some sort of government funding or aid.
Actually, university student research can't be trusted either. If a university is government funded, the government can easily tell them "we want you to bounce a laser off of the Apollo retoreflector with the university observatory's quadrillion-watt laser you have on loan, using this here software package designed for this purpose," and wa-la, it's done. Another paper to prove that America achieved moon victory in the summer of 1969.
Are you suggesting that outside auditors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accounting_scandals), such as Arthur Andersen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Andersen#Enron_scandal) are completely trustworthy? Also, did you know the the MCI scandal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MCI_Inc.#Accounting_scandals) was uncovered by internal auditors?
By rule if thumb and standard practice, audits by external groups are more creditable than an internal audit. If a company conducts solely internal audits, that would be a red flag for investors. Financial statements are more credible if an external auditor evaluates them and agrees that they are accurate.
-
An anecdote !=evidence. A spy agency was caught spying and you want to use this as evidence that scientists are not doing science. It makes no sense.
Actually, the analogy shows that a spy agency inserting an undetectable backdoor into the algorithm of an open source project is evidence that open source software can be undetectably tainted.
But you have no evidence of any such tainting and other than this anecdote have no reason based in fact to believe that the code is not working as intended.
If we were to grant your point we are now forced to incorporate an entirely new and substantial entity into your conspiracy whose ability to operate with 100% clandestine efficiency is undreamt of in any other field of endeavor in human history. Please pipe the bloat on to your conspiracy theory.
It just takes one nefarious protocol/software package being written for moon bounce experiments, which gets passed around from government observatory to government observatory, when the experiments are repeated. I doubt every such researcher is reinventing the wheel and programming software from scratch that interacts with the hardware. There are standard protocols and software packages which get shared between observatories.
-
An anecdote !=evidence. A spy agency was caught spying and you want to use this as evidence that scientists are not doing science. It makes no sense.
Actually, the analogy shows that a spy agency inserting an undetectable backdoor into the algorithm of an open source project is evidence that open source software can be undetectably tainted.
But you have no evidence of any such tainting and other than this anecdote have no reason based in fact to believe that the code is not working as intended.
If we were to grant your point we are now forced to incorporate an entirely new and substantial entity into your conspiracy whose ability to operate with 100% clandestine efficiency is undreamt of in any other field of endeavor in human history. Please pipe the bloat on to your conspiracy theory.
It just takes one nefarious protocol/software package being written for moon bounce experiments, which gets passed around from government observatory to government observatory, when the experiments are repeated. I doubt every such researcher is reinventing the wheel and programming software from scratch that interacts with the hardware. There are standard protocols and software packages which get shared between observatories.
Speculation again. Do you have evidence that such a protocol exists? Endless bloviating about what could be is the field of novelists not those endeavor ing to investigate the truth.
-
I have a feeling that part of the review/testing process is to check the results of the new code against the results of the old code. Discrepancies in the results would likely raise suspicions.
What if the original code was tainted?
What if the original code wasn't tainted and did just what it claimed?
Actually, university student research can't be trusted either. If a university is government funded, the government can easily tell them "we want you to bounce a laser off of the Apollo retoreflector with the university observatory's quadrillion-watt laser you have on loan, using this here software package designed for this purpose," and wa-la, it's done. Another paper to prove that America achieved moon victory in the summer of 1969.
Tom, do you have any personal, hands on experience with the inner workings of the laser moon bounce process at any of the observatories that do these measurements, or are you deliberately misrepresenting the process in order to make it look suspicious?
By rule if thumb and standard practice, audits by external groups are more creditable than an internal audit. If a company conducts solely internal audits, that would be a red flag for investors. Financial statements are more credible if an external auditor evaluates them and agrees that they are accurate.
What about when the external auditor is an integral part of the scandal?
-
What if the original code wasn't tainted and did just what it claimed?
We've only seen that the government can produce RET results.
Tom, do you have any personal, hands on experience with the inner workings of the laser moon bounce process at any of the observatories that do these measurements, or are you deliberately misrepresenting the process in order to make it look suspicious?
There is an entire internet designed for universities to share resources like this called "Internet 2".
What about when the external auditor is an integral part of the scandal?
What are you talking about. It's a fact of life that audits by external sources are significantly more credible than audits by internal sources. External sources are not incorruptible, simply more creditable.
-
Three questions and not one answer that is direct.
-
What if the original code wasn't tainted and did just what it claimed?
We've only seen that the government can produce RET results.
Have you considered the possibility that RET results are easier because the earth is actually round?
Tom, do you have any personal, hands on experience with the inner workings of the laser moon bounce process at any of the observatories that do these measurements, or are you deliberately misrepresenting the process in order to make it look suspicious?
There is an entire internet designed for universities to share resources like this called "Internet 2".
??? What doe that have to do with your own personal experience with moon bounces?
What about when the external auditor is an integral part of the scandal?
What are you talking about. It's a fact of life that audits by external sources are significantly more credible than audits by internal sources. External sources are not incorruptible, simply more creditable.
How credible was Arthur Andersen's external audit of MCI when MCI's internal auditors found almost $4 billion in irregularities?
-
Tom, do you have any personal, hands on experience with the inner workings of the laser moon bounce process at any of the observatories that do these measurements, or are you deliberately misrepresenting the process in order to make it look suspicious?
There is an entire internet designed for universities to share resources like this called "Internet 2".
Internet 2? Don't they know we are up to Internet 3.0? The Conspiracy(tm) is falling behind.
-
Very few people need to be in on any conspiracy.
One thing that we can all agree on is, there has been and certainly always will be shenanigans going on behind our backs and even in front of our faces. Some barely warrant a head turn and others warrant serious questioning.
The problem with questioning stuff, is the fact that it will always have arguments against it and not just by people with agenda's but by people who trust official lines, as well as other conspiracy theorists that have alternative ideas as to what's going on.
It sort of categorises people into groups.
Having said that, it also works (in my opinion) with the people who are part of any supposed mis-info put out.
All it needs is a group of people to instigate a scam. They then use contractors to supply and build whatever they require.
Let's say for instance they tell us they have invented a fusion bomb. They get people to build a casing and build parts. Those people are told that the parts are for the bomb.
They can then pretend that the special ingredients used is top secret and only the top scientists know what it is and how it's employed.
In reality those at the top simply have to sit and drink coffee- smoke cigars etc, while the rest of the work force are all compartmentalised; all believing that they are building some part of this fusion bomb.
When it's finished it's rolled out; and voila, all the workforce cheer and feel chuffed for having a part in it.
Anything more complicated that requires more people is simply compartmentalised on a bigger scale and a need to know basis scenario.
It's not hard to keep the scammers to a bare minimum, while the rest are only taking part in it because they believe it's as true as we do, or many of us do.
-
How can there be people in on a conspiracy that doesn't even exist? ???
Who said they were? Surely people can be in on the ("Space Race") conspiracy and providing (or causing others to provide) false data about the shape of the earth, such as the accurate measurements of the distance from the earth to the moon. Wouldn't someone have to be actively conspiring to have many observers independently over decades come up consistently with the RET value of more than 200,000 miles?
Again, please address the OP's subject's question: "How many people are in on the conspiracy?".
How many people know what really happened on 9/11?
Irrelevant. Again, please address the OP. Thanks.
Sure, the content of the question is irrelevant. But I'm essentially asking you the same question you're asking me.
How am I supposed to know how many people are in this supposed 'conspiracy'?
Pick out certain people and say "They are _____", or "They are in on it".
-
How about you name some people?