The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: CreatiiveUsername on April 18, 2018, 07:33:40 PM
-
I'm pretty new here, and I was just wondering what reasons people, companies, and governments have to continue perpetuating the round earth.
-
I'm pretty new here, and I was just wondering what reasons people, companies, and governments have to continue perpetuating the round earth.
Other than the fact earth is clearey spherical you mean?
-
I'm pretty new here, and I was just wondering what reasons people, companies, and governments have to continue perpetuating the round earth.
Other than the fact earth is clearey spherical you mean?
You realize this is FE Q&A, right?
Warned.
-
I'm pretty new here, and I was just wondering what reasons people, companies, and governments have to continue perpetuating the round earth.
It's because that's what we all expect to see when we see an image of earth so that's what they give us, some here believe that no one truly knows π earth shape as all space travel is faked. I personally think I it's because earth is spherical but I need to emphasise that that's my own opinion. Maybe you read the wiki? Maybe you'll get more replies, maybe you've not checked back.
-
I'm pretty new here, and I was just wondering what reasons people, companies, and governments have to continue perpetuating the round earth.
Other than the fact earth is clearey spherical you mean?
You realize this is FE Q&A, right?
Warned.
Damn it, sorry, thought I was being ironic, turns out I was moronic, my bad. I've supplied a better answer.
-
I'm pretty new here, and I was just wondering what reasons people, companies, and governments have to continue perpetuating the round earth.
https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy
-
https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy
From your amazing (*sarcasm*) wiki: "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." -- PROOF?
-
-- PROOF?
The "Evidence for the Conspiracy" section follows shortly afterwards.
-
-- PROOF?
The "Evidence for the Conspiracy" section follows shortly afterwards.
It sure does, except pretty much none of that nonsense qualifies as "evidence". And I was asking specifically for proof that "it was decided to fake the space program" -- where is the evidence for that decision? Who made it and when? Do you have it in writing or perhaps an audio recording of someone saying it?
-
-- PROOF?
The "Evidence for the Conspiracy" section follows shortly afterwards.
Wow. Not a word about Russia.
First satellite.
First animal in space.
First man and woman in space.
And not a word about them ... so they're exempt from "The Conspiracy", then?
EDIT - apparently so, for the Motive for the Conspiracy is focused purely on NASA.
NASA is not the only space agency with an active space programme.
"The earth is portrayed as round in NASA media..." and in Russian media, and in SpaceX media, etc etc
Most of the 'evidence for the conspiracy' focuses on missions to other celestial bodies - the Moon, Mars, Saturn etc. Even if total and utter fakery could be proved with respect to these missions, that has no bearing on the shape of the Earth, does it?
-
I'm pretty new here, and I was just wondering what reasons people, companies, and governments have to continue perpetuating the round earth.
Bitches. Like everything else it's all about getting laid.
-
Bitches. Like everything else it's all about getting laid.
Because the spherical earth is shaped like a breast or do you mean in the sense that we refer to it as "mother earth" and you have an Oedipus complex? (asking for a friend)
-
Wow. Not a word about Russia.
An interesting point (though please maintain the distinction between Russia and the Soviet Union), but not a particularly surprising one, given the fairly anglocentric nature of this society. I imagine Russian Flat Earth or space conspiracy movements might be able to assist you on that one.
SpaceX media
Yeah, yeah, NASA subcontractors are technically separate from NASA. How very exciting and relevant.
Even if total and utter fakery could be proved with respect to these missions, that has no bearing on the shape of the Earth, does it?
This is incorrect - it has some bearing, and is most likely the source of the RE myth. I refer you back to the article.
-
I have much experience with the USSR reigion, having much family from and in the area, and having made numerous trips, and from what I can understand, along with some handy dandy googling, this is entirely an American and UK problem.
Well, your experience directly contradicts mine. I'm not extremely familiar with their space conspiracy and Flat Earth groups, but we have been in contact before.
The modern day russia, who was the main power in the soviet union, considers the western flat earth movement idiotic.
So do the United States, largely. Of course, that tide is turning in both countries.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/894517/Russia-Flat-Earth-space-conspiracy-theory-NASA-USA-Freddie-Flintoff-Mike-Hughes-news (https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/894517/Russia-Flat-Earth-space-conspiracy-theory-NASA-USA-Freddie-Flintoff-Mike-Hughes-news)
https://sputniknews.com/science/201712191060146663-flat-earth-space-trolling-russia-iss/ (https://sputniknews.com/science/201712191060146663-flat-earth-space-trolling-russia-iss/)
Okay, so your argument is that one person called the movement idiotic and couldn't believe that anyone would be part of it. And your own source is quoted as saying "I am sorry to hear itβs echoing in Russia as well." It's almost as if you already found the evidence to prove yourself wrong!
-
I have much experience with the USSR reigion, having much family from and in the area, and having made numerous trips, and from what I can understand, along with some handy dandy googling, this is entirely an American and UK problem.
Well, your experience directly contradicts mine. I'm not extremely familiar with their space conspiracy and Flat Earth groups, but we have been in contact before.
The modern day russia, who was the main power in the soviet union, considers the western flat earth movement idiotic.
So do the United States, largely. Of course, that tide is turning in both countries.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/894517/Russia-Flat-Earth-space-conspiracy-theory-NASA-USA-Freddie-Flintoff-Mike-Hughes-news (https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/894517/Russia-Flat-Earth-space-conspiracy-theory-NASA-USA-Freddie-Flintoff-Mike-Hughes-news)
https://sputniknews.com/science/201712191060146663-flat-earth-space-trolling-russia-iss/ (https://sputniknews.com/science/201712191060146663-flat-earth-space-trolling-russia-iss/)
Okay, so your argument is that one person called the movement idiotic and couldn't believe that anyone would be part of it. And your own source is quoted as saying "I am sorry to hear itβs echoing in Russia as well." It's almost as if you already found the evidence to prove yourself wrong!
If the tide is turning when can we expect a new accurate map and have to replan flights times and realign satelllite dishes?
-
-- PROOF?
The "Evidence for the Conspiracy" section follows shortly afterwards.
A little late to the draw here, but the rockets failed every time, right? And suddenly they worked perfectly? Have you heard of the invention called the lightbulb? Y'know, failed a thousand times then suddenly started working when the inventor had a working base model? Or are lightbulbs a conspiracy, too?
-
-- PROOF?
The "Evidence for the Conspiracy" section follows shortly afterwards.
A little late to the draw here, but the rockets failed every time, right? And suddenly they worked perfectly? Have you heard of the invention called the lightbulb? Y'know, failed a thousand times then suddenly started working when the inventor had a working base model? Or are lightbulbs a conspiracy, too?
After 12 years of Cold War starting at the end of WWII (and also before then), and constant rocket failure to get into orbit, the US was able to get Explorer 1 into orbit within 3 months of Sputnick.
What a coincidence. I guess all it took was for the managers to tell their engineers who consistently failed to get into to orbit was to "work harder!"
-
-- PROOF?
The "Evidence for the Conspiracy" section follows shortly afterwards.
A little late to the draw here, but the rockets failed every time, right? And suddenly they worked perfectly? Have you heard of the invention called the lightbulb? Y'know, failed a thousand times then suddenly started working when the inventor had a working base model? Or are lightbulbs a conspiracy, too?
After 12 years of Cold War starting at the end of WWII (and also before then), and constant rocket failure to get into orbit, the US was able to get Explorer 1 into orbit within 3 months of Sputnick.
What a coincidence. I guess all it took was for the managers to tell their engineers who consistently failed to get into to orbit was to "work harder!"
So what? βI have not failed 10,000 times. I have not failed once. I have succeeded in proving that those 10,000 ways will not work. When I have eliminated the ways that will not work, I will find the way that will work.β - Thomas Edison. The history of invention is littered with failures. Who's to say the Sputnik launch didn't provide them the insight they needed to get their own design working. Or any of another dozen reasons. Coincidence does not a conspiracy make.
-
So what? βI have not failed 10,000 times. I have not failed once. I have succeeded in proving that those 10,000 ways will not work. When I have eliminated the ways that will not work, I will find the way that will work.β - Thomas Edison. The history of invention is littered with failures.
With that analogy we should expect many dead astronauts littering the moon's surface from failed missions.
Who's to say the Sputnik launch didn't provide them the insight they needed to get their own design working. Or any of another dozen reasons. Coincidence does not a conspiracy make.
There is something far worse than a Conspiracy Theorist. It is a Coincidence Theorist.
-
After 12 years of Cold War starting at the end of WWII (and also before then), and constant rocket failure to get into orbit, the US was able to get Explorer 1 into orbit within 3 months of Sputnick.
So, you accept that Explorer 1 did actually get into orbit, and that Sputnik did, too?
-
So what? βI have not failed 10,000 times. I have not failed once. I have succeeded in proving that those 10,000 ways will not work. When I have eliminated the ways that will not work, I will find the way that will work.β - Thomas Edison. The history of invention is littered with failures.
With that analogy we should expect many dead astronauts littering the moon's surface from failed missions.
No, because NASA didn't say, "let's use completely untested technology to do a monumental task!" They went more with, "let's take 4 years to incrementally test every part of the plan that we have for this monumental task to make sure that it works and almost nothing can go wrong and that we have failsafes in the event that something does go wrong!"
Who's to say the Sputnik launch didn't provide them the insight they needed to get their own design working. Or any of another dozen reasons. Coincidence does not a conspiracy make.
There is something far worse than a Conspiracy Theorist. It is a Coincidence Theorist.
And what makes that worse exactly?
-
I'm pretty new here, and I was just wondering what reasons people, companies, and governments have to continue perpetuating the round earth.
It began between the USA and ussr faking space travel to try to outdo each other in the space race. Earth images and descriptions had to be faked during these fictitious voyages into space. So, the ussr and USA used the earth model that was already popular and accepted: a spherical earth. Now, space agencies are used to embezzle money from tax payers for very powerful and greedy individuals. It's about greed for money.
-
I'm pretty new here, and I was just wondering what reasons people, companies, and governments have to continue perpetuating the round earth.
It began between the USA and ussr faking space travel to try to outdo each other in the space race. Earth images and descriptions had to be faked during these fictitious voyages into space. So, the ussr and USA used the earth model that was already popular and accepted: a spherical earth. Now, space agencies are used to embezzle money from tax payers for very powerful and greedy individuals. It's about greed for money.
This is re-enforced by Trump's friendship with Putin. It's pretty clear they're hiding something.
-
I'm pretty new here, and I was just wondering what reasons people, companies, and governments have to continue perpetuating the round earth.
It began between the USA and ussr faking space travel to try to outdo each other in the space race. Earth images and descriptions had to be faked during these fictitious voyages into space. So, the ussr and USA used the earth model that was already popular and accepted: a spherical earth. Now, space agencies are used to embezzle money from tax payers for very powerful and greedy individuals. It's about greed for money.
And the evidence for all this is...?
-
Now, space agencies are used to embezzle money from tax payers for very powerful and greedy individuals. It's about greed for money.
... and they do this by building big-ass rockets, and launching them every few days with no purpose, with huge numbers of support staff, massive launch sites, huge assembly buildings, all to make money ???
Seems like a cast-iron certainty to lose money, that does.
How do you make a profit from throwing stuff away (I'm assuming you follow the standard Team Hoax line of "All rockets level out and crash into the sea", with its typical American perspective, casually disregarding those that launch from Baikonour and such ...) ?
-
Now, space agencies are used to embezzle money from tax payers for very powerful and greedy individuals. It's about greed for money.
... and they do this by building big-ass rockets, and launching them every few days with no purpose, with huge numbers of support staff, massive launch sites, huge assembly buildings, all to make money ???
Seems like a cast-iron certainty to lose money, that does.
How do you make a profit from throwing stuff away (I'm assuming you follow the standard Team Hoax line of "All rockets level out and crash into the sea", with its typical American perspective, casually disregarding those that launch from Baikonour and such ...) ?
The government gave them billions of dollars. Why wouldn't they at least put on a rocket show?
-
The government gave them billions of dollars. Why wouldn't they at least put on a rocket show?
Because it won't, as was claimed above, be a means to "embezzle money".
And because every space agency is judged by results.
-
I'm pretty new here, and I was just wondering what reasons people, companies, and governments have to continue perpetuating the round earth.
It's because of the knowledge we have now, we can make sure the Earth is round, so they are just stating what has been proven, and if the Earth is one day proven flat, then that is what they will say.
-
Now, space agencies are used to embezzle money from tax payers for very powerful and greedy individuals. It's about greed for money.
... and they do this by building big-ass rockets, and launching them every few days with no purpose, with huge numbers of support staff, massive launch sites, huge assembly buildings, all to make money ???
Seems like a cast-iron certainty to lose money, that does.
How do you make a profit from throwing stuff away (I'm assuming you follow the standard Team Hoax line of "All rockets level out and crash into the sea", with its typical American perspective, casually disregarding those that launch from Baikonour and such ...) ?
The government gave them billions of dollars. Why wouldn't they at least put on a rocket show?
Im trying to find proof on this site for the alleged financial irregularities purported to be carried out by NASA, but when I compare their annual government grant with their publicly available accounts, I along with the federal auditors fail to find any irregularities. What funds are you reffering to that are being siphoned off illegally and where can I find evidence of these financial irregularities that you frequently reffer to?
-
Now, space agencies are used to embezzle money from tax payers for very powerful and greedy individuals. It's about greed for money.
... and they do this by building big-ass rockets, and launching them every few days with no purpose, with huge numbers of support staff, massive launch sites, huge assembly buildings, all to make money ???
Seems like a cast-iron certainty to lose money, that does.
How do you make a profit from throwing stuff away (I'm assuming you follow the standard Team Hoax line of "All rockets level out and crash into the sea", with its typical American perspective, casually disregarding those that launch from Baikonour and such ...) ?
The government gave them billions of dollars. Why wouldn't they at least put on a rocket show?
Im trying to find proof on this site for the alleged financial irregularities purported to be carried out by NASA, but when I compare their annual government grant with their publicly available accounts, I along with the federal auditors fail to find any irregularities. What funds are you reffering to that are being siphoned off illegally and where can I find evidence of these financial irregularities that you frequently reffer to?
https://wiki.tfes.org/GAO_Audits_NASA
-
https://wiki.tfes.org/GAO_Audits_NASA
That quote only points to six (6) years where the accounts could not be verified.
NASA has been launching stuff for 68 years. Presumably, since only 6 years were found to be in error, the other 62 are not.
62/68 = over 91% of NASA's accounts over its history have been accepted.
-
https://wiki.tfes.org/GAO_Audits_NASA
That quote only points to six (6) years where the accounts could not be verified.
NASA has been launching stuff for 68 years. Presumably, since only 6 years were found to be in error, the other 62 are not.
62/68 = over 91% of NASA's accounts over its history have been accepted.
There are sparse online GAO audit reports of NASA from pre-internet eras. Check the GAO site.
I recently added some links to that page. Check it again. There are reports ranging between to 1992 to 2006 detailing significant financial problems, even going so far as calling NASA unauditable.
You are assuming that NASA undergoes constant in depth audits by the Federal Government. Democrat administrations don't tend to perform in depth audits of their federal programs (gee, I wonder why). The Obama administration started in 2009 and only recently ended.
Trump has ordered massive audits of the federal government, so we will see.
-
The first post asks us how we feel about the government giving NASA more money for its phoney space missions? It feels like theft to me.
I imagine these books are audited every year ...
... and the audited financial reports are easily found online.
Such as this one (https://wiki.tfes.org/GAO_Audits_NASA)?
I was thinking more of;
Fiscal Year 2017 - https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/afr_fy2017_final_11_15_17.pdf (https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/afr_fy2017_final_11_15_17.pdf) (circa 150 pages - by all means, take your time. If you're back here in 10mins, everyone will KNOW you haven't bothered....)
FY 2016 - https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/nasa_fy2016_afr_508.pdf (https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/nasa_fy2016_afr_508.pdf)
FY 2015 - https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fy2015_afr_11-16-15.pdf (https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fy2015_afr_11-16-15.pdf)
etc
etc
The auditers' details are included each time. If you find issue with their contribution, by all means flag it up to your Senate representative.....
-
Those are publications by NASA, not the GAO. The URL on those links is nasa.gov. Why would NASA broadcast "The GAO exposed again that we are essentially unauditable this year"?
In those documents I do see some references to an independent auditor that they hand selected. "We're clean as a whistle. Those billions were spent properly. Just ask this small company I hired!" Few references to the GAO.
You are also assuming that any such routine federal audit performed during the Obama years would be of the serious in-depth variety. I severely doubt that, considering that administration.
-
Those are publications by NASA, not the GAO. The URL on those links is nasa.gov. Why would NASA broadcast "The GAO exposed again that we are essentially unauditable this year"?
Because there's nothing to suggest that they were "unauditable" in any of the years I quoted.
Were the accounts in the years you quoted reconciled after the event, in subsequent years, perhaps?
In those documents I do see some references to an independent auditor that they hand selected. "We're clean as a whistle. Those billions were spent properly. Just ask this small company I hired!" Few references to the GAO.
You are also assuming that any such routine federal audit performed during the Obama years would be of the serious in-depth variety. I severely doubt that, considering that administration.
Sure, that's the spirit. Slander or defame the external auditor. That really makes your case (NOT).
Can you name a company that doesn't select their own auditor?
-
Those are publications by NASA, not the GAO. The URL on those links is nasa.gov. Why would NASA broadcast "The GAO exposed again that we are essentially unauditable this year"?
In those documents I do see some references to an independent auditor that they hand selected. "We're clean as a whistle. Those billions were spent properly. Just ask this small company I hired!" Few references to the GAO.
You are also assuming that any such routine federal audit performed during the Obama years would be of the serious in-depth variety. I severely doubt that, considering that administration.
What about anything more recent? Surely they didn't just stop being a money laundering scheme in 2006. GAO reports from 2009-2016 appear to generally be in order, with GAO noting predictable fluctuation in cost and an increase in delays as projects approach a certain phase. All of your references appear at least a decade old.
-
Those are publications by NASA, not the GAO. The URL on those links is nasa.gov. Why would NASA broadcast "The GAO exposed again that we are essentially unauditable this year"?
In those documents I do see some references to an independent auditor that they hand selected. "We're clean as a whistle. Those billions were spent properly. Just ask this small company I hired!" Few references to the GAO.
You are also assuming that any such routine federal audit performed during the Obama years would be of the serious in-depth variety. I severely doubt that, considering that administration.
What about anything more recent? Surely they didn't just stop being a money laundering scheme in 2006. GAO reports from 2009-2016 appear to generally be in order, with GAO noting predictable fluctuation in cost and an increase in delays as projects approach a certain phase. All of your references appear at least a decade old.
It also doesn't make sense they would choose to lie about finance between 2002-2006 but not during its early years. Wasn't the purpose of NASA's creation to steal tax payers money? Why is that apparent during the oddly specific years of 2002-2006 but not any years prior (or after) ?
-
Bush and Congress appointed an Inspector General to oversee the issues with federal agencies like NASA wasting money. That's why. If one reads the links they will see letters to Congressmen justifying their activities. Do you think they write letters to Congress every year as standard procedure? There was a lot of heat during those years. When Obama came in, in 2009, he wasn't interested in heavy oversight of Federal agencies. The GAO doesn't do such violating audits every year.
Per decades prior, there isn't really that much online from the 60's, 70's and 80's. But consider: Companies and government agencies usually only improve their financial management. In 2005 if they were totally unauditable, what makes you think that 1985 NASA was a saint? Why would they downgrade a good process of financial management? "Nah, we don't need to keep good records or perform internal financial audits anymore. Lets stop doing that. Boring." Are we to assume that this is what happened?
-
Per decades prior, there isn't really that much online from the 60's, 70's and 80's.
At which point, if you REALLY WANT TO KNOW, you start digging around in libraries, public offices, and other places to find physical records.
If you just want to take what's online and extrapolate it to previous decades without any supporting evidence, you do what you've done above, and imply that something was amiss because you can't find the records online.
Get off your a** and do some real research, if you REALLY WANT TO KNOW. Do you?
But consider: Companies and government agencies usually only improve their financial management. In 2005 if they were totally unauditable, what makes you think that 1985 NASA was a saint? Why would they downgrade a good process of financial management? "Nah, we don't need to keep good records or perform internal financial audits anymore. Lets stop doing that. Boring." Are we to assume that this is what happened?
You're making assumptions. Go do some real research and come back with some data, not idle speculation and putting of words into peoples' mouths.... you're assuming an unbroken line of audit failure over 20 years, whereas the discrepancy in 2005 could simply have been from changes in management or financial procedue in that year.
Do you have any evidence that the audit was never completed, or only one report that says it was not completed on its due date? Could measures have been taken in later months or years to complete it, and you just haven't found the later work?
-
And what was the outcome of this audits regarding dollars? How many billions of dollars where hidden somewhere? As far as I understand, they criticized the procedures, but no one present any numbers or gave indications that billions of dollars where redirected in the pockets of someone.
Anyway, physicists are no businessmen. Our financial guys also always went crazy how we manage our financial issues. NASA is just a bit bigger as a university or a standard institute, more money is involved, so people have a closer look and are more critical.
-
Bush and Congress appointed an Inspector General to oversee the issues with federal agencies like NASA wasting money. That's why. If one reads the links they will see letters to Congressmen justifying their activities. Do you think they write letters to Congress every year as standard procedure? There was a lot of heat during those years. When Obama came in, in 2009, he wasn't interested in heavy oversight of Federal agencies. The GAO doesn't do such violating audits every year.
Per decades prior, there isn't really that much online from the 60's, 70's and 80's. But consider: Companies and government agencies usually only improve their financial management. In 2005 if they were totally unauditable, what makes you think that 1985 NASA was a saint? Why would they downgrade a good process of financial management? "Nah, we don't need to keep good records or perform internal financial audits anymore. Lets stop doing that. Boring." Are we to assume that this is what happened?
Then why was it not revealed NASA had been mismanaging finances since it's inception? That's a pretty big revelation. Surely they didn't just stop at 2002 and say "eh 2001 is probably fine we don't need to keep going back." Especially during this sensitive time period as you said.