The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: AMann on January 30, 2016, 08:14:58 PM
-
http://phys.org/news/2016-01-equation-large-scale-conspiracies-quickly-reveal.html
-
i can't imagine that a conspiracy regarding the flat earth would have to be massive.
-
i can't imagine that a conspiracy regarding the flat earth would have to be massive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_space_travel_by_nationality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_space_travelers_by_nationality
It's quite a few people but money keeps everything on the hush hush.
-
i can't imagine that a conspiracy regarding the flat earth would have to be massive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_space_travel_by_nationality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_space_travelers_by_nationality
It's quite a few people but money keeps everything on the hush hush.
isn't that still only so many people, though? at least with astronauts, we're only talking a few hundred over a span of decades, and space agencies are very selective in who they choose.
and yea, assuming that the earth is flat and that astronauts are lying about their space travels, I guess money (and whatever else) would have to be used to keep them quiet.
-
i can't imagine that a conspiracy regarding the flat earth would have to be massive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_space_travel_by_nationality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_space_travelers_by_nationality
It's quite a few people but money keeps everything on the hush hush.
isn't that still only so many people, though? at least with astronauts, we're only talking a few hundred over a span of decades, and space agencies are very selective in who they choose.
and yea, assuming that the earth is flat and that astronauts are lying about their space travels, I guess money (and whatever else) would have to be used to keep them quiet.
I guess it depends on your definition of massive, I guess a few hundred out of billions is a pretty small number.
-
i can't imagine that a conspiracy regarding the flat earth would have to be massive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_space_travel_by_nationality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_space_travelers_by_nationality
It's quite a few people but money keeps everything on the hush hush.
isn't that still only so many people, though? at least with astronauts, we're only talking a few hundred over a span of decades, and space agencies are very selective in who they choose.
and yea, assuming that the earth is flat and that astronauts are lying about their space travels, I guess money (and whatever else) would have to be used to keep them quiet.
I guess it depends on your definition of massive, I guess a few hundred out of billions is a pretty small number.
yup. let's just say, for shits and giggles, that there are 5000 people in on the conspiracy currently. the earth has a population of approximately 7.4 billion people, so:
5000/7400000000 = .000000676 %
even if thousands of people are in on it, it's a comparably infinitesimal amount against the overall human population.
-
A leaked Top Secret document won't get very far on the internet. The US Government has the full force of the law, the compliance of media, of ISPs, of foreign nations, and near limitless finances to shut things down. What makes you think they couldn't keep something a secret if they really wanted to?
-
A leaked Top Secret document won't get very far on the internet. The US Government has the full force of the law, the compliance of media, of ISPs, of foreign nations, and near limitless finances to shut things down. What makes you think they couldn't keep something a secret if they really wanted to?
the pentagon papers
the rosenbergs
-
the pentagon papers
Nixon could have acted. He simply did not want to.
From the Pentagon Papers wikipedia page:
"President Nixon's first reaction to the publication was that, since the study embarrassed the Johnson and Kennedy administrations rather than his, he should do nothing."
-
the rosenbergs
I did a Google search for US Atomic Bomb secrets and couldn't find anything. The US Government seems to be doing a good job of keeping them secret from the public, regardless if one secret was transferred from one party to another at some point.
Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were mercilessly executed for what they did. They were parents of two small children. The consequence for leaking a US secret is the ultimate one: Death.
-
A leaked Top Secret document won't get very far on the internet. The US Government has the full force of the law, the compliance of media, of ISPs, of foreign nations, and near limitless finances to shut things down. What makes you think they couldn't keep something a secret if they really wanted to?
You mean like Edward Snowden or Wikileaks. Remember US Government is not the only force at play here, there are other foreign governments with cyber warfare capabilities.
But there is a deeper insoluble problem, it is logically impossible to DISPROVE conspiracy, you can only ever PROVE conspiracy.
The reason conspiracy can never be disproven, is that any evidence purporting to disprove conspiracy, could also be part of a conspiracy.
But there has never been any proof of a conspiracy to hide the shape of the Earth, forgetting the fact that it's a pretty hard thing to hide anyway.
So, while I can't say there is no conspiracy, I can say there has never been any convincing proof of a conspiracy to hide the shape of the Earth.
-
So, while I can't say there is no conspiracy, I can say there has never been any convincing proof of a conspiracy to hide the shape of the Earth.
Well, yes, if you could convincingly prove that there is a conspiracy, it would no longer be a conspiracy. Your request is ridiculous for the reasons you stated yourself.
-
Well, yes, if you could convincingly prove that there is a conspiracy, it would no longer be a conspiracy. Your request is ridiculous for the reasons you stated yourself.
Umm, do you want to rethink that statement for a minute or two...
-
A leaked Top Secret document won't get very far on the internet. The US Government has the full force of the law, the compliance of media, of ISPs, of foreign nations, and near limitless finances to shut things down. What makes you think they couldn't keep something a secret if they really wanted to?
You mean like Edward Snowden or Wikileaks. Remember US Government is not the only force at play here, there are other foreign governments with cyber warfare capabilities.
The only reason Snowden secrets are allowed in the press is because the NSA was breaking the law and we have a very liberal government in power who doesn't like them. The NSA was loudly complaining that the Obama Administration basically turned their back on them after the leaks happened.
If the government wanted to, they could go after the journalists. I can assure you, if anything like Nuclear Secrets were published those news agencies would have been shut down immediately.
-
A leaked Top Secret document won't get very far on the internet. The US Government has the full force of the law, the compliance of media, of ISPs, of foreign nations, and near limitless finances to shut things down. What makes you think they couldn't keep something a secret if they really wanted to?
You mean like Edward Snowden or Wikileaks. Remember US Government is not the only force at play here, there are other foreign governments with cyber warfare capabilities.
The only reason Snowden secrets are allowed in the press is because the NSA was breaking the law and we have a very liberal government in power who doesn't like them. The NSA was loudly complaining that the Obama Administration basically turned their back on them after the leaks happened.
If the government wanted to, they could go after the journalists. I can assure you, if anything critical like Nuclear Secrets were published those news agencies would have been shut down immediately.
Yes, there are secrets and secrets, some deeper than others, and the responses would be different depending of what exactly was at stake. Some of the wikileaks releases, were no doubt deeply embarrassing for the US government, but perhaps not in the same league as nuclear secrets.
-
Umm, do you want to rethink that statement for a minute or two...
Please refrain from making non-contributive posts. If you have a point to make, make it. If you're just going to be an edgy asshole, may I point you in the direction of 8ch.net?
-
the rosenbergs
I did a Google search for US Atomic Bomb secrets and couldn't find anything. The US Government seems to be doing a good job of keeping them secret from the public, regardless if one secret was transferred from one party to another at some point.
Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were mercilessly executed for what they did. They were parents of two small children. The consequence for leaking a US secret is the ultimate one: Death.
I also did a search and came up with thousands of hits, this one looked the most interesting.
http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/about-me/
Here is some more on the Julius Rosenberg story http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2014/10/17/riddle-julius-rosenberg/
It's not just leaking US secrets, it's supplying those secrets to the enemy. The consequences of spying is a death sentence.
In Australia, it's called high treason, and is a life sentence.
-
the pentagon papers
Nixon could have acted. He simply did not want to.
From the Pentagon Papers wikipedia page:
"President Nixon's first reaction to the publication was that, since the study embarrassed the Johnson and Kennedy administrations rather than his, he should do nothing."
um...he did act. did you really just not read the sentences that came after the one you quoted?
However, Kissinger convinced the president that not opposing the publication set a negative precedent for future secrets.[9] The administration argued Ellsberg and Russo were guilty of a felony under the Espionage Act of 1917, because they had no authority to publish classified documents.[23] After failing to persuade the Times to cease voluntarily publication on June 14,[9] Attorney General John N. Mitchell and Nixon obtained a federal court injunction forcing the Times to cease publication after three articles.[9] Times publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger said:
Newspapers, as our editorial said this morning, we're really a part of history that should have been made available, considerably longer ago. I just didn't feel there was any breach of national security, in the sense that we were giving secrets to the enemy.[24]
The newspaper appealed the injunction, and the case New York Times Co. v. United States (403 U.S. 713) quickly rose through the U.S. legal system to the Supreme Court.[25]
On June 18, 1971, The Washington Post began publishing its own series of articles based upon the Pentagon Papers;[9] Ellsberg gave portions to editor Ben Bradlee. That day, Assistant U.S. Attorney General William Rehnquist asked the Post to cease publication. After the paper refused, Rehnquist sought an injunction in U.S. district court. Judge Murray Gurfein declined to issue such an injunction, writing that "[t]he security of the Nation is not at the ramparts alone. Security also lies in the value of our free institutions. A cantankerous press, an obstinate press, a ubiquitous press must be suffered by those in authority in order to preserve the even greater values of freedom of expression and the right of the people to know."[26] The government appealed that decision, and on June 26 the Supreme Court agreed to hear it jointly with the New York Times case.[25] Fifteen other newspapers received copies of the study and began publishing it.[9]
nixon did try to stop them, and he failed. miserably. and even if he had succeeded, it wouldn't have mattered since he didn't intervene until after the material had already been released to the public. this is exactly the point that the folks on my side are making: the government can't erase memory, and it can't literally control everyone in the media.
this is exactly the example you say doesn't exist. the press got a leak of top secret documents, ran them, and the government was powerless to stop them.
I did a Google search for US Atomic Bomb secrets and couldn't find anything. The US Government seems to be doing a good job of keeping them secret from the public, regardless if one secret was transferred from one party to another at some point.
Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were mercilessly executed for what they did. They were parents of two small children. The consequence for leaking a US secret is the ultimate one: Death.
right; the rosenbergs were the parents of two small children and knew that they would be executed if they were caught stealing top secret nuclear documents, yet they did it anyway because they believed it was the right things to do more than they valued their own lives and the lives of their children. the state was not able to deter them from successfully stealing top secret documents and giving them to the soviet union.
the us didn't keep them secret. they were stolen and given to the soviet union. the soviet union had no motive to make any of that public. that's like, espionage 101.
-
nixon did try to stop them, and he failed. miserably. and even if he had succeeded, it wouldn't have mattered since he didn't intervene until after the material had already been released to the public. this is exactly the point that the folks on my side are making: the government can't erase memory, and it can't literally control everyone in the media.
this is exactly the example you say doesn't exist. the press got a leak of top secret documents, ran them, and the government was powerless to stop them.
Actually, the New York Times was handled with kid gloves. See this link:
http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/rethinking-the-pentagon-papers
At first, however, the reaction of the Nixon administration was actually almost indifferent. Attorney General John Mitchell read the Times the morning the initial story ran, but did not bother summoning his internal security deputy, Robert Mardian, back from a trip to California. When Nixon picked up the paper, the item that caught his attention was the front-page, left-hand-column photograph of his daughter Tricia's wedding in the Rose Garden; the story on the right by Neil Sheehan seemed to escape his attention. White House audio tapes from that day indicate that Nixon had either not read the story or had failed to appreciate its importance.
Nixon's attitude changed only that afternoon, when the subject came up in a phone conversation with deputy national security advisor Alexander Haig. Reviewing Vietnam casualty figures, Nixon prodded his aide with a revealing question: "Nothing else of interest in the world today?" Haig then proceeded to tell Nixon about the leak, calling it "a devastating — uh, security breach, of — of the greatest magnitude of anything I've seen." But an hour later, talking with Secretary of State William Rogers, Nixon preferred to talk about Tricia's wedding before bringing up the leak, noting that the disclosed documents, from what he could tell, were likely to be far more embarrassing to his predecessors than they were to him. "And it's — uh, it's ver — it's hard on Johnson; it's hard on Kennedy; it's hard on [former U.S. ambassador to South Vietnam Henry Cabot] Lodge," Nixon was recorded as saying. Later in the afternoon, in a telephone conversation, national security advisor Henry Kissinger suggested to Nixon that the impact of the leak would, at least in some respects, be benign or perhaps even beneficial: "In public opinion, it actually, if anything, will help us a little bit, because this is a gold mine of showing how the previous administration got us in there," and "it just shows massive mismanagement of how we got there, and it [unclear] pins it all on Kennedy and Johnson...they have nothing from our administration, so actually — I've read this stuff — we come out pretty well in it."
But if the breach was not deemed politically damaging, both Kissinger and Nixon did express alarm about its foreign-policy ramifications. "It hurts us with Hanoi," said Kissinger, "because it just shows how far our demoralization has gone." Contemplating this point, Nixon grew livid, declaring: "It's — it's treasonable, there's no question — it's actionable, I'm absolutely certain that this violates all sorts of security laws." Still, at least initially, Nixon was opposed to taking action against the newspaper. The following evening, he told his chief domestic advisor, John Ehrlichman: "Hell, I wouldn't prosecute the Times. My view is to prosecute the goddamn pricks that gave it to 'em."
But a mere six minutes later, in a fateful telephone conversation with Attorney General Mitchell, Nixon reversed course. "On consideration, we had only two choices," Nixon would later write in his memoirs. "We could do nothing, or we could move for an injunction that would prevent the New York Times from continuing publication. Policy argued for moving against the Times; politics argued against it." In his own memoirs, Henry Kissinger likewise emphasized the statesmanship of the president's approach, writing that Nixon had "rejected a partisan response. He took the view that the failure to resist such massive, and illegal, disclosures of classified information would open the floodgates, undermining the processes of government and the confidence of other nations." This was not, Kissinger adds, an abstract notion: "We were at that very moment on the eve of my secret trip to Beijing." China would inevitably have regarded the breach as a mark of American untrustworthiness.
-
The Rosenberg case is actually a testament to how readily the public will swallow the official government story. Julius and Ethel were supposed to have effectively handed Ivan the bomb, but there's no actual evidence of atomic espionage on their part even now, let alone back when they were convicted and executed for it.
The consequences of spying is a death sentence.
Not so. In fact, the Rosenbergs were the only American civilians executed for spying over the course of the entire Cold War.
Correct, so the consequences for the Rosenberg's spying was a death sentence. I note they were convicted of espionage not treason.
As far as evidence against the Rosenbergs, there are books still being written about that case, I wouldn't trust the official accounts, because the FBI can simply claim that they couldn't present evidence in open court for fear it would reveal the extent to which they had been able to intercept and decrypt Soviet communications. Instead they got confessions from co-conspirators in exchange for deals, a suspect practice at best.
-
the rosenbergs
I did a Google search for US Atomic Bomb secrets and couldn't find anything. The US Government seems to be doing a good job of keeping them secret from the public, regardless if one secret was transferred from one party to another at some point.
Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were mercilessly executed for what they did. They were parents of two small children. The consequence for leaking a US secret is the ultimate one: Death.
I just wanted add my 2 cents on this subject. Why are no secrets found or leaked about atom bombs? Because they are not real! They don't exist any more than a man went the moon.
Revisit all the old footage of explosions. You can clearly see that the footage is fake, multi layered.
Now revisit Nagasaki and Hiroshima... You will see in the aftermath photos that both cities look just like Tokyo after the massive FIRE BOMBINGS!
There is no difference at all. Most concrete structures still standing and intact. Yet only the wooden structures have been burned to a crisp.
Atomic weapons are just a mind control weapon, not a real one.
So to close, I'd like to warn anyone reading this....
When the fake terrorist set off the fake nuke and the fake t.v. shows you, prepare for all food shipments from overseas to end for a long period of time.
The US gets more than 40% of it's food from overseas...
You know all those millions of people around the world that the US has left standing in line for food???
Well karma is a......
-
A leaked Top Secret document won't get very far on the internet. The US Government has the full force of the law, the compliance of media, of ISPs, of foreign nations, and near limitless finances to shut things down. What makes you think they couldn't keep something a secret if they really wanted to?
You mean like Edward Snowden or Wikileaks. Remember US Government is not the only force at play here, there are other foreign governments with cyber warfare capabilities.
The only reason Snowden secrets are allowed in the press is because the NSA was breaking the law and we have a very liberal government in power who doesn't like them. The NSA was loudly complaining that the Obama Administration basically turned their back on them after the leaks happened.
If the government wanted to, they could go after the journalists. I can assure you, if anything like Nuclear Secrets were published those news agencies would have been shut down immediately.
I don't mean to pick on you Tom. I agree with much that you post.
However you must know that the Snowden documents are a conspiracy as well.
It isn't real. It's that simple.
This situation was only created to throw it in your face what the gov is capable of. Nothing more.
Have you seen the TED conference where Snowden was a guest but he wasn't there in person. His face on a screen on a robotic head!!
It looks so ridiculous its laughable.
-
The way I see it the conspiracy would have to pre-date any space program.
Prior to and up to WWII planes and ships used celestial navigation. The math and data, for the sake of argument, revealed to people not in the conspiracy involved geometry and astronomy based on a round Earth. Astronomers and some cartographers would need to be involved.
When building long suspensions bridges it is taught the curvature of the earth needs to be taken into account. So at least any engineers designing the bridge and some construction workers need to be involved. Plans would need to be presented that take the curvature into account, then other plans used for the actual bridge. A special crew would be needed to construct the parts that were the hidden plan.
Surveyors would at the very least need to be carefully watched and monitored. It could be very easy for them to start noticing a inconsistencies. Simply because a FE map and RE map would not mesh well together. They would have to fudge in some areas. Maybe only allowing their surveyors in certain areas where this inconsistencies would be more noticeable would work.
At least some pilots and ship captains and crews for certain routes. Again for the map being inconsistent with actuality. If this is not true you would have pilots and captains wondering why they are burning more fuel, landmarks not being seen, taking longer then planned.
Meteorologist may need to be involved. I am not talking about the ones you see on TV, I am talking about the ones studying the atmosphere.
Many people involved in the Earth Sciences. Geophysics, geostatistics, volcanology, paleomagnetism, seismology, petrology and hydrogeology is what I can think of. All could lead to the discovery or have discovered the Earth is flat. Either they need to be monitored or part of the conspiracy.
Of course there would need to be people doing the grunt work keeping things under wraps.
Then the leadership of the organization/people at the top would need to pass the torch. I guess to their children? Maybe they induct people after a thorough vetting process.
I have no clue how many people would need to be involved. I find it hard to imagine it is under a 1,000 as I have seen some people claim. I do think it would have needed to start before the space program. I know some FE'ers do not like to admit it but there is a whole lot of data obtained and scientist were agreeing the Earth was round prior to 1961. So if they were selling a fake RE theory and discounting a FE as being implausible to impossible it stands to reason the conspiracy may have started before they claimed someone made it to space and orbited our planet.