[Tommy]

So many Flat Earthers claim that NASA is lying to us. But in the first place, why would they lie? They don't gain anything from this 'conspiracy' anyway.

Firstly, Round Earth has already been proven true by our ancestors like Eratosthenes. One such case is how Eratosthenes could calculate the circumference of the Earth. As the Earth was round, he was able to measure the shadow of a rod at another location (let's call it location A) as the sun was directly overhead a well at Syene (Which had no shadow). From there he was able to conclude the circumference of Earth.
If Earth was flat (like a frisbee) , then there would be no shadow at BOTH the rod at location A and the well at Syene. Thus, the Earth could not be flat.

These were later proven to be very accurate with the help with modern technology. Firstly, if the Earth was flat, how would the Satellite orbiting Earth go in a full circle? If the Earth was flat, the Satellite would not be able to orbit properly, and will crash into flat Earth (or the other side of the flat Earth)

Next, if the Earth is flat? Why are we the only planet that is flat? Doesn't make sense right?
Gravitational pull will cause the cosmic dust or rocks in space to clump together into a sphere like shape. This is because a sphere has the least surface area to volume ratio and is very stable.
In other words, if the Earth was flat, the gravitational pull of the Earth will be very unstable.

~Your fellow Round Earther
(Hope more flat Earthers will finally see the truth)

[6or1/2Dozen]

So many Flat Earthers claim that NASA is lying to us. But in the first place, why would they lie? They don't gain anything from this 'conspiracy' anyway.

Some FE'ers say NASA is simply mistaken about going to space (not sure how that works). Others point out that faking space missions is much cheaper than actually going to space, the difference in costs being money used to line the pockets of the corrupt leadership.

Firstly, Round Earth has already been proven true by our ancestors like Eratosthenes. One such case is how Eratosthenes could calculate the circumference of the Earth. As the Earth was round, he was able to measure the shadow of a rod at another location (let's call it location A) as the sun was directly overhead a well at Syene (Which had no shadow). From there he was able to conclude the circumference of Earth.
If Earth was flat (like a frisbee) , then there would be no shadow at BOTH the rod at location A and the well at Syene. Thus, the Earth could not be flat.

This assumes the rays of light are traveling nearly parallel, indicating a very large distance between the Earth and Sun. If the Sun where closer, the light would not be traveling parallel, the lencth of the shadows would be different. The difference in the shadow lengths would then indicate the altitude of the Sun (this is basically why FET says 3000 miles [give or take]). FET ignores (or otherwise rationalizes) the fact that when a location C, D and E are added, the calculated height to the Sun for each location yields a very different value for each location.

These were later proven to be very accurate with the help with modern technology. Firstly, if the Earth was flat, how would the Satellite orbiting Earth go in a full circle? If the Earth was flat, the Satellite would not be able to orbit properly, and will crash into flat Earth (or the other side of the flat Earth)

In FET, the satellites are are lie.

The defense against modern technology is that it was developed using RE theory and would therefore would only yield results supporting that theory. This is almost a semi-valid argument, given that inventions that indicated a flat Earth would likely be discarded as being 'broken'. No explanation is provided for how, if the Earth were in fact flat, an invention that depends on the Earth being round, works properly.

Next, if the Earth is flat? Why are we the only planet that is flat? Doesn't make sense right?

FET says, cause the Earth is special. It sprinkles in a little etymological fallacy about 'planet' meaning 'wondering star' in ancient Greek to divorce the meaning from the modern usage of 'planet', or state it's not a planet because planets are round and the Earth is not (circular reasoning fallacy).

Gravitational pull will cause the cosmic dust or rocks in space to clump together into a sphere like shape. This is because a sphere has the least surface area to volume ratio and is very stable.
In other words, if the Earth was flat, the gravitational pull of the Earth will be very unstable.

FET claims the Earth does not exhibit gravity (in fact gravity, a force of attraction between massive bodies, doesn't exists in FET at all). The accelerating force experienced is caused by the disk of the Earth being accelerated upwards by the Universal Accelerator (UA) at a constant rate of 9.8 m/s². Local variations are due to the effect of Celestial Gravitation (not to be confused as being caused by a force of attraction between two massive bodies though).

[Pete Svarrior]

Some FE'ers say NASA is simply mistaken about going to space (not sure how that works).

No, no one is saying that. Many FE'ers say that NASA is simply mistaken about the shape of the Earth.

https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy

[inquisitive]

Some FE'ers say NASA is simply mistaken about going to space (not sure how that works).

No, no one is saying that. Many FE'ers say that NASA is simply mistaken about the shape of the Earth.

https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy

Who else is 'mistaken'?

[6or1/2Dozen]

Some FE'ers say NASA is simply mistaken about going to space (not sure how that works).

No, no one is saying that. Many FE'ers say that NASA is simply mistaken about the shape of the Earth.

https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy

Well, "no one is saying that" is a very broad generalization. However I apologize, I did not intentionally misquote the Wiki. The corrected statement is:

+++++++++++++++++++++++
'Many FE'ers say that NASA is simply mistaken about the shape of the Earth.

However, if NASA knows it's faking space missions, it means NASA is launching, what is basically, a missile into the distance, to fake putting something into space. I'd like to think someone is at least checking to see that the expended rocket isn't going to land on something important (or even possibly recover it for reloading and reuse, which could be even more profitable[?] or at least wastes less of my tax dollars). After so many times of it not landing where it's supposed to, some rocket scientist would figure out "Oh, it's not coming down in the right spot because the Earth isn't round. Silly us."'
+++++++++++++++++++++++

I think it would be very irresponsible to launch a multi-ton rocket, that you know is going to fall back to Earth, without being fairly confident about where's it going to land, something that would require using the correct Earth model to figure out. So, no, I'm not really buying the just 'mistaken about the shape' thing.

I personally can't envision a scenario where NASA isn't all lies, all mistaken or completely correct, with mistaken being the least likely.

But, a debate on The Conspiracy page is a whole different topic.

[xenotolerance]

IMO a debate on the conspiracy theory is the only one that matters. When there exist photographs and video from space that show the Earth is not flat, flat Earth belief becomes yet more obviously wrong, so the only way to preserve it is to insist those photographs and videos are not real.

[rabinoz]

So many Flat Earthers claim that NASA is lying to us. But in the first place, why would they lie? They don't gain anything from this 'conspiracy' anyway.

Some FE'ers say NASA is simply mistaken about going to space (not sure how that works). Others point out that faking space missions is much cheaper than actually going to space, the difference in costs being money used to line the pockets of the corrupt leadership.

If NASA is mistaken, they have a lot of company.

Some 70 countries own satellites in orbit and a dozen or so countries of all political and religious persuasions have launched their own satellites.
These include lunar missions from at least USSR, (now Russia), USA, Europe, Japan, China and India.

[AATW]

This assumes the rays of light are traveling nearly parallel, indicating a very large distance between the Earth and Sun. If the Sun where closer, the light would not be traveling parallel, the lencth of the shadows would be different. The difference in the shadow lengths would then indicate the altitude of the Sun (this is basically why FET says 3000 miles [give or take]).

Yes, and to be fair that is another possible explanation of the observation.
But I have said a few times on here that they could easily verify that by taking some observations and triangulating. If the sun (or moon) is as close as they suppose then you wouldn't need to be too far apart to get measurable differences in angle and be able to prove the distance to the sun or moon.
And there's the issue of a sun as small as they suppose and how that would actually work - what powers it and how something that small keeps shining for as long as it must have done without running out of fuel.
Then there's the "lamp shade" which means we can't see it at night, but can somehow see the moon which I think they agree is illuminated by the sun. So the light from the side of the sun is strong enough to hit the moon and reflect to earth but the diagonal light isn't strong enough to reach us. Odd.
(some do think the moon is self-illuminating but then you'd have to explain moon phases and the shadows you can see with a telescope which indicate it must be lit by something).
Oh, and the fact the sun keeps changing orbit - higher and lower which explains the moon phases, tighter and larger circle to explain the seasons - and thus it would have to keep changing speed so the 24 hour day/night cycle doesn't change. No explanation of what makes any of that happen or why the sun doesn't just simply fall on us.
Then there's sunset which they explain by perspective but I proved in another thread that for clouds to be lit from below the sun must be physically below the level of the clouds.
And I've yet to see a model which demonstrates how an object 6000 miles away and 3000 miles high can intersect the horizon by perspective or how the speed of sunset varies by latitude.

Other than that I see no issues with their model.

[Pickel B Gravel]

So many Flat Earthers claim that NASA is lying to us. But in the first place, why would they lie? They don't gain anything from this 'conspiracy' anyway.

Firstly, Round Earth has already been proven true by our ancestors like Eratosthenes. One such case is how Eratosthenes could calculate the circumference of the Earth. As the Earth was round, he was able to measure the shadow of a rod at another location (let's call it location A) as the sun was directly overhead a well at Syene (Which had no shadow). From there he was able to conclude the circumference of Earth.
If Earth was flat (like a frisbee) , then there would be no shadow at BOTH the rod at location A and the well at Syene. Thus, the Earth could not be flat.

These were later proven to be very accurate with the help with modern technology. Firstly, if the Earth was flat, how would the Satellite orbiting Earth go in a full circle? If the Earth was flat, the Satellite would not be able to orbit properly, and will crash into flat Earth (or the other side of the flat Earth)

Next, if the Earth is flat? Why are we the only planet that is flat? Doesn't make sense right?
Gravitational pull will cause the cosmic dust or rocks in space to clump together into a sphere like shape. This is because a sphere has the least surface area to volume ratio and is very stable.
In other words, if the Earth was flat, the gravitational pull of the Earth will be very unstable.

~Your fellow Round Earther
(Hope more flat Earthers will finally see the truth)

NASA can't lie? Why not? No one is saying that NASA is intentionally lying about the earth's shape. Rather, NASA is lying about space travel and simply faking earth images according to what is already established and accepted by most. And the reason why NASA would fake space exploration is explained in the wiki: embezzlement.

The earth is flat because it's not necessarily a planet. Why exactly do you believe the earth must be a planet? And your version of gravity isn't accepted by flat earth theorists in general. Satellites? Can you actually prove that satellites exist? Because I sure as heck can't. Regardless, there are more than one flat earth models. One model of William Carpenter asserts that the flat earth spins on its axis. And, no, the round earth theory has not been proven true.

[Curious Squirrel]

So many Flat Earthers claim that NASA is lying to us. But in the first place, why would they lie? They don't gain anything from this 'conspiracy' anyway.

Firstly, Round Earth has already been proven true by our ancestors like Eratosthenes. One such case is how Eratosthenes could calculate the circumference of the Earth. As the Earth was round, he was able to measure the shadow of a rod at another location (let's call it location A) as the sun was directly overhead a well at Syene (Which had no shadow). From there he was able to conclude the circumference of Earth.
If Earth was flat (like a frisbee) , then there would be no shadow at BOTH the rod at location A and the well at Syene. Thus, the Earth could not be flat.

These were later proven to be very accurate with the help with modern technology. Firstly, if the Earth was flat, how would the Satellite orbiting Earth go in a full circle? If the Earth was flat, the Satellite would not be able to orbit properly, and will crash into flat Earth (or the other side of the flat Earth)

Next, if the Earth is flat? Why are we the only planet that is flat? Doesn't make sense right?
Gravitational pull will cause the cosmic dust or rocks in space to clump together into a sphere like shape. This is because a sphere has the least surface area to volume ratio and is very stable.
In other words, if the Earth was flat, the gravitational pull of the Earth will be very unstable.

~Your fellow Round Earther
(Hope more flat Earthers will finally see the truth)

NASA can't lie? Why not? No one is saying that NASA is intentionally lying about the earth's shape. Rather, NASA is lying about space travel and simply faking earth images according to what is already established and accepted by most. And the reason why NASA would fake space exploration is explained in the wiki: embezzlement.

The earth is flat because it's not necessarily a planet. Why exactly do you believe the earth must be a planet? And your version of gravity isn't accepted by flat earth theorists in general. Satellites? Can you actually prove that satellites exist? Because I sure as heck can't. Regardless, there are more than one flat earth models. One model of William Carpenter asserts that the flat earth spins on its axis. And, no, the round earth theory has not been proven true.

So then what reason do all the other groups going into space have to go along with NASA (and the Russian's, remember they were in space first) and their lies? Why bother having one at all if it's impossible for say China?

I mean, claiming satellites don't exist simply means you need to find evidence for an explanation of what the visible ISS is, and what the unmoving points of light are that were never recorded by any astronomer in history prior to the launch of the first satellite. You can assert all you want here, but without evidence that's all they are. Assertions without evidence. You want evidence for satellites, those are the two things to start with.

[JohnAdams1145]

Curious Squirrel, you forgot about North Korea, which threatens the United States with constant nuclear war. I guarantee you that they've done their ballistic missile calculations for a round Earth, not to mention that when they and South Korea and the United States all claim that their ICBM reached an altitude of 2000+ km, they weren't lying.

Now that we've ascertained that even short-range ballistic missiles can go above the height of the ISS, how do FE people think NASA is mistaken about the shape of the Earth? They clearly have the means to observe it...

[StinkyOne]

So many Flat Earthers claim that NASA is lying to us. But in the first place, why would they lie? They don't gain anything from this 'conspiracy' anyway.

Firstly, Round Earth has already been proven true by our ancestors like Eratosthenes. One such case is how Eratosthenes could calculate the circumference of the Earth. As the Earth was round, he was able to measure the shadow of a rod at another location (let's call it location A) as the sun was directly overhead a well at Syene (Which had no shadow). From there he was able to conclude the circumference of Earth.
If Earth was flat (like a frisbee) , then there would be no shadow at BOTH the rod at location A and the well at Syene. Thus, the Earth could not be flat.

These were later proven to be very accurate with the help with modern technology. Firstly, if the Earth was flat, how would the Satellite orbiting Earth go in a full circle? If the Earth was flat, the Satellite would not be able to orbit properly, and will crash into flat Earth (or the other side of the flat Earth)

Next, if the Earth is flat? Why are we the only planet that is flat? Doesn't make sense right?
Gravitational pull will cause the cosmic dust or rocks in space to clump together into a sphere like shape. This is because a sphere has the least surface area to volume ratio and is very stable.
In other words, if the Earth was flat, the gravitational pull of the Earth will be very unstable.

~Your fellow Round Earther
(Hope more flat Earthers will finally see the truth)

NASA can't lie? Why not? No one is saying that NASA is intentionally lying about the earth's shape. Rather, NASA is lying about space travel and simply faking earth images according to what is already established and accepted by most. And the reason why NASA would fake space exploration is explained in the wiki: embezzlement.

The earth is flat because it's not necessarily a planet. Why exactly do you believe the earth must be a planet? And your version of gravity isn't accepted by flat earth theorists in general. Satellites? Can you actually prove that satellites exist? Because I sure as heck can't. Regardless, there are more than one flat earth models. One model of William Carpenter asserts that the flat earth spins on its axis. And, no, the round earth theory has not been proven true.

See my post on the humanity Star satellite. You can track it, and if you're lucky, you can observe it. Proof of satellites. Moving on.

[AATW]

See my post on the humanity Star satellite. You can track it, and if you're lucky, you can observe it. Proof of satellites. Moving on.

In the thread about the ISS where someone posted a VIDEO OF IT, Pikel queried whether it could be a balloon. 
For a "genius" she does say some silly things.
I have no idea why NASA would publish a website of where and when you can see the thing, something so easily to verify, if they were faking it all.
And there's the live feeds.
If it is all fake they're sure making it hard for themselves.

[AATW]

NASA can't lie? Why not? No one is saying that NASA is intentionally lying about the earth's shape. Rather, NASA is lying about space travel and simply faking earth images according to what is already established and accepted by most. And the reason why NASA would fake space exploration is explained in the wiki: embezzlement.

The earth is flat because it's not necessarily a planet. Why exactly do you believe the earth must be a planet? And your version of gravity isn't accepted by flat earth theorists in general. Satellites? Can you actually prove that satellites exist? Because I sure as heck can't. Regardless, there are more than one flat earth models. One model of William Carpenter asserts that the flat earth spins on its axis. And, no, the round earth theory has not been proven true.

Clearly NASA could be lying. And the explanation in the Wiki is not impossible. But you understand that NASA are not the only people who have put things or people into space. A lot of countries have space programs now and they'd all have to be lying about them. Things have been put in space for lots of reasons. There are weather satellites - are the images you see on weather forecasts all CGI as well? Are meteorologists all "in on it"? The satellite which makes my satellite TV work was not put up by NASA and my TV does work. When my neighbour did some work on their house their scaffolding blocked the signal and they had to briefly move the dish to make it work again. So it's pointing at something and the something is making my TV work. What is it pointing at? Are the satellite TV industry all "in on it" too? The GPS works on my phone, I'm on a work trip in Poland right now, I just checked it and I'm exactly where it thinks I am. So how does that work? Are the GPS people all "in on it" too? And then there's the ISS which you can see from earth. NASA publish a website which tells you where and when.
Someone posted a video of it taken from earth and you said something silly about how maybe it's a balloon.
7 private citizens have been to the ISS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_tourism#List_of_flown_space_tourists
I guess they are all lying too, along with all the regular astronauts and cosmonauts (over 500 people have been into earth orbit so far)?

Can I prove satellites exist or that the earth is (roughly) spherical? Well, if you're going to be a purist about it the only thing one can really prove is mathematical theorems. They exist within the limited language of mathematics in which theorems can be proven based on various axioms. Nothing else can be proven absolutely. But can satellites and a spherical earth be proven beyond reasonable doubt? That is subjective but I would suggest the vast majority of people would say yes.

GPS works.
Satellite TV works.
The ISS can be seen from earth as can some other satellites.
Over 500 people from over 25 countries have been into space, including 7 private citizens who paid for the experience.
Multiple countries have taken and published pictures of the globe earth.
Long shadows at sunset prove that the sun is physically intersecting the horizon, those shadows cannot be cast by a sun 3000 miles above a flat earth and 6000 miles away horizontally.
Objects disappeaing below the horizon cannot be explained on a flat plane.
The airline industry manage to reliably get people around the world using great circle routes plotted on a globe as do the cruise line industry.

The trouble with flat earth mentality is you start with the premise that the earth is flat with no real basis other than "the horizon looks flat" and you then insist on an absurdly high level of proof for anything which shows you wrong.
It's like me insisting that kangaroos don't exist.

So you show me a picture of a kangaroo and I say "FAKE, that's CGI, it's part of the great kangaroo conspiracy"
So you introduce me to some people who have been to Australia and seen some in the wild and I call them liars.
So you take me to a zoo and we visit one and I say "That's just a puppet"
and so on.

There is no way you can prove this to me if I either ignore all your evidence about it or just call it fake. You can do this with anything and it's what you do about the spherical earth. The level of proof you demand is impossibly high, meanwhile you accept the flat earth model despite not even having an agreed map and pretty much nothing about your model reflecting observations.

[ShowmetheProof]

I like that idea.  We can't say that we know certain things must be there, but we can say that it would be extremely weird to do all that for a lie.  Also, if so many people are in on it, then I have an idea for you.  One, realize how stupid this idea is, and two, learn how to be a GPS person or weatherman and tell us that they told you to lie.  Of course, then you'd be proved wrong and we all know how scared of that you are.

[TomInAustin]

Some FE'ers say NASA is simply mistaken about going to space (not sure how that works).

No, no one is saying that. Many FE'ers say that NASA is simply mistaken about the shape of the Earth.

https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy

Off the top of my head, I can list a few NASA conspiracies.

We went to the moon and aliens told us not to come back and NASA is hiding that fact
We never went to the moon since the radiation would have killed the men and NASA is hiding that fact
NASA is fake and lying since the earth is flat
Planet X is coming to kill us and NASA is hiding that fact
The moon is a hologram and NASA is hiding that fact
Life was found on Mars and NASA is hiding that fact


Did I miss any?   

[AATW]

I like that idea.  We can't say that we know certain things must be there, but we can say that it would be extremely weird to do all that for a lie.  Also, if so many people are in on it, then I have an idea for you.  One, realize how stupid this idea is, and two, learn how to be a GPS person or weatherman and tell us that they told you to lie.  Of course, then you'd be proved wrong and we all know how scared of that you are.

The problem with the conspiracy theory mindset is that it is impossible to argue with. Not because the arguments are so well thought through but because it doesn't use any logic or reason. It starts with a conclusion (the earth is flat, the moon landings were faked or whatever). I'm never sure where these conclusions come from but everything else is then worked around it. Any evidence which shows the conspiracy theory is wrong is dismissed or declared to be part of the conspiracy. How does one argue with that?

The moon landing conspiracy arguement goes something like:

"We never went to the moon, you can't prove it really happened"
"But...it's all on film, there are a load of photos of it"
"Fake! All done in a studio"
"But...most of the people who went to the moon are still alive as are many of the people who worked on the missions"
"They are lying, that's all part of the conspiracy"
"OK, but there are lunar reflectors which we use to measure the distance to the moon. How did they get there?"
"How do you know we put them there? They could be naturally occuring"

And so on. It's like my silly kangaroo thing. You can never prove kangaroos exist to me if I start with the premise that they don't and then either dismiss evidence that they do as fake or claim that the evidence is all part of the conspiracy.
It's a mess of confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance.
For the record, I do believe that kangaroos exist!

We seem to have discovered Schrödinger's Idiot, someone who is a "genius" and scores 1595 on their SATs and yet has no ability to think logically or rationally. It's funny how outraged she is if someone questions her SAT score and thus calls her a liar given how many people she is calling a liar with her conspiracy theories. And we could do the exact same thing with that:

"I got 1595 on my SAT"
"I don't believe you, you are lying"
"How dare you! Here is a scan of my certificate" (I'm English btw, I have no idea if you get a certificate)
"Fake! You have Photo-shopped that to change the score."
"Here is my teacher/parent/friend, they can vouch for my score"
"They are lying too, they are part of the great SAT Score conspiracy with you"

It's exactly the same mentality, start with a conclusion and then dismiss anything which shows that conclusion to be false. Impossible to argue with people who think like that. The only reason I bother is for the benefit of other people who may see the posts and hopefully can think a bit more rationally.

[JohnAdams1145]

NASA and many other state actors, including the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, have conclusively demonstrated the capability of sending ballistic missiles to very high altitudes. Any fool with basic physics knowledge can calculate the speed that the ballistic missiles reach on their initial burn just by looking at their ballistic trajectories. If an ICBM can hit Russia from the middle of the United States (and vice versa), it has to be able to go very high if launched at very high elevation angle. This is part of the elementary physics involving ballistic trajectories. Now that's been ascertained, I can't imagine how NASA could be mistaken about the shape of the Earth if they can launch stuff high enough to see the shape of the Earth... maybe some FEers are not so great at physics.

Also, AllAroundTheWorld:

"I got 1595 on my SAT"
"I don't believe you, you are lying"
"How dare you! Here is a scan of my certificate" (I'm English btw, I have no idea if you get a certificate)
"Fake! You have Photo-shopped that to change the score."
"Here is my teacher/parent/friend, they can vouch for my score"
"They are lying too, they are part of the great SAT Score conspiracy with you"

While you're right in principle, the SAT score example doesn't work because the people who make the SAT itself (College Board) publicly state that the SAT is scored on 10-point increments and therefore a 1595 is impossible... hence why I called her a liar elsewhere. Of course, if she could get an official score report / statement from the College Board substantiating her claim, I'd reconsider. FE has not stated the standard of proof required of RE.

[AATW]

Of course, if she could get an official score report / statement from the College Board substantiating her claim, I'd reconsider.

You would. My point is that someone with a conspiracy theory mindset would not.
They start with a belief and work everything around that. So anything which shows them to be wrong is either ignored or called fake.
It's an easy (but lazy) way of "proving" yourself right.

[Vespa]

It's a really silly way of thinking.  They say the Earth looks flat, so I believe it is flat.  That's a reasonable conclusion to make at first, and in fact society used to think the Earth was flat for that exact reason!

However due to various physical observations, it was concluded that it is extremely likely the earth is a sphere.  This is long before space travel.  The evidence was so convincing and made so much sense that it became the new accepted model over time.  It's not like suddenly everyone was brainwashed to believe the Earth was a sphere, it just makes sense based on the evidence.

Likewise, the FE'ers are doing a something similar here, but the key difference is a large portion of the evidence and explanations for what we see do not make any sense.