Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - isaacN

Pages: [1] 2  Next >
I think this whole thread is highly irresponsble and immoral given the numbers of people who die each day from this particular affliction. Its also massively insulting to all those who are currently enduring the various types of chemo and radiation therapies that are required.
Why i would like to see is a meta analysis of the studies that have been carried out on which the claim is based.


How can you be so sure of this? On what data are you basing your answer on?

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?

3) Occam's razor is not a fundamental law of the universe, it's just a guideline.
While I disagree with Tom on other points, he has you dead to rights here. Occam's Razor is an extremely common principle in the scientific method. And, as you pointed out yourself, it is deeply flawed and can't serve as anything more than an informal guideline. This is just one of many ways in which the Zetetic method is superior.

While the scientific method has brought about every discovery that has led to the modern world, with countless scientific break throughs and discoveries, im strugling to find one discovery that has been made by the Zetetic method that has benefited society. Bearing that in mind, on what basis are you making the claim that the Zetetic is superiour, i would really like to understand your reasoning.

Why would he bother answering these questions when the first couple are so ridiculus and clear examples of how ill informed and flexible wirh his facts Mr. Sargent is. If Mr. Bishop thinks they are good questions, perhaps he should take a second look. Its good and very healthy to question things but not in this ill informed embarrasing way.

In 2016 the Flat Earther Dave Murphy, who is a notable figure in the greater Flat Earth community, had a few questions for Neil deGrasse Tyson. Tyson has still not responded, although he has most assuredly seen it. There are a few good points to think about in this video.

I think Mr. Sargent should first get some basic facts right. In his first question he stated the curve of the earth over the length of Lake Baikal of, just under 400miles to be 20 miles. I think his calculation of the curve needs to be checked, what do you think Mr. Bishop? Do you agree? Second point, he states he can see a distance of 5 miles in any direction over a flat surface. For this to be the case he would need to be 18ft tall! Do you think Mr. Sargent is 18ft tall?

Suggestions & Concerns / Debating the question and not the person
« on: May 13, 2018, 08:12:18 AM »
From my standpoint it would be helpful if ‘debates’ could stick to the issues at hand and avoided straying off to discssing aspects of the individuals taking part. This i find irrelevent and not particulary interesting or helpful.  If this is a true discussion forum those taking part should stick to presenting the facts as they see them, while probing their opponents position, and not the opponent. My experience here is that few flat earth supporters, if any, are really that interested in exploring the foundations of flat earth belief.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: NASA Live Stream
« on: May 13, 2018, 07:21:34 AM »
he defensivly brands me a zealot!
I did no such thing. You asked me why I'm a FE spokesperson if I don't religiously believe a space conspiracy. I responded with a question: must I be a zealot to represent FET? Is it a prerequisite that I have no doubt whatsoever? The question had nothing to do with you, and everything to do with me. How you arrived at your conclusions is behind me.

I will ignore the rest of your post for now, as it appears you did not understand what was being said.
I never used the word religiously, or any other extreme adjictive, i just asked you the simple question;
Do you think the stream of data and the published derived images produced by Hubble have been faked?
Pretty simple question for you to address, so what do you think? Fake or not?

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: NASA Live Stream
« on: May 12, 2018, 02:52:13 PM »
I wonder why you are a flat earth spokesperson, as you said you wrote the homepage, so what do you believe? Flat or round?
Must one be an extremist or a zealot to be able to represent or aid a cause? I firmly believe that this is not the case. Sorry if that doesn't match up with your preconceived notions, but I care extremely little about those.

It obviously follows
No, it does not. You'll understand the world that surrounds you much better if you stop making assumptions and calling them obvious.

given Hubble is currently in orbit.
This is not a given. Your argument is "I'm right, therefore I'm not wrong." How boring.

What new knowledge , one way or the other, would force your hand and make you leap of your wobbly fence?
This has already been discussed to death. If I knew the answer, I would have already pursued it without your unsolicited comments.

Hows that?  predictable or not. I press lightly the, im not quite sure what to think, or too embarrassed to say it, Mr. Svarrior, and rather than answer my question, he defensivly brands me a zealot! Not sure how he arrives at that conclusion. Nothing like a good old Ad hominem smokescreen to muddy the waters. Its quite clear flat earth people like Mr. Svarrior object strongly, or in his case, weakly, to being asked straight forward questions. Why is this? are they afraid of being honest of what they believe. I suppose its easier branding me rather than honestly answering the question. As for my questions being labelled unsolicited, I think it escaped his notice that this is a debating forum. To put the record straight asking questions is a required part of the debating process, as is giving answers. It strikes me you are not one bit interested in either, so why are you here?

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth UK Convention
« on: May 11, 2018, 08:52:51 PM »
Admittedly you guys are getting quite a lot of coverage in the media but much of it has a mocking tone.
Entertain this thought for a moment: let's say that for every x people who find out about the Flat Earth Theory, one of them is going to accept it. I'm sure we'll disagree about the value of x, but that's why I want to leave it undefined here.

Now, let's say that a few years ago, x people would regularly be exposed to our content. Today, it is 10x. Even without me disclosing anything sensitve, you have to be able to discern that the growth of the FE movement's popularity necessarily translates into the growth of the movement itself. This is the very principle behind our "all publicity is good publicity" approach - whether or not you want to believe me that it's working out fantastically is obviously up to you ;)

Do you honestly believe that a small gathering of people at a hotel in England is of any signifacence? If you do then you really have to think again. Why would you imagine that such an insignificant number when measured on global terms would have any influence on any thing that really mattered? There have always been fringe groups living on the fringes! and thats the environment you will continue to inhabit. How many chairs of flat earth studies do you currently have at universities any where in the world? The organisers of the flat earth gig in England were a musician, and an office administrator, hardly an earth shattering duo.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: NASA Live Stream
« on: May 11, 2018, 08:22:02 PM »
Is it your position that all the online images and data that have been produced by Hubble are fake, or do you belive them to be genuine?
I do not hold a strong position either way.

If I understand your weak position, as you stated your position is not strong, you neither belive them, the images and the data, to be real, nor fake. Sitting on a fence can sometimes be a dangerous place. I wonder why you are a flat earth spokesperson, as you said you wrote the homepage, so what do you believe? Flat or round?
It obviously follows that your position on space flight, must also be of the weak position, given Hubble is currently in orbit. What new knowledge , one way or the other, would force your hand and make you leap of your wobbly fence?

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: NASA Live Stream
« on: May 11, 2018, 07:07:17 PM »
I think you know exactly what i was referring to
No, I don't. That's why I asked you to clarify. I don't believe I've made any accusations in this thread.

minor point of no consequence given your acusation
Do not discuss moderation in the middle of a thread. If you believe that I've done something wrong, report the post to moderators - they'll look into it and set me straight if need be.

Well lets start with an easy one to establish where you stand.
Though not a live stream, Hubble images are an output from NASA that are made freely avaiable to the public, in fact the RAW data is made avaiable so that those members of the public who wish to process their own images via, a RAW converter photoshop plugin, can do so. Is it your position that all the online images and data that have been produced by Hubble are fake, or do you belive them to be genuine?

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: NASA Live Stream
« on: May 11, 2018, 06:55:59 PM »
minor point of no consequence given your acusation
What accusation?

I think thats called evasion, and as far as this forum is concerned does it not constitute low content posting.
I think you know exactly what i was referring to, but you chose, rather than defend your position, to evade and avoid. That suggests to me that you have no answer to my question, is that the case?

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: NASA Live Stream
« on: May 11, 2018, 03:01:02 PM »
You want NASA live tv here it is;
Yes, I already provided a link at the start of this thread. What is it with you people repeating my points and acting as if they were novel?

Are you claiming all these, past and future broadcasts are all fake?
No. I've made my position on this clear too many times, including smack dab on the front page of this website. Instead of putting words in my mouth, try and read some of our content.

My link had you looked was a different one! though in the context of the debate its a pretty minor point of no consequence given your acusation. The question at hand is regarding the reality of the output of NASA vs the validity of your claims that it is all faked, thats the real question, and one that you constantly evade by picking on irrelevent points such as spelling and links.

It would be helpful if you could provide some evidence that at least attemts to prove all the output from NASA is fake rather than us just relying on your say so. We know for a fact that all the launches did indeed take place as there is plenty of corrobarative evidence to support them, such as live broadcasts etc, unlike your evidence which so far is non-existent. There is also a financial paper trail from all the hundreds/ thousands of organisations and companies involved in the design and manufacture of all the hardware/software used.
By all means have a differing position in a debate, but at least make some effort to justify and robustly back up your claim rather than simply resorting to snippy comments relating to spelling or duplicated links.

This is a serious question you are raising that has massive implications. Saying all the NASA missions are fake and all the data they have published over the years relating to our solar system and the universe is a giant scam, is huge, consequently your evidence to back up your claims also needs to be huge. So far Ive seen no evidence from yourself or any other flat earther that meets that criteria. Much more is required from you other than just a hollow conspiracy, which after reading your,  pretty thin to say the least, Wiki is all you currently have.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: NASA Live Stream
« on: May 11, 2018, 07:27:10 AM »
Got it.
No, you didn't get it at all. We know that not even NASA claims for this particular stream to be real. This doesn't magically make everything NASA says true, it just uncovers an inconsistency in the OP and your consequent attempts at devil's advocacy.

You want NASA live tv here it is;
Are you claiming all these, past and future broadcasts are all fake?
If so that’s one hell of a conspiracy!
For example, take the recent launch of the Mars mission.
According to you they would have to have ,faked the design and manufacture of the lander, faked the televised launch, and will have to fake all the data it will stream back to Earth when it eventually lands!
According to you NASA’s fake factory must be one of the world’s largest industries, given all their other space missions along with Hubble and other images!

Look at Hitler's rocket programs during WWII. Without getting into earth orbit he could only get his rockets to an operational range of 200 miles or so.
They could get rockets to 500 miles according to my source. At that point, it's not much Δv away from intercontinental.
After WWII ended the Cold War goal was to get Hitler's rockets into orbit for unlimited range, and to put in a nuclear payload. The rockets thenceforth were all based on the Nazi V2 design.
Again, ICBMs don't go to orbit.

The V2 Wikipedia page says that it has an operational range of 200 miles. If it was possible to Hitler to send a rocket 500 miles, that would still require him to place his weapon near a country's border. It is not much of an ultimate weapon if your enemy can intercept the launch vehicle and destroy it, nor is it much good if you can't reach all of your enemies with it. Hitler couldn't hit the US with his rockets. This limited the terror of his weapon.

A weapon that can be launched from anywhere, and hit any target, is the ultimate threat.

You really have no idea of historical facts. The V2 rockets were initially viewed as a terror weapon aimed mostly at civilian targets in London, where 3,000 civilians were killed,and other European cities. The Germans fired just under 4000 with over half being directed towards targets in the Uk, where it created much terror among the population. The USA was never seen as a target fo the V2. Though the first photo from space, 1947, was taken from a V2, again well before the creation of your arch enemy NASA.

Consider the purpose of NASA's creation during the Cold War and you will see the consequence of it being all fake.

The Cold War was brought into being long before NASA came along. The true historical date, and not a flat earth imagined one is 1947, though one could argue that Potsdam in 1945 laid the foundations. Imagining NASA created the Cold War after WW2 is just ludicrous and has no historical basis whatsoever.
Your atempt to once more distort historical facts to suit your own agenda is rather concerning.

Planes don't follow Kepler's laws because they aren't in orbit. As I said, they don't move at orbital speeds. If they did, they'd go around the world in 6 minutes.

If planes aren't in orbit than RET is wrong, because in RET everything is always in orbit around something else. In RET, a plane would be in orbit around the Sun, just like the rest of the Earth. How are you supposed to defend RET if you don't even understand your own rules?

Planes can dip below the horizon and end up on the opposite side. They're not in orbit, so why is a satellite?

First of all, nice job admitting planes dip below the horizon! Also, nice job admitting satellites exist. Because if a satellite wasn't in orbit, how would it stay up? Ever heard of gravity much? Or is it just "heavy"? Being in orbit allows the satellite to continuously fall towards the Earth, but at an angle so that it never crashes down to Earth. Airplans on the other hand, were built to fly, giving them their own propulsion.

If an airplane isn't in orbit, how does it stay up? It has its own propulsion, and so do your supposed "satellites" and yes, things do dip below the horizon, but only as an optical illusion. The horizon as it is understood in RET doesn't actually exist.

Have you ever flown before? Have you ever watched a sunset?
It’s all very well taking part in a debate, but putting forward nonsensical statements, like your own does not really help in taking the debate forward.

You know, we can see satellites orbiting from the ground... They clearly aren't faked. You don't even have to be on the ISS to see them. We can also see the ISS from the ground.

I can also see airplanes from the ground, are you about to tell me airplanes prove the world is round because they're in orbit?

Thats a very odd logic you are employing! We know most commercial airlines fly at around 37,000 ft at a ground speed of around  575mph, give or take depending upon wind speeds. The ISS on the other hand is traveling at a speed of around 17,000 mph an altitude of over 130,000 ft.  If you were really serious about checking out the reality of the ISS and it’s orbit, or not, it would be a relatively simple matter.
There are a few websites that do real time tracking. All you would need to do is have a number of spotters at locations along its flight path on particular days. As it’s a weather dependent study it might take a couple of weeks, to record all the data, but you would answer the question both regarding satelites and the shape of the earth.
The fact that flat earthers are always going on about doing research, but complain about being resource poor, here is an ideal study to undertake which would require minimum resources. Why has this simple study never been done? Is it because flat earthers would be terrified by the results!

Flat Earth Community / Re: What Makes conspiracy Theorists believe.
« on: May 09, 2018, 09:44:08 AM »
And what does TFES home page say about relying on Wikipedia?
Nothing at all. The word "Wikipedia" is absent from the home page. I wrote most of the content there, so if you're confused about anything, I'm happy to help.

It urges one to not rely upon Wikipedia which can be edited by pretty much anyone, but to go out and observe for yourself, or use other resources.
No, it doesn't say any of that. You appear to confuse the message of "don't automatically trust something just because it's on the Internet" with "please automatically distrust everything on the Internet". The two are not synonymous.

Having read your homepage, i have a few questions that perhaps you may answer.
You are fairly scathing of Space X a company who has made numerous launches in its short history and has many more planned. Its launches and landings, while indeed have been streamed live on the internet, something you urge caution on, they have also been witnessed live by many thousands of people. When it came to your steam powered flat earth rockateer you offered no such caution on his story. Why the difference is approach?
Another perplexing question is why do flat earth people such as yourself still refer to the proven charlatan and rouge Rowbottom? The way you still cling like grim death to this character is testimony to the dearth of  ‘evidence’ you actually have. If he managed in 1836 to carry out a pretty rudimentary experiment with a telescope, surely it would not be beyond your means to do something a bit more high tech given how inexpensive laser levelling equipment is these days.

Pages: [1] 2  Next >