"Empirical" Evidence
« on: February 20, 2014, 02:53:22 PM »
Hi, I'm new here, just thought I would put my 2 cents in on the whole Flat Earth Theory. From what I have been reading, you are mostly based off of Empirical Evidence. I have seen many times where you claim something is Empirical only if it has been directly observed. Another thing I have seen is the bashing of reputed sources that completely refute this theory, claiming it has been falsified for money, and those who do this blackmail, bribe, influence, etc. of people trusted by the scientific community at large. The only thing I have trouble understanding about this is, why go through all this trouble just to make us believe the earth is round? Money? Well, I'm sure that Governments and private companies could spend their money on something better than shooting large chunks of extremely expensive hardware into the sky (and many average Joes have seen rocket and shuttle launches, you need to have some serious balls to say that they haven't). Propaganda? The majority of the worlds population is pretty damn stupid/uneducated, they don't need to try that hard to make people follow orders. And finally, the only people that you guys will truly listen to, are people who agree with you, and I seriously doubt that anyone on this forum are making an effort to try and gain evidence on the other side of the debate. So, maybe more people would take you seriously if any of you tried to find some evidence that the world IS a globe, and you couldn't, then your theory would have a whole lot more weight behind it.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9810
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: "Empirical" Evidence
« Reply #1 on: February 20, 2014, 03:34:45 PM »
The only thing I have trouble understanding about this is, why go through all this trouble just to make us believe the earth is round? Money? Well, I'm sure that Governments and private companies could spend their money on something better than shooting large chunks of extremely expensive hardware into the sky
And yet we see North Korea doing exactly that, and the Western media making fun of them. Given how scarce their resources are compared to ours, surely they have better ways of spending them than to pretend they have a space program as big as they claim to?
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

*

Offline jroa

  • *
  • Posts: 3094
  • Kentucky Gentleman
    • View Profile
Re: "Empirical" Evidence
« Reply #2 on: February 20, 2014, 06:19:24 PM »
You can control the people in many ways: fear, force, and misinformation, to name a few.  If you can control their knowledge, you can control their minds, which is a big motivator, don't you think?

Re: "Empirical" Evidence
« Reply #3 on: February 22, 2014, 06:20:39 AM »
Yes, but there is simply no point in trying to make people think the earth is round. Ok, the earth is flat, now what? For a sizable chunk of humans alive today, the shape of the earth really doesn't matter. My friend that is a gas station cashier really doesn't give 2 flying fucks about stuff like this, because it doesn't effect him. So why would governments and scientists try and convince us? Thats what point I was making. And the whole North Korea thing doesn't matter, because North Korean's as a whole probably don't give a shit about space, they are just trying not to starve to death under the heel of a tyrant. They waste their money on propaganda like that, it really doesn't do anything for them.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9810
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: "Empirical" Evidence
« Reply #4 on: February 22, 2014, 09:16:09 AM »
So why would governments and scientists try and convince us?
Again, the exact same reason North Korea does. You're not trying to convince your friend from the petrol station, you're trying to convince other governments that you've achieved something. Trace it back to the cold war and the space race - neither America nor Russia would like to admit that they made stuff up, now would they?
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

*

Offline Tintagel

  • *
  • Posts: 531
  • Full of Tinier Tintagels
    • View Profile
Re: "Empirical" Evidence
« Reply #5 on: February 22, 2014, 02:38:28 PM »
Yes, but there is simply no point in trying to make people think the earth is round. Ok, the earth is flat, now what? For a sizable chunk of humans alive today, the shape of the earth really doesn't matter. My friend that is a gas station cashier really doesn't give 2 flying fucks about stuff like this, because it doesn't effect him. So why would governments and scientists try and convince us? Thats what point I was making. And the whole North Korea thing doesn't matter, because North Korean's as a whole probably don't give a shit about space, they are just trying not to starve to death under the heel of a tyrant. They waste their money on propaganda like that, it really doesn't do anything for them.

I don't think anyone here believes that the Powers That Be know the earth is flat and are actively working to bury this information.  We rather believe they are simply mistaken.  They may be lying about the space program, but that doesn't mean they're also lying about what shape they believe the earth to be.  They're just wrong about that.

*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 3801
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: "Empirical" Evidence
« Reply #6 on: February 23, 2014, 12:00:34 AM »
Trace it back to the cold war and the space race - neither America nor Russia would like to admit that they made stuff up, now would they?
I would think that America or Russia would have loved to show that the other side faked their space program during the cold war.  Sorta like how America was publicly embarrassed when a U-2 spy plane was shot down by the Russians after America said that they weren't sending spy planes to fly over Russia.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9810
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: "Empirical" Evidence
« Reply #7 on: February 23, 2014, 07:38:15 AM »
I would think that America or Russia would have loved to show that the other side faked their space program during the cold war.  Sorta like how America was publicly embarrassed when a U-2 spy plane was shot down by the Russians after America said that they weren't sending spy planes to fly over Russia.
Ah, yes, but your example is missing a "tu quoque" element to it. If Russia said "Hey, America faked their space programme, the Earth is actually flat!", everyone would have to stop and think "wait, but you said it was round, and provided pictures!".

Discrediting the other side is all well and good, but they're in this together. Besides, as Tintagel said, they probably don't even know about this.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Re: "Empirical" Evidence
« Reply #8 on: February 23, 2014, 03:45:33 PM »
I would think that America or Russia would have loved to show that the other side faked their space program during the cold war.  Sorta like how America was publicly embarrassed when a U-2 spy plane was shot down by the Russians after America said that they weren't sending spy planes to fly over Russia.
Ah, yes, but your example is missing a "tu quoque" element to it. If Russia said "Hey, America faked their space programme, the Earth is actually flat!", everyone would have to stop and think "wait, but you said it was round, and provided pictures!".

Discrediting the other side is all well and good, but they're in this together. Besides, as Tintagel said, they probably don't even know about this.

Both Russia and the US are regularly accused of lying to their populations.  Getting caught for the nth time doesn't really mean much to either government.  It happens all the time.  And what would "everyone" do about it, anyway?  Suppose the government comes out and says, "Yo dudes, we've been faking all this space stuff.  Later."  I bet everyone still goes to work the next day.  All the other space-faring nations are faking it, too, so it isn't like any of them would have anything to say or do about it.
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9810
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: "Empirical" Evidence
« Reply #9 on: February 24, 2014, 06:32:54 AM »
Why do you keep thinking this has anything to do with populations after I explicitly said it doesn't?
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5629
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: "Empirical" Evidence
« Reply #10 on: February 24, 2014, 06:42:26 AM »
Where did you explicitly say that?  Does you saying this make garygreen incorrect?
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

Re: "Empirical" Evidence
« Reply #11 on: February 24, 2014, 07:18:27 AM »
Why do you keep thinking this has anything to do with populations after I explicitly said it doesn't?

If Russia said "Hey, America faked their space programme, the Earth is actually flat!", everyone would have to stop and think "wait, but you said it was round, and provided pictures!".

I took "everyone" in this sentence to mean all of the people in those nations.  I had not read your 'petrol station' comment.

I think it makes even less sense for space-fairing nations to be troubled over the repercussions of getting caught faking space travel.  All of the space-fairing nations already know that it's fake.  As you said, they're all in it together.  They lose nothing relative to one another.

As for every other nation: why would that knowledge really change for them?  What are they going to do?  Get mad and stomp their feet?

I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9810
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: "Empirical" Evidence
« Reply #12 on: February 24, 2014, 09:51:20 AM »
I think it makes even less sense for space-fairing nations to be troubled over the repercussions of getting caught faking space travel.  All of the space-fairing nations already know that it's fake.  As you said, they're all in it together.  They lose nothing relative to one another.
What makes you think they know about each other's fakery?

Where did you explicitly say that?
You're not trying to convince your friend from the petrol station, you're trying to convince other governments that you've achieved something.

Does you saying this make garygreen incorrect?
I wouldn't say "incorrect" so much as that his question was not a valid one. I cannot clarify my thoughts on something I never said or thought.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2014, 09:53:14 AM by pizaaplanet »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Re: "Empirical" Evidence
« Reply #13 on: February 24, 2014, 05:02:31 PM »
I think it makes even less sense for space-fairing nations to be troubled over the repercussions of getting caught faking space travel.  All of the space-fairing nations already know that it's fake.  As you said, they're all in it together.  They lose nothing relative to one another.
What makes you think they know about each other's fakery?

I don't.  I think the empirical evidence proving the legitimacy of space flight is overwhelming.  Even if I didn't, I'm not sure how I could answer that question since there is precisely zero empirical evidence on what these allegedly-fake space programs do or don't know about other allegedly-fake space programs.

I don't see what difference it makes, anyway.  I take the point of the OP to be skeptical of the narrative that space-fairing nations would go to such great lengths to fake being good at something that ultimately has little to no impact on foreign affairs.

In my view, the best argument you could make here is that the US and USSR needed to prove to one another during the Cold War that they had achieved ICBMs, that a 'peaceful' space program was the best means of developing and testing this technology, and that ICBMs certainly did have an enormous impact on foreign affairs in the second half of the 20th century.  Thus, if ICBMs are impossible, then both sides went to the trouble of faking space flight in order to convince the other that they had achieved them in order to maintain nuclear deterrence.

The problem with this narrative (especially if you're correct about their ignorance of each other's fakery) is that it fails to explain the following 50 years of space flight.  If you faked the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo missions in order to prove to the USSR that you have ICBMs, then why would you continue to risk exposing your fraud after they've already been convinced?
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9810
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: "Empirical" Evidence
« Reply #14 on: February 24, 2014, 05:12:16 PM »
I don't see what difference it makes, anyway.
Well, it's absolutely key to the point you're making, so it makes a difference between you having a point and not having one.

The problem with this narrative (especially if you're correct about their ignorance of each other's fakery) is that it fails to explain the following 50 years of space flight.  If you faked the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo missions in order to prove to the USSR that you have ICBMs, then why would you continue to risk exposing your fraud after they've already been convinced?
To maintain legitimacy. This isn't a competition that you win and forget about.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Re: "Empirical" Evidence
« Reply #15 on: February 24, 2014, 05:40:39 PM »
I don't see what difference it makes, anyway.
Well, it's absolutely key to the point you're making, so it makes a difference between you having a point and not having one.

Not really.  My point has always been that the US has nothing to lose by admitting to (or getting caught) faking space travel.  Space travel has virtually no leverage on foreign affairs.  This is true regardless of what US officials believe about other space programs.  It doesn't really matter, though; it's pointless speculation.

But to your point, it's pretty hard to imagine that the US wouldn't know that the other space programs are fake.  For one thing, space programs are internationally cooperative.  This is actually the argument that most conspiracy believers make: nations like India, Japan, SK, the UK, France, etc. are all cooperating with the US to fake space travel.  For another thing, the US is really, really good at spying on other nations.  We do it all the time (see: 20th and 21st century American history).

The problem with this narrative (especially if you're correct about their ignorance of each other's fakery) is that it fails to explain the following 50 years of space flight.  If you faked the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo missions in order to prove to the USSR that you have ICBMs, then why would you continue to risk exposing your fraud after they've already been convinced?
To maintain legitimacy. This isn't a competition that you win and forget about.

Why?  Will the globe forget that we have ICBMs?  Will Russia?  If the US came out today and said, "Yo dudes, all these ICBMs are fake.  We don't really have any at all," what do you think would really change?  Do you believe that ICBMs are still essential to deter Russia and project US power abroad?
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9810
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: "Empirical" Evidence
« Reply #16 on: February 25, 2014, 09:34:12 AM »
Not really.  My point has always been that the US has nothing to lose by admitting to (or getting caught) faking space travel.  Space travel has virtually no leverage on foreign affairs.
That's simply untrue, which is exactly why more and more nations, especially "controversial" ones, are trying to get there. This isn't a matter of FE vs RE anymore, this is a matter of "please read the news more often".

But to your point, it's pretty hard to imagine that the US wouldn't know that the other space programs are fake.  For one thing, space programs are internationally cooperative.  This is actually the argument that most conspiracy believers make: nations like India, Japan, SK, the UK, France, etc. are all cooperating with the US to fake space travel.
I don't see how the involvement of non-space-faring nations is relevant in this situation.

For another thing, the US is really, really good at spying on other nations.  We do it all the time (see: 20th and 21st century American history).
Nah, they're good at breaking international laws in ineffective attempts to spy on citizens, which get frequently revealed. This, by the way, is the exact kind of reputation loss that they're afraid of when it comes to space programs.

Why?  Will the globe forget that we have ICBMs? [...]
Please stop trying to sidetrack this discussion.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5629
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: "Empirical" Evidence
« Reply #17 on: February 25, 2014, 01:19:19 PM »
Not really.  My point has always been that the US has nothing to lose by admitting to (or getting caught) faking space travel.  Space travel has virtually no leverage on foreign affairs.
That's simply untrue, which is exactly why more and more nations, especially "controversial" ones, are trying to get there. This isn't a matter of FE vs RE anymore, this is a matter of "please read the news more often".
I'm sure you are aware there are many much better methods of making news than a space launch.
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

Re: "Empirical" Evidence
« Reply #18 on: February 25, 2014, 04:14:28 PM »
Not really.  My point has always been that the US has nothing to lose by admitting to (or getting caught) faking space travel.  Space travel has virtually no leverage on foreign affairs.
That's simply untrue, which is exactly why more and more nations, especially "controversial" ones, are trying to get there. This isn't a matter of FE vs RE anymore, this is a matter of "please read the news more often".

You have yet to provide me with a single example of how getting caught faking space flight would materially impact US foreign policy or our international relations.  I'm well-informed, thanks.  I think that our foreign policy objectives, strategies, and relations are built on hard power.  Virtually nothing about our military or economic hegemony relies on sending people or machines into space (there are obvious exceptions, like the value of GPS to our military; but, FEers believe that that tech is a fiction anyway and is really just blimps or whatever).  I also don't think that any of it relies on our 'reputation' or 'prestige.' 

China is a pretty perfect example of this.  No one trades with China because they're so trustworthy, loyal, honest, prestigious, or reputable.  They trade with China because it furthers their own national interests.  Welcome to foreign affairs.

But to your point, it's pretty hard to imagine that the US wouldn't know that the other space programs are fake.  For one thing, space programs are internationally cooperative.  This is actually the argument that most conspiracy believers make: nations like India, Japan, SK, the UK, France, etc. are all cooperating with the US to fake space travel.
I don't see how the involvement of non-space-faring nations is relevant in this situation.

Those are all spacefaring nations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_space_agencies#List_of_space_agencies_with_launch_capability

For another thing, the US is really, really good at spying on other nations.  We do it all the time (see: 20th and 21st century American history).
Nah, they're good at breaking international laws in ineffective attempts to spy on citizens, which get frequently revealed. This, by the way, is the exact kind of reputation loss that they're afraid of when it comes to space programs.

What?  How naive are you?  This isn't a matter of FE vs RE anymore, this is a matter of "please read the news more often."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/21/world/nsa-dragnet-included-allies-aid-groups-and-business-elite.html?_r=0
Quote
Britain’s Government Communications Headquarters, working closely with the National Security Agency, monitored the communications of senior European Union officials, foreign leaders including African heads of state and sometimes their family members, directors of United Nations and other relief programs, and officials overseeing oil and finance ministries, according to the documents. In addition to Israel, some targets involved close allies like France and Germany, where tensions have already erupted over recent revelations about spying by the N.S.A.

Also, why would the US be afraid of losing 'reputation' when it already happens frequently?  In other words, if US violations of international law are, as you put it, "frequently revealed," then why would anyone care about this particular instance?

Why?  Will the globe forget that we have ICBMs? [...]
Please stop trying to sidetrack this discussion.

I was responding directly to your point.  You said, "This isn't a competition that you win and forget about."  Why is that true?  Why does the US have to continually find new ways to remind the world that they can go to space in order to maintain its hegemony?  Why is going to space at all even necessary?  You haven't even explained that.  I'm the one who made that argument for you. 

e: I keep typing 'space-fairing' instead of spacefaring.  Goddamn.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2014, 04:36:41 PM by garygreen »
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9810
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: "Empirical" Evidence
« Reply #19 on: February 26, 2014, 06:37:07 PM »
I'm sure you are aware there are many much better methods of making news than a space launch.
No one's trying to make the news, I'm just asking you to read it now and then.

You have yet to provide me with a single example of how getting caught faking space flight would materially impact US foreign policy or our international relations.  I'm well-informed, thanks.
You can't simultaneously be well-informed and claim complete ignorance of the importance of the space race and its aftermath.

A minor scandal means minor trouble. Here, have a recent example: http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/italian-space-chief-offers-to-resign-over-expenses-114020701363_1.html

And here's a less recent example of why it may be a good idea to fake this stuff: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/8416561/Soviet-Union-lied-about-1961-Yuri-Gagarin-space-mission.html

If you want to advertise an ideology, it's a good idea to show some worthwhile successes to go with it.

I don't see how the involvement of non-space-faring nations is relevant in this situation.

Those are all spacefaring nations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_space_agencies#List_of_space_agencies_with_launch_capability
You're not even attempting to answer my questions anymore. If you plan to keep trying to sidetrack this discussion by bringing up irrelevant crap, you may as well just talk to yourself. I have better things to do than deal with your intentionally obtuse attitude.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*