[Voltare]

It has been my assumption about the “conspiracy” that it is this huge all-powerful foe which seeks to suppress flat earth reality and sustain round earth fiction.  I have come to understand from a previous thread that this couldn’t be farther from the truth.

From the Flat Earth Wiki, it states that “There is no Flat Earth Conspiracy” but “There is a Space Travel Conspiracy”.

This doesn’t provide a whole lot of information to go on, and as such I was wondering what flat earthers believe in more detail.  I’m curious as to what extent flat earthers believe the conspiracy entails, how deep, how wide.  I’m curious to know if you are skeptical of the conspiracy theory and why.

Just using Wikipedia as a reference, “As of 2018, 72 different government space agencies are in existence; 14 of those have launch capability. Six government space agencies … have full launch capabilities."   
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_space_agencies

Provided these stats are valid, do flat earthers consider all 72 space agencies in existence part of the conspiracy, is it just the 14 that have launch capability, or is it just the 6 who have full launch capabilities?  Would countries without space agencies be considered members in the conspiracy or not?  If not, why aren't these countries calling BS on the space fakers?

[Pinky]

It has been my assumption about the “conspiracy” that it is this huge all-powerful foe which seeks to suppress flat earth reality and sustain round earth fiction.  I have come to understand from a previous thread that this couldn’t be farther from the truth.

From the Flat Earth Wiki, it states that “There is no Flat Earth Conspiracy” but “There is a Space Travel Conspiracy”.

This doesn’t provide a whole lot of information to go on, and as such I was wondering what flat earthers believe in more detail.  I’m curious as to what extent flat earthers believe the conspiracy entails, how deep, how wide.  I’m curious to know if you are skeptical of the conspiracy theory and why.

Just using Wikipedia as a reference, “As of 2018, 72 different government space agencies are in existence; 14 of those have launch capability. Six government space agencies … have full launch capabilities."   
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_space_agencies

Provided these stats are valid, do flat earthers consider all 72 space agencies in existence part of the conspiracy, is it just the 14 that have launch capability, or is it just the 6 who have full launch capabilities?  Would countries without space agencies be considered members in the conspiracy or not?  If not, why aren't these countries calling BS on the space fakers?

The problem is, the cover-up would have to go way, way, way beyond government-agencies.
- The telecom-corporations with satellites must be in it.
- The geographers analyzing mountain and sees via satellite must be in on it.
- My very own brother would have to be in on it: He's updating real-estate maps and real-estate databases with satellite-images. He gets satellite-access every few weeks for 1 hour.
- All the scientists doing astronomy must be in on it.
- All the particle-physicists analyzing radiation coming from space must be in on it.
- All the geologists working on earthquakes must be in on it.
- All the meteoroligists and climatologists tracking the movements of ocean-currents and winds must be in on it.
- All the long-distance-pilots must be in on it.
- All long-distance sea-faring captains and navigators DATING BACK CENTURIES must be in on it. (If Earth were not a globe, Magellan and Francis Drake and the East India Company and everybody who colonized Africa would have noticed)

[Pete Svarrior]

The vast majority of the groups RE zealots try to force into the conspiracy have no business being part of it. In reality, any such conspiracy would necessarily be quite small.

Being unknowingly complicit in someone's actions is not the same as being part of their group.

[manicminer]

Given that the definition of the word 'zealot' is...

a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideal

I would have said that is more fitting description if anything to some of those on the FE supporting side than the RE.  Personally while I stand as a firm believer of RET, I am certainly not so fixed in my mind as close my mind to all potential other lines of thought.  If strong enough evidence is presented to genuinely suggest that RET is actually wrong then I will consider it accordingly. However up to now no one has presented any such evidence.

[Pinky]

The vast majority of the groups RE zealots try to force into the conspiracy have no business being part of it. In reality, any such conspiracy would necessarily be quite small.

Being unknowingly complicit in someone's actions is not the same as being part of their group.

But if there were a conspiracy faking numbers and events, then there would be hundreds of thousands of people OUTSIDE of the conspiracy who would notice and speak up.
The telecom-corporations would start complaining that the official numbers are wrong because the satellites are in all the wrong places.
The astronomers would start complaning that the official numbers are wrong because the stars are in all the wrong places.
The particle-physicists would complain that the official numbers are wrong because the radiation is coming from all the wrong directions.
The cartographers would complain that the official numbers are wrong because the distances and angles are all wrong.
The climatologists would complain that the official numbers are wrong because the streams and currents don't fit.
The pilots and sea-captains would complain that the official numbers are wrong because locations aren't where they are supposed to be.

How come none of these people have a problem with the theoretical predictions provided by the RE-model?

Where are the accidents that must inevitably happen when predictions made by the RE-model fail in real life?

[Pete Svarrior]

But if there were a conspiracy faking numbers and events, then there would be hundreds of thousands of people OUTSIDE of the conspiracy who would notice and speak up.
The telecom-corporations would start complaining that the official numbers are wrong because the satellites are in all the wrong places.
The astronomers would start complaning that the official numbers are wrong because the stars are in all the wrong places.
The particle-physicists would complain that the official numbers are wrong because the radiation is coming from all the wrong directions.
The cartographers would complain that the official numbers are wrong because the distances and angles are all wrong.
The climatologists would complain that the official numbers are wrong because the streams and currents don't fit.
The pilots and sea-captains would complain that the official numbers are wrong because locations aren't where they are supposed to be.

Only if you assume that these errors were made. In other words, you're trying to force an equivalence between RET being untrue and RET being internally inconsistent. This won't fool many people here.

Where are the accidents that must inevitably happen when predictions made by the RE-model fail in real life?

Accidents, especially in "space" photography, are brought up relatively often. Unsurprisingly, the RE zealots are not very interested.

[manicminer]

Why do you find the concept of "space" photography so hard to grasp then Pete? It is an extensive and far reaching aspect of photography these days. A friend of mine was personally involved in the lab testing for the imaging chips that are now part the GAIA spacecraft which is now imaging the Milky Way Galaxy. And very successfully I might add.

[Voltare]

The vast majority of the groups RE zealots try to force into the conspiracy have no business being part of it.

This is precisely my reason for starting this thread.  We have nothing to go on.  Instead of accusing RE zealots of trying to forcefully define the extents of the conspiracy, why not properly define the extents for us?  Come on Pete, this is your prime opportunity to bring focus and understanding to this topic so we aren’t left guessing.

In reality, any such conspiracy would necessarily be quite small. 
Being unknowingly complicit in someone's actions is not the same as being part of their group.

So in reality, who do you think makes up this quite small group of knowingly complicit actors?  Let’s start off with a simple bite sized question – Are all 72 existing space agencies knowingly complicit members of the space travel conspiracy, yes or no?

[Pete Svarrior]

This is precisely my reason for starting this thread.  We have nothing to go on.  Instead of accusing RE zealots of trying to forcefully define the extents of the conspiracy, why not properly define the extents for us?  Come on Pete, this is your prime opportunity to bring focus and understanding to this topic so we aren’t left guessing.

How exactly do you propose I'd do this? Putting to one side the fact that I'm very skeptical of any such conspiracy, you're asking me to define something that, by its very nature, is undefined. If we knew exactly who's part of any such conspiracy, it wouldn't be much of a conspiracy. It's almost as if you were fishing for bad arguments.

Let’s start off with a simple bite sized question – Are all 72 existing space agencies knowingly complicit members of the space travel conspiracy, yes or no?

Probably not. I see no reason why they'd want to work together.

[Voltare]

How exactly do you propose I'd do this?

You would know best.  Given that you seem to be certain of those groups which do not belong in the conspiracy, I figured by logical extension that you would most likely know who does rightly belong in it.

We should at least be able to lock down a few obvious players, right?  NASA being the prime one.  Would any other agencies of US government have to be involved? 

Probably not. I see no reason why they'd want to work together.

If all space travel is faked, wouldn't all 72 existing space agencies have to be knowingly complicit perpetrators in the hoax?  They wouldn't necessarily have to work together on the faking, they could just independently do their part.  If even one space agency wasn't faking it, then it would mean space travel is real, would it not?

[Pinky]

Where are the accidents that must inevitably happen when predictions made by the RE-model fail in real life?

Accidents, especially in "space" photography, are brought up relatively often. Unsurprisingly, the RE zealots are not very interested.

I'm not talking about accidents in space photography.

I'm talking about ships and planes getting lost because the RE-map is supposedly wrong. If the RE-map is wrong, how come ships and planes still find their course?
I'm talking about satellites not being where they are supposed to be. If RE wrong, why are the satellites where RE claims they should be?
I'm talking about stars and planets not being where they are supposed to be. If RE is wrong, why are planets and stars where RE claims that they should be?
I'm talking about extraterrestrial radiation. How come that particle-physicists can detect stellar neutrinos coming THROUGH Earth from the direction where the Sun should be according to the RE-model?
I'm talking about distances and angles not fitting to the official maps when a cartographer makes a new map from measurements. Why do his measurements fit to a RE-map???

If Earth were flat and then there would be thousands of instances each day across all of industry and research where the measurements do not match the official numbers. And yet there is not one corporation and not one scientist who complains that the official numbers are wrong.





If Earth were flat, then all the calculations based on the RE-model would be wrong and would lead to thousands of accidents and incidents every single day. How do you cover up the shape of Earth when thousands of people compare the official numbers to real-life every single day as part of their job?

[Pinky]

This is precisely my reason for starting this thread.  We have nothing to go on.  Instead of accusing RE zealots of trying to forcefully define the extents of the conspiracy, why not properly define the extents for us?  Come on Pete, this is your prime opportunity to bring focus and understanding to this topic so we aren’t left guessing.

How exactly do you propose I'd do this? Putting to one side the fact that I'm very skeptical of any such conspiracy, you're asking me to define something that, by its very nature, is undefined. If we knew exactly who's part of any such conspiracy, it wouldn't be much of a conspiracy. It's almost as if you were fishing for bad arguments.

Au contraire. The conspiracy is actually very well defined.

- The aim of the conspiracy is to control/fake information about the shape of Earth and/or space-travel.
- They do this by involving all the people that would be necessary for doing so.
- The conspiracy has successfully fooled hundreds of thousands of corporate professionals and scientists every single day for decades without any slip-up ever.
- No member of the conspiracy has ever stepped forward and exposed them. In decades.
- No member of the conspiracy has ever lost control of sensitive information. In decades.
- Nobody has ever managed to infiltrate them or find them or identify one single person who's a member. In decades.

So, we have an all-powerful entity that must exist but you cannot prove that it exists. Funny. That sounds exactly like religion.

[Pete Svarrior]

You would know best.

I would know best how to do the impossible? You flatter me, but no, I'm not a miracle-worker.

Given that you seem to be certain of those groups which do not belong in the conspiracy

And since when is this a given, exactly? When have I spoken with this supposed certainty?

I figured by logical extension that you would most likely know who does rightly belong in it.

If your "logical" extensions lead to introducing unhelpful strawmen, you should consider using either more logic, or less logic. I'm not sure which would work better.

We should at least be able to lock down a few obvious players, right?  NASA being the prime one.

Why would NASA be "the prime one"? You seem to know something, but you're reluctant to share it.

Would any other agencies of US government have to be involved?

Why are you discussing agencies when you should be discussing individuals?

If all space travel is faked, wouldn't all 72 existing space agencies have to be knowingly complicit perpetrators in the hoax?

Given that most of them do not claim to perform the extraordinary feats you attribute to them, there's no need for them to be perpetrators of anything at all.

I'm talking about ships and planes getting lost because the RE-map is supposedly wrong. If the RE-map is wrong, how come ships and planes still find their course?

What makes you think that a specific projection of the Earth can't be used for navigation?

I'm talking about satellites not being where they are supposed to be. If RE wrong, why are the satellites where RE claims they should be?

What makes you think a specific projection of the Earth can't be used for location?

I'm talking about stars and planets not being where they are supposed to be. If RE is wrong, why are planets and stars where RE claims that they should be?

See above.

I'm talking about extraterrestrial radiation. How come that particle-physicists can detect stellar neutrinos coming THROUGH Earth from the direction where the Sun should be according to the RE-model?

Electromagnetic acceleration.

I'm talking about distances and angles not fitting to the official maps when a cartographer makes a new map from measurements. Why do his measurements fit to a RE-map???

An "interesting" allegation, but it's been discussed to death in other threads. I recommend the search function.

If Earth were flat and then there would be thousands of instances each day across all of industry and research where the measurements do not match the official numbers. And yet there is not one corporation and not one scientist who complains that the official numbers are wrong.

If Earth were flat, then all the calculations based on the RE-model would be wrong and would lead to thousands of accidents and incidents every single day. How do you cover up the shape of Earth when thousands of people compare the official numbers to real-life every single day as part of their job?

You have yet to substantiate any of this. So far, your claims rely on RET being internally inconsistent rather than "wrong". I already told you that this is (for the most part) not the case, and highlighted the fault in your reasoning. Restating your reasoning, shockingly, did not advance your point.

Au contraire. The conspiracy is actually very well defined.

Is it? Let's hear it.

- The aim of the conspiracy is to control/fake information about the shape of Earth and/or space-travel.

This flies in the face of every single conspiracy proponent's claims, so I'm going to venture a guess here and say that's false. If you want to propose your own conspiracy in order to then explain how wrong it is, please refrain from doing so in the upper fora.

- They do this by involving all the people that would be necessary for doing so.

Congratulations - the crux of your argument is a truism. This is getting better and better.

- The conspiracy has successfully fooled hundreds of thousands of corporate professionals and scientists every single day for decades without any slip-up ever.

I already pointed out that slip-ups are relatively common. Once again, if you want to make up your own argument and then disprove it, I'll be asking you to take this elsewhere. Metabunk, perhaps?

- No member of the conspiracy has ever stepped forward and exposed them. In decades.

And now you've added a lie. Matt Boylan/Math Powerland and Thomas Baron would be very sad to hear that they never existed.

- No member of the conspiracy has ever lost control of sensitive information. In decades.

Other than the missing Apollo 11 tapes, you mean? I'm going to have to ask you to refrain from lying.

- Nobody has ever managed to infiltrate them or find them or identify one single person who's a member. In decades.

See above.

So, we have an all-powerful entity

Which is not all-powerful, nor powerful at all

that must exist

Except for repeated claims that it may well not exist

but you cannot prove that it exists

Indeed - it would be a bit strange of me to prove something I don't believe to be true

Funny. That sounds exactly like religion.

Indeed - your description of the supposed conspiracy, together with your willful misrepresentations and blatant omission of facts when they don't suit your narrative really does sound religious in nature. There's a reason I repeatedly called you a RE zealot, and I'm so glad you chose to document it here in such great detail!

[Voltare]

Pete, I hope you realize that I’m just trying to help clarify matters for everyone’s benefit.  This will benefit round earthers because we will have a better understanding of what you believe.  This will benefit flat earthers because this knowledge could then be added to your FAQ and therefore prevent round earthers from asking repeated questions about it. 

Why would NASA be "the prime one"? You seem to know something, but you're reluctant to share it.

I’m just offering a suggestion based on quotes from your wiki.  “the active faking of space travel…
is most often associated with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)”

Given that most of them do not claim to perform the extraordinary feats you attribute to them, there's no need for them to be perpetrators of anything at all.

Now we are getting somewhere.  See, when you begin to apply some deductive reasoning to the matter, you certainly can begin to define the extents of the conspiracy.  It’s not impossible, no need to be a miracle-worker. 

So, now back to the top of the thread and the Wikipedia statistics.  “14 of those (space agencies) have launch capability. Six government space agencies … have full launch capabilities."   

Therefore Pete, is it safe to say that the 14 space agencies with launch capability (those who claim to perform the extraordinary feats that we attribute to them) are knowingly complicit members of the space travel conspiracy, yes or no?  Or do you want to be conservative, and knock it down to just the 6 with full launch capabilities (these include the ability to launch and recover multiple satellites, deploy cryogenic rocket engines and operate space probes)?

[Pete Svarrior]

is it safe to say

I already told you - nothing is safe to say about a group that can't be defined due to its very nature.

[Pinky]

I'm talking about ships and planes getting lost because the RE-map is supposedly wrong. If the RE-map is wrong, how come ships and planes still find their course?

What makes you think that a specific projection of the Earth can't be used for navigation?

You said it right there. Specific. Use any other way to project a flat Earth to a spherical Earth and it no longer works because with each projection distances and angles are different.

I'm talking about satellites not being where they are supposed to be. If RE wrong, why are the satellites where RE claims they should be?

What makes you think a specific projection of the Earth can't be used for location?

Again. Specific. Use any other projection and you get a different prediction for where the satellites should be.

I'm talking about extraterrestrial radiation. How come that particle-physicists can detect stellar neutrinos coming THROUGH Earth from the direction where the Sun should be according to the RE-model?

Electromagnetic acceleration.

Neutrinos are neither electrically charged nor an electromagnetic wave. They have nothing whatsoever to do with electromagnetism.

If Earth were flat and then there would be thousands of instances each day across all of industry and research where the measurements do not match the official numbers. And yet there is not one corporation and not one scientist who complains that the official numbers are wrong.

If Earth were flat, then all the calculations based on the RE-model would be wrong and would lead to thousands of accidents and incidents every single day. How do you cover up the shape of Earth when thousands of people compare the official numbers to real-life every single day as part of their job?

You have yet to substantiate any of this. So far, your claims rely on RET being internally inconsistent rather than "wrong". I already told you that this is (for the most part) not the case, and highlighted the fault in your reasoning. Restating your reasoning, shockingly, did not advance your point.

Define "wrong".

- The aim of the conspiracy is to control/fake information about the shape of Earth and/or space-travel.

This flies in the face of every single conspiracy proponent's claims, so I'm going to venture a guess here and say that's false. If you want to propose your own conspiracy in order to then explain how wrong it is, please refrain from doing so in the upper fora.

https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy
"There is a Space Travel Conspiracy. The purpose of NASA is to fake the concept of space travel to further America's militaristic dominance of space."

- They do this by involving all the people that would be necessary for doing so.

Congratulations - the crux of your argument is a truism. This is getting better and better.

Well, if the conspiracy were not to involve the people they need they wouldn't be able to go about whatever they are doing, right?

- The conspiracy has successfully fooled hundreds of thousands of corporate professionals and scientists every single day for decades without any slip-up ever.

I already pointed out that slip-ups are relatively common. Once again, if you want to make up your own argument and then disprove it, I'll be asking you to take this elsewhere. Metabunk, perhaps?

Slip-ups are common? Can you point to a few?

- No member of the conspiracy has ever stepped forward and exposed them. In decades.

And now you've added a lie. Matt Boylan/Math Powerland and Thomas Baron would be very sad to hear that they never existed.

The TFES-wiki cites no source for the claim that Thomas Baron claimed that NASA is operating a fake space-program.

- Nobody has ever managed to infiltrate them or find them or identify one single person who's a member. In decades.

See above.

Again. See above. Baron's supposed report was never found and the TFES-wiki cites no evidence.

that must exist

Except for repeated claims that it may well not exist

According to the TFES-wiki it DOES exist.
https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy

Indeed - your description of the supposed conspiracy, together with your willful misrepresentations and blatant omission of facts

All I got from you was the unproven claim that the people whose work depends on the shape of the Earth can all be fooled by a simple map-projection.
All I got from you were contradictions to the official TFES-position on the conspiracy.
All I got from you were claims without citation of sources.

[Voltare]

I already told you - nothing is safe to say about a group that can't be defined due to its very nature.

Seriously, you cannot even commit to one simple logical imperative:
A) If all space travel is fake, then every space agency claiming space travel is telling a lie and is part of the conspiracy.
B) If 14 space agencies claim space travel, then all 14 space agencies are telling a lie and are part of the conspiracy.

You don't agree?

[Pete Svarrior]

You said it right there. Specific. Use any other way to project a flat Earth to a spherical Earth and it no longer works because with each projection distances and angles are different.

And yet very few people use globes for navigation. You completely failed to answer the question, buddy.

Neutrinos are neither electrically charged nor an electromagnetic wave. They have nothing whatsoever to do with electromagnetism.

Then it's a great thing I never claimed it has anything to do with it. Once again, I recommend you familiarise yourself with the basics instead of making them up.

Well, if the conspiracy were not to involve the people they need they wouldn't be able to go about whatever they are doing, right?

Congratulations - when criticised for presenting truisms as insightful commentary, you doubled down on explaining what a truism is. You just forgot to throw a "Narf!" in at the end.

Define "wrong".

Why would I? It's you whose claim relies on it.

Slip-ups are common? Can you point to a few?

Given that I already have - of course I can. Whether you'll read them or prove my point about your zealotry once again is entirely your prerogative

The TFES-wiki cites no source for the claim that Thomas Baron claimed that NASA is operating a fake space-program.

Once again, you've said something that doesn't even remotely relate to what I said, acting as if it was helpful. Is making useless claims a personal hobby of yours?

According to the TFES-wiki it DOES exist.

I'll let you figure out how the Wiki does in your own time. In the meantime, telling me that I must believe something because a website says so must be a new low for you, even without the necessary understanding of the Wiki.

All I got from you was the unproven claim that the people whose work depends on the shape of the Earth can all be fooled by a simple map-projection.
All I got from you were contradictions to the official TFES-position on the conspiracy.
All I got from you were claims without citation of sources.

None of this comes even remotely close to a fair representation of what I said. I did not claim anyone was "fooled" - rather, I outlined that the failure in your logic is confusing falsity with internal inconsistency. Your reluctance to resolve this failure is your problem, not mine - but it simply won't work here.

There is no such thing as "the official TFES-position on the conspiracy" - I am unlikely to have contradicted something that doesn't exist, although this is a question best left for philosophers.

As for citations or sources - congratulations, you successfully discovered that nobody wrote a scientific paper on a mistake you made on an online forum a few hours. Shocking.

You don't agree?

I don't see how I could agree. You provided me with no information that would confirm or deny your claim, and I'm not very interested in empty hypotheticals.

[Voltare]

I don't see how I could agree. You provided me with no information that would confirm or deny your claim.

Boolean logic is all the information you need to confirm or deny my claim.  Certainly you subscribe to the reality of boolean logic.
A) False is the opposite of True.
B) If something is False, every person who knows it is False, yet claims it is True, is a liar.
C) If # people knowingly make claim that this False something is True, all # people are liars.
You don't agree?

I'm not very interested in empty hypotheticals.

It is the Flat Earther's very real claim that space travel is fake.
There are 14 very real space agencies that claim they conduct real space travel.
What part is hypothetical?

[Pete Svarrior]

B) If something is False, every person who knows it is False, yet claims it is True, is a liar.

How do you establish someone else's knowledge of something?