[m32ali]

I have seen this question asked several times on the forum but nobody has ever answered it. What would NASA gain by hiding that the earth is flat? Plus before NASA, plenty of scientist proved that the earth is not flat.

[AATW]

I believe the accepted FE "wisdom" (hmm) is that NASA think the earth is a globe so when they fake all their pictures and videos they show it as a globe.
Quite why they go out of their way to make it so difficult for themselves by streaming live feeds from the ISS or publishing when you can see it from your location, something so easily testable, has yet to be explained.

[Research Flat Earth]

NASA gain millions even billions of dollars of funding for so called "space missions." NASA also gains militaristic dominance by faking the ability to go to space and threatening other countries with large missiles, or at least using these "space missiles" as a show of force over weaker countries.

[StinkyOne]

NASA gain millions even billions of dollars of funding for so called "space missions." NASA also gains militaristic dominance by faking the ability to go to space and threatening other countries with large missiles, or at least using these "space missiles" as a show of force over weaker countries.

Our primary enemies have space programs, as well. So that makes zero sense. NASA's budget is audited by an independent auditor and is available online. It is a terrible way to make money because they have huge overhead. the expensive part of space travel is the stuff that happens on the ground.

[blun]

Because they are with the government

[m32ali]

See this is my point, no explanation just speculations and not good ones at that! If that was the case, they should stop the sale of telescopes with which anyone can see that other planet and stars are round which means earth is as well. Plus they should stop teaching astronomy to anyone so they can't conduct tests with which they can prove that the earth is round. I feel like and no disrespect here but Flat Earth believers just want to be different that is it! While science has proven without a shadow of a doubt that earth is round, Flat Earth believers use theory and speculations to fill in the massive gaps in their proof that earth is flat. As someone who is open minded, I would still stick with the globe earth theory because it was proven that it was round even before NASA was around or even the US, it was proven by the ancient Greeks and proven countless other times later on!

[juner]

Because they are with the government

Refrain from low content posting in the upper fora. Warned.

[JohnAdams1145]

The wiki says that NASA is not trying to hide that the Earth is flat; it is trying to hide the fact that the Moon and Mars landings were fake. By doing so, it could hide its true intention: weaponizing space with things like ICBMs. Of course, this is a load of garbage. I see nothing on the wiki about the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment, or the signals coming back from Curiosity. To be honest, it seems like this accusation of fakery was made just to discredit obvious proof against the Flat Earth (that is, photographic proof). Beyond amateurish image analysis that often turns out to be completely misguided, I've seen no scientific analysis or documents that show that a) such space missions defy the laws of physics or b) such space missions were a conspiracy of thousands of individuals. The fact remains that during the Apollo 11 landing, an amateur radio operator successfully eavesdropped on part of the communication between Earth and the Moon.

[Tom Bishop]

The wiki says that NASA is not trying to hide that the Earth is flat; it is trying to hide the fact that the Moon and Mars landings were fake. By doing so, it could hide its true intention: weaponizing space with things like ICBMs. Of course, this is a load of garbage. I see nothing on the wiki about the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment, or the signals coming back from Curiosity. To be honest, it seems like this accusation of fakery was made just to discredit obvious proof against the Flat Earth (that is, photographic proof). Beyond amateurish image analysis that often turns out to be completely misguided, I've seen no scientific analysis or documents that show that a) such space missions defy the laws of physics or b) such space missions were a conspiracy of thousands of individuals. The fact remains that during the Apollo 11 landing, an amateur radio operator successfully eavesdropped on part of the communication between Earth and the Moon.

We've talked about the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiments all being tied somehow to NASA funding. You can search for it on this forum and the other one. I do agree that we should have collected those posts and arguments into a Wiki page, however. We have a lack of contributors.

[JohnAdams1145]

Tom,
I have seen the forum post on the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment (it's true that the funding sources make it unreliable if the Moon landings were really faked); mistakenly, I forgot about it while writing. What's the mechanism for consensus (the "official" point of view) on FE Theory? There are a lot of misinformed people on both sides, and it would be nice to have an updated wiki that coalesces everything into a set of unified arguments. I do agree with you that RE people tend to treat FE people with a bit too much contempt, since some arguments are physically valid and interesting (although the assumptions may be flawed).

I'm assuming that the wiki can't be open to public editing because it would be quickly defaced by some RE people, which is quite a shame.

[douglips]

I've been toying with the idea of a new Flat vs. Round wiki, where fair minded people on either side can edit. It would be nice to have a single place where you can find all the evidence and discussions. I lack time and motivation to make this happen, however.

[Ratboy]

I think I missed something.  What FE observations are valid?

[JohnAdams1145]

Well, they have observed correctly that a sphere looks flat if you take a small section of it... There's also the Nile River argument, which fallacious on its own, still invokes a bit of thinking on one's brain.

You're right. There isn't much that they've observed correctly, probably because so much suggests the Earth is round.

[Ratboy]

Ah yes, the Nile River.  This goes back to Rowbotham's statement that just because something works based on a round earth does not cancel out it working on a flat earth (like dropping a theodilite from a crow's nest and having it land at the mast).  If the Nile drops 1 foot in 1000 miles, Rowbotham claims that proves the earth cannot be round.  But I think it also proves it is not flat either.  To get the crap out of my house, the plumber put in something like 1 foot drop every 12 feet, thinking that water has to flow downhill. 

Now that I think of it, Rowbotham did not consider that the Nile rises more than 25 feet when it floods, so how the heck would that work?  It would start rushing backwards?  If it had no slope, the river would create a 25 foot waterfall where it entered the mediterranean.

So again what FE observations are accurate?

[Curious Squirrel]

It doesn't help that his statement on the Nile River is in fact just wrong.

https://www.utdallas.edu/geosciences/nile/bluewhitenile-profile.gif

Here's a profile of the slope of the river channel starting from it's two tributaries, and going all the way to it's outlet. It really isn't as flat as they try and make it out to be.