The Conspiracy Theory
Comments
-
orraloon wrote:Kieran_Burns wrote:James May is a reptile.
Oh yes, definitely. Look closely enough at the video, best to make it a bit fuzzy as well, and you can see his forked tongue.
If you put a green filter in front of your monitor and squint, James Mays true form becomes apparent :shock:0 -
orraloon wrote:Kieran_Burns wrote:James May is a reptile.
Oh yes, definitely. Look closely enough at the video, best to make it a bit fuzzy as well, and you can see his forked tongue.
If you get a spare 5 or 10 minutes search for celebrities showing themselves as reptilians on youtube, it really does make Manc33 look very sane by comparison!www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0 -
Completely agree, he's an idiot of the highest order. I don't need to prove it as he proves it with almost everything he rights. With any luck he'll take his anti-gravity, skyscraper destroying ball and fook off.Ai_1 wrote:
See he just confirmed exactly what I was saying and was good enough to quote me saying it alongside for ease of reference!Manc33 wrote:Ai_1 wrote:...he asks for evidence and proofs, and when he gets them he either ignores it if he doesn't like it or rejects it as nonsense when he doesn't understand it.
"when he gets them" lol, nearly every thing you have shown me is not proof of anything at all, like all those images of Earth from space that are all perfectly round and look like paintings....
He said all he wanted was 5 pictures of earth from space. He got 5+ pictures of earth from space. He rejects them as nonsense on the basis that they are clearly fakes but doesn't explain why he thinks they're fakes.
The arguments go a little like this:
A: We never went to space, if we did there'd be photos/videos. There's HD images of everything these days. Show me a photo and I'll believe you.
B: Here's a high quality photo.
A: That's a fake. It can't be real because we never went to space. Also the earth looks too round.
B: The earth IS round.
A: No it's not. Your theories and measurements don't prove anything. Show me a picture and I'll believe you.
B: Here's that high quality photo and any number of others.
A: That's a fake. It can't be real because we never went to space and the earth isn't round. You can't trust pictures.
In other news, the world trade centre towers weren't destroyed by planes. It was explosives in the towers, no it was cigar shaped missiles, no it was big flying balls, here's a picture....damn....There's no such thing as gravity!0 -
It's pretty smooth too, even taking the highest mountains into account.Chris Bass wrote:Also, (damn it I can't resist this!) do you know how "unround" the earth is?
it is about 13 miles longer at the equator than round the poles or about 0.05%. Have you checked to see if those images show that level of difference?
Highest point above the surface is the summit of Mt Everest at 8,848m. The mean radius is 6,371km. So how uneven should the surface appear? Well that's a total maximum elevation difference of 0.139% of the radius or 0.069% of the diameter. If you were to print a photo so that the earth just fit on an A4 page (a diameter of 20cm) then Mt Everest would top out at 0.139mm. So you're not going to notice mountains on the horizon when looking a the entire earth. It's pretty smooth!0 -
Don't do it Ai-1, don't do it! I enjoy your posts, and I don't want the f**kwit to drag you down.
I work with satellite imagery for a living, and download raw orbit data regularly from JPL, and reading this heap of steaming manure from manc33 is a bit like listening to fingernails scraping down a blackboard. I'm not going to bite, and neither am I going to apologise for insulting him, - he can't be insulted enough as far as I'm concerned.
Fantastic image Stretchy, thanks for that link. If you like that, I can highly recommend Chris Hadfields book, "You Are Here", there's some really beautiful images in there (he's the Canadian guy who sang Major Tom while on the ISS).
God, I hope this can't be construed as a nibble...0 -
Post some of them please Harry. Link to a few.
You're guys are calling paintings, CGI and composites "real" images by the way.
If that is all it takes to make people think they are real then its no wonder the scam works so well.
Matthew Boylan has already come out and said he used to do these paintings for NASA.
Even without Boylan, NASA admits its images are composites! How stupid must you feel if NASA themselves say whenever it is a composite? You're almost scamming yourself.
I used to say "Israel illegally used white phosphorous in the Lebanon" and I would get "That's anti-Semitic". So then I just linked them to the article with the headline "Israel admits using phosphorus bombs during war in Lebanon" and they have to stop being an ass at that point. How am I being anti-Semitic IF sodding Israel themselves admit to it!
This is exactly the same knee-jerk reaction as everything else. There are images of Earth from space, not because I have seen any but because "Oh there must be" lol. Its the height of ignorance.
Just like with Israel admitting to using illegal chemical weapons, NASA admits that many of its images are composites. When asked about it they said something like it has to go through Photoshop first, we can't just show you the raw images, I wonder why that would be. :roll:
Miles easier to just tell everyone you're sending stuff into space and fake it, its a gigantic cash cow.
This is absolute bollox by the way:
http://www.wired.com/2012/01/blue-planet/
:roll:
I suggest people watch the Matt Boylan Wikileaks flat earth videos, not because its about flat Earth (which is an interesting concept if true lol) but because he shows the audience several images and asks if they are paintings, or real images - they haven't got a clue which is which.
No one here will have watched those videos of course.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QciLVJZNq4c&t=10m58s0 -
Manc33 wrote:In no way remotely similar but i'll say it anyway, with Israel admitting to using illegal chemical weapons, NASA admits that many of its images are composites.
FTFYwww.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0 -
Manc33 wrote:Even without Boylan, NASA admits its images are composites! How stupid must you feel if NASA themselves say whenever it is a composite? You're almost scamming yourself.
Composites as in multiple images to show earth without clouds in the way?
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/NPP/ ... night.html
I'd like to see some of your sources... :roll:0 -
Manc33 wrote:
Just like with Israel admitting to using illegal chemical weapons, NASA admits that many of its images are composites. When asked about it they said something like it has to go through Photoshop first, we can't just show you the raw images, I wonder why that would be. :roll:
Some of the images are indeed composites, compiled into a single image - because the earth is quite big, apparently - and it would be difficult for a satellite (in a relatively low orbit) to frame the entire planet in one shot. Doesn't sound like you have fully understood the meaning of the word 'composite' in this context.
By the way - you ignored my request to post some pics of the 'real' flat earth. Paintings or otherwise.0 -
NASA is the only one that could take such images of a flat earth if it were flat, why would they do that if they are making everyone think Earth is a ball?Chris Bass wrote:Manc33 wrote:In no way remotely similar but i'll say it anyway, with Israel admitting to using illegal chemical weapons, NASA admits that many of its images are composites.
FTFY
I am pointing out how people dismiss things before knowing about it - which is true when people call me anti-Semitic for pointing out something Israel themselves admit to doing and when I point out NASA's images are composites and people say no, these ones being posted are real. Nope, they just aren't, no matter how much you want them to be, they aren't real images, they are composites and paintings.
In both cases someone is dismissing it on impulse because they have done zero research, you just act on an impulse on the off chance you know what you're talking about.
Low orbit? Now you're slipping that one in are you, lol. Now why would they only be able to do a low orbit... I mean a plane can do that. How do you think Google Earth gets made? By taking pics in space?
No need, they just fly a plane around, getting higher quality images than they would from space were it possible to put anything up there. 0 -
composites are real, if you take a panoramic picture on your phone is the thing you are photographing no longer real? it is the same just a lot better quality and on a much larger scale.
planes definitely to not orbit the earth, that is why they crash.
you have not answered my questions, why are they pretending the world is a ball?
if the pictures are fake how does this impact me or you?www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0 -
Chris Bass wrote:composites are real, if you take a panoramic picture on your phone is the thing you are photographing no longer real?
If NASA patched multiple images together then no, that isn't a satisfactory answer if you want to see images of Earth from space. If they can go out in space, they can get all of Earth in one frame, right?
The only reason a composition/montage has to be made at all is because you can't get whatever it is you want to display all in one single image.
NASA making composites only backs up what I am saying. I have only ever asked for the same thing - five real images of Earth from space. Compositions don't count because an aeroplane can just take shots like that.Chris Bass wrote:you have not answered my questions, why are they pretending the world is a ball?
I don't know, you'd have to ask them, but hiding land could be one reason. making you believe we're living on a little speck of dust could be another reason. People have got used to being in the dark and relying on "experts" and so on. They never think maybe the "expert" has an agenda.Chris Bass wrote:if the pictures are fake how does this impact me or you?
We understand the world that tiny bit better.
Here's a question, how come from 1600 to 1900 people thought Earth was round? They had not sent anything up yet. Well, because a bunch of clever scientists managed to make people think that, but it doesn't make it true because it is all theoretical. Despite it being nothing but a theory, people ended up buying it. So then they needed Newton to come up with something to reinforce the round earth theory, then they needed Einstein to back up Newton.
The thing is, Copernicus only had a theory, Newton only had a theory and Einstein only had a theory!
So then we have a "not sure" backing up another "not sure" backing up another "not sure" and this is meant to be science is it? :shock:0 -
What research have you done then? How many survivors of 9/11 have you interviewed? How much time did you spend at 'ground zero'? Have you got access to any astronauts? What did they say? Were you in Lebanon recenetly? What did the victims of the chemical attacks tell you?Manc33 wrote:In both cases someone is dismissing it on impulse because they have done zero research, you just act on an impulse on the off chance you know what you're talking about."It must be true, it's on the internet" - Winston Churchill0 -
Andcp wrote:
What research have you done then? How many survivors of 9/11 have you interviewed? How much time did you spend at 'ground zero'? Have you got access to any astronauts? What did they say? Were you in Lebanon recenetly? What did the victims of the chemical attacks tell you?Manc33 wrote:In both cases someone is dismissing it on impulse because they have done zero research, you just act on an impulse on the off chance you know what you're talking about.
All I did was find out the information. People here don't even do that.
How many survivors of 9/11 have you interviewed?
None but they have been interviewed on video by other people and you can just watch that.
How much time did you spend at 'ground zero'?
None but plenty of others have and made videos about it.
Have you got access to any astronauts?
Why would I need to have? No astronaut is going to tell you they are faking it anyway.
What did they say?
They don't say much actually, they hate being interviewed because they have to lie.
Were you in Lebanon recenetly?
No but then I was talking about an incident from eight years back, not that you know that of course, because you didn't check it out. Why would I need to go to Lebanon if Israel is admitting to using illegal chemical weapons there with it being reported on at least two mainstream news outlets? The people writing the articles did the necessary research, this is why we have "investigative journalism". So you don't have to do all the physical research.
What did the victims of the chemical attacks tell you?
What? :shock:
What is your point?
What? :shock:
So every single fact of life you know, you know it because you demonstrated it yourself? Sure you did! No one man could live long enough to go about life that way. The first thing you get told as a four year old, you'd still have to be researching for the next 50 years if you never read up on other people's research.
Thanks for introducing a completely bullsh1t argument that means nothing, I mean this rule applies to me and me only I suppose?
What if some guy is an expert on Babylon? He never went to Babylon, how can he if it existed thousands of years ago? Guess what, there are people in this world that are experts on Babylon and we know they cannot have physically gone there because it doesn't exist.
People don't even do minimal research like checking into what other people have found.
What's your view on WW2 historians that aren't old enough to have been in the war? I guess they just aren't experts in your eyes?
The more you look into something the more you understand it, its called "learning". Just be careful you're not learning more and more about less and less, who knows, one day you might end up knowing nothing.
0 -
Do you spend the entire day, every day, drunk or something?0
-
Thing is manc, you reject the plethora of obvious, relevant evidence out of hand, and focus on tiny little shreds that you then blow up to convince yourself that it's true.
So take that ball 9/11 thing. That was one grainy video. There are literally hundreds of other videos that show it is a plane, yet you reject all of those but focus on the one grainy video.
What's the likelihood the grainy one is wrong and the others are right?
If the earth is flat, how do all those satellites work, given they work on the basis that the earth is round? They're all automated, so surely they'd all fall out the sky? Only my satellite television still works. Unless a bird decided to perch on the dish, obviously.
Why would people lie about the earth being round? You talk about NASA but they're a mere spec compared to the number of people who are involved in stuff which relies on the earth being round.
Sailors, scientists, pilots, anyone involved in any satellites, and they're only the ones I know of.
what do they get out of being part of a conspiracy? and how do these conspiracy people weed out people who will leak it out. There are thousands of pilots - they can't weed them all out to stop deliberately flying into buildings or mountains, so how would they weed out people who can't keep a conspiracy up? Why do they gain saying the earth is round when it's not?
You're literally deluded. Please seek medical help.0 -
I can't work out whether amidst all the boxxox you spout as wind up you actually believe any of it yourself, such as the world being flat, a disc, or whatever.
Back to school. When a ship sails out to sea away from land why is that the hull disappears over the horizon before the superstructure? In old days the hull before the sails? In a flat world / disc world, one would be able to see all of the ship diminishing in proportion until it got too far away, or fell over the edge.
Is because of the curvature of the earth innit. Primary school kids can see that and work it out for themselves.
And that one ain't no NASA conspiracee, no sirree.
There, bitten again. Memo to self...0 -
BTW Manc, there is a good sighting of the International Space Station (ISS) tonight, from 2144 for 4 mins. For Manchester max elevation will be 60 degrees, track WSW to ESE. In Oxford we will get max elevation of 87 degrees, just about right overhead.
That'll be the ISS orbiting the Earth, you know, circling the globe. Watch it with your own eyes, rather than searching for dodgy YouTube clips.
Or maybe you think it will be a fake hologram or summat?0 -
Will it look like a giant, dangerous ball, ready to attack?0
-
Manc33 wrote:
People don't even do minimal research like checking into what other people have found.
Or maybe they do - and have then concluded that the 'evidence' they put forward is too weak to be taken seriously. That's how sane people arrive at conclusions.0 -
Manc33 wrote:If NASA patched multiple images together then no, that isn't a satisfactory answer if you want to see images of Earth from space. If they can go out in space, they can get all of Earth in one frame, right?
The only reason a composition/montage has to be made at all is because you can't get whatever it is you want to display all in one single image.
NASA making composites only backs up what I am saying. I have only ever asked for the same thing - five real images of Earth from space. Compositions don't count because an aeroplane can just take shots like that.
I really don't think an aeroplane can take shots like that. The middle maybe but the edges? You should give me five shots of earth that WERE taken with an aeroplane and stitched together. Although I think you will struggle. You're just assuming it's possible like some expert in planetary photography and using that as evidence, which I don't really think counts...
If this is all true that the earth is flat and there is no gravity then why does Jupiter have moons that orbit it? By the way you can see that with binoculars (In one frame).
EDIT: check out all these photos taken by an aeroplane
http://twistedsifter.com/2012/07/10-ico ... rom-space/0 -
I can't work out whether amidst all the boxxox you spout as wind up you actually believe any of it yourself, such as the world being flat, a disc, or whatever.
He doesn't really believe the flat earth thing, and has said so earlier in this thread, so that's just trolling, or at best an odd way of trying to make a point about accepting received truths, or something.I used to say "Israel illegally used white phosphorous in the Lebanon" and I would get "That's anti-Semitic". So then I just linked them to the article with the headline "Israel admits using phosphorus bombs during war in Lebanon" and they have to stop being an ass at that point. How am I being anti-Semitic IF sodding Israel themselves admit to it!
Was that on this thread? I don't recall it. I do recall you saying that an elite group of Jews was secretly in control of the world, and was responsible for 9/11. As a source, you gave Christopher Bollyn, a guy who doubts the existence of large-scale Nazi gas chambers, is a regular attender at Holocaust denial conferences, and has a website where he uses phrases such as 'Jews already lurking in the shadows, like wolves ready to attack'. Now that's anti-semitic!
Earlier I asked if you were also sceptical about the recognised historical account of the Holocaust, but you didn't reply. Are you?0 -
Thanks for the heads-up! No need to apologise to Manc. It IS all a heap of steaming manure. There's no doubt about it. He has a single valid point which is that we shouldn't take everything at face value. Unfortunately that's exactly what he does, but only for a selected subset of the most incoherent and unsupportable manure.Harry-S wrote:Don't do it Ai-1, don't do it! I enjoy your posts, and I don't want the f**kwit to drag you down.
I work with satellite imagery for a living, and download raw orbit data regularly from JPL, and reading this heap of steaming manure from manc33 is a bit like listening to fingernails scraping down a blackboard. I'm not going to bite, and neither am I going to apologise for insulting him, - he can't be insulted enough as far as I'm concerned....
Just a little one.Harry-S wrote:...God, I hope this can't be construed as a nibble...
Time I unsubscribed I think.
See you all elsewhere!0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:So take that ball 9/11 thing. That was one grainy video. There are literally hundreds of other videos that show it is a plane, yet you reject all of those but focus on the one grainy video.
What's the likelihood the grainy one is wrong and the others are right?
If only one video shows a ball, something is wrong. The video where the guy points it out isn't grainy, the original one is. It doesn't really come into it about other videos being fake or not fake, or one thing disproving another, there is a ball, thats it.
You could say "Why aren't all the other videos of balls" but that would be a bit obvious.Rick Chasey wrote:If the earth is flat, how do all those satellites work, given they work on the basis that the earth is round? They're all automated, so surely they'd all fall out the sky? Only my satellite television still works. Unless a bird decided to perch on the dish, obviously.
Flat earthers say all the communications we currently have are all possible without satellites.
They just ask "Show me a video of one being launched" and they don't exist to those guys.Rick Chasey wrote:Why would people lie about the earth being round?
I was thinking about this myself but its not really that it is a "lie" it is just probably a sneaky gang thought let's see if we can get people thinking this way and that was that.Rick Chasey wrote:You talk about NASA but they're a mere spec compared to the number of people who are involved in stuff which relies on the earth being round.
Sailors, scientists, pilots, anyone involved in any satellites, and they're only the ones I know of.
Yes but astronauts are the only ones that do go up there.Rick Chasey wrote:What do they get out of being part of a conspiracy? and how do these conspiracy people weed out people who will leak it out. There are thousands of pilots - they can't weed them all out to stop deliberately flying into buildings or mountains, so how would they weed out people who can't keep a conspiracy up? Why do they gain saying the earth is round when it's not?
You're literally deluded. Please seek medical help.
Check out "SSRI stories", there's your medical help at work.
How could it be leaked out, some guy going around telling people the world is flat? No one is going to listen to him, even if he happened to be correct.
Isn't it deluded to never see any videos or images of Earth from space and pretend all the cartoons, paintings and composite mock ups make up for it?
I still haven't been shown them and still maintain that they don't exist. A space agency operates for over 30 years bragging all the time about doing this and that, where's the images then lol. I could create some CGI thing where I am superman flying around or whatever, it wouldn't mean I am really doing that. If you wanted proof really, you'd have to be there when I am flying around etc. Well its the same with space, hardly anyone has been into space yet the 99.999% of us that haven't are perfectly OK believing other people are doing it, because they say they are.
Do you think when NASA was set up, the people behind it were saying "Yippee this is all for the benefit of American people" or do you think they were saying "Right, how much money can we get away with siphoning out of this thing..."
It was set up with help from an ex-Nazi so I wouldn't exactly be compelled to trust them for that reason alone. Operation Paperclip was perhaps the most glaring of all the things that has ever happened. Nazi's were scum one minute, then the next minute we're lucky to have them on board?! What on Earth must stuff like this be doing to people's subconscious. "Nazi's are scum but they are OK" is the message I am getting.0 -
Eisenhower was a nazi?
You have been shown plenty of pictures, you choose to not believe them.
Did you see James may when he went to the edge of space? Was that fake?www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0 -
Because somebody sailed around it you phucktard! If it was flat the boat would have fallen off the edge. You can't be that stupid so you are just being deliberately obtuse, which is even worse.Manc33 wrote:Here's a question, how come from 1600 to 1900 people thought Earth was round? They had not sent anything up yet. Well, because a bunch of clever scientists managed to make people think that, but it doesn't make it true because it is all theoretical. Despite it being nothing but a theory, people ended up buying it. So then they needed Newton to come up with something to reinforce the round earth theory, then they needed Einstein to back up Newton.0 -
Chris Bass wrote:Eisenhower was a nazi?
No, but Werner Von Braun was.Chris Bass wrote:You have been shown plenty of pictures, you choose to not believe them.
I have been shown paintings, CGI effects and compositions.
Saying I "don't want to believe" those are real is a bit like saying I don't want to believe Santa is real. There's a reason I don't believe they are real - they are not real, its pretty straightforward.Chris Bass wrote:Did you see James may when he went to the edge of space? Was that fake?
He went really high up is all. He wasn't weightless. Even if he was it can just be done with effects.
No one has answered how a non-vacuum can stay connected to a vacuum, yet you believe in space. :roll:
If you want to believe there's thin air up there and then it magically turns into a vacuum, where everything floats around, then believe that - but you're then having to claim a non-vacuum can stay connected to a vacuum and maintain itself without one becoming the other over millions of years, which is ridiculous. That sort of thing would have evened itself out long before now.
Show an example of that happening anywhere else, except the "magic joint" between air and weightlessness purported to be above us. It is physically impossible.Veronese68 wrote:Because somebody sailed around it you phucktard! If it was flat the boat would have fallen off the edge. You can't be that stupid so you are just being deliberately obtuse, which is even worse.
You think if Earth was flat it would need to have an "edge" and I'm the stupid one?
Flat earthers claim the "Azimuthal Equidistant" is roughly what the flat earth looks like, the map can be found online, it isn't put out by flat earthers, it is just another way of showing the land mass, but its the map they use. It doesn't have an edge buddy, it has an "ice wall", which in the flat earth theory could go on indefinitely. Ross ice shelf for example. In that model we're living in a kind of "thawed out puddle".0 -
Flat as a pancake. :twisted:0 -
Manc33 wrote:No one has answered how a non-vacuum can stay connected to a vacuum, yet you believe in space. :roll:
If you want to believe there's thin air up there and then it magically turns into a vacuum, where everything floats around, then believe that - but you're then having to claim a non-vacuum can stay connected to a vacuum and maintain itself without one becoming the other over millions of years, which is ridiculous. That sort of thing would have evened itself out long before now.Manc33 wrote:What research have you done then?
well 2 mins on google gives this:
http://www.space.com/6564-edge-space.html
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 040909.phpKnudsen wrote:"The results have given us a closer look at space, which is a benefit to pure research in space science," Knudsen says. "But it also allows us to calculate energy flows into the Earth's atmosphere that ultimately may be able to help us understand the interaction between space and our environment. That could mean a greater understanding of the link between sunspots and the warming and cooling of the Earth's climate as well as how space weather impacts satellites, communications, navigation, and power systems."
Manc, you seem to expect that scientists (sorry, people who measure) have absolutely everything figured out. They don't, and are perfectly happy to admit that, unlike some not a million miles away.
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_01understanding science wrote:Scientists engage in many different activities in many different sequences. Scientific investigations often involve repeating the same steps many times to account for new information and ideas.
Science depends on interactions within the scientific community. Different parts of the process of science may be carried out by different people at different times.
The process of science is exciting, dynamic, and unpredictable. Science relies on creative people thinking outside the box!
Scientific conclusions are always revisable if warranted by the evidence. Scientific investigations are often ongoing, raising new questions even as old ones are answered.
I eagerly await your rebuttal0
