The Conspiracy Theory

bondurant

You swallowed the red pill I see Manc.

andcp

Manc33 wrote:

The main evidence is things like no one has ever flown a plane across the Antarctic.

Erm.....http://www.antarcticaflights.com.au/

chris_bass

I preferred it when Manc's theories were a bit weird but they are just too much now, its not even worth trying to reason with him.

chris_bass

pinarello001 wrote:

Never argue with a fool CB, or people might not know the difference. I really think that this thread would be much more worthwhile if we post decent pictures of sci-fi burds. Like 7 of 9 in that skinny stretch fit suit.

I don't think that should be limited to just this thread!!

veronese68

pinarello001 wrote:

Never argue with a fool CB, or people might not know the difference.

We've both now told Sea Bass something along those lines, he might start to get a complex.

chris_bass

Veronese68 wrote:

pinarello001 wrote:

Never argue with a fool CB, or people might not know the difference.

We've both now told Sea Bass something along those lines, he might start to get a complex.

Well I always agree with the two of you, read in to that what you will!!

tangled_metal

Wasn't Morena Baccarin in that sitcom about meeting your mother? Also was it stargate? Just googled for images and got a few good ones. Plenty of ones worthy of distraction to the conspiracies on here.

d00d4h

Tangled Metal wrote:

Wasn't Morena Baccarin in that sitcom about meeting your mother? Also was it stargate? Just googled for images and got a few good ones. Plenty of ones worthy of distraction to the conspiracies on here.

She's been in a lot of things:

Stargate SG-1
Gotham (the current series)
The Mentalist
Homeland
The Good Wife
V
Firefly

and more...

Kieran_Burns

Chris Bass wrote:

pinarello001 wrote:

Never argue with a fool CB, or people might not know the difference. I really think that this thread would be much more worthwhile if we post decent pictures of sci-fi burds. Like 7 of 9 in that skinny stretch fit suit.

I don't think that should be limited to just this thread!!

Well no. Given that his response to someone asking for a suitable flat bar road bike for £450 ish is to buy a drop bar road bike, take off all the stuff that makes it a drop bar and replace them with flat bar kit, or to buy a Carbon bike for £800.

I guess if someone had posted a video giving advice on how to buy a flat bar bike that wasn't ridden into the WTC by hologrammatic Jewish reptiles he might have given a better response.

RDW

PBlakeney wrote:

How thick would this disc be?
And what would be under it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

chris_bass

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

pinarello001 wrote:

Never argue with a fool CB, or people might not know the difference. I really think that this thread would be much more worthwhile if we post decent pictures of sci-fi burds. Like 7 of 9 in that skinny stretch fit suit.

I don't think that should be limited to just this thread!!

Well no. Given that his response to someone asking for a suitable flat bar road bike for £450 ish is to buy a drop bar road bike, take off all the stuff that makes it a drop bar and replace them with flat bar kit, or to buy a Carbon bike for £800.

I guess if someone had posted a video giving advice on how to buy a flat bar bike that wasn't ridden into the WTC by hologrammatic Jewish reptiles he might have given a better response.

I was a bit concerned the reason he wanted the speed to power figures was so he could try something like that, how much power he would need to cycle through the walls of parliament or something

pblakeney

RDW wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

How thick would this disc be?
And what would be under it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

Ahh.
Thanks.

Manc33

I'm telling you about the Flat Earth Theory, not that I believe it.

Andcp wrote:

Manc33 wrote:

The main evidence is things like no one has ever flown a plane across the Antarctic.

Erm.....http://www.antarcticaflights.com.au/

They have been through all this, those flights just kinda fly around a part of the coastline and certainly not all the way across the Antarctic, which is the requirement. Asking about this at the Flat Earth Society would expose you as a noob of the highest order since this is probably one of the very first things they addressed.

Someone there must have done something though because they seem to be having to believe in a "dual Earth" theory now where the Earth is still a disc but has the equator at the edge. Like in the standard Flat Earth model, the sun encircles the Earth but in the dual Earth model it orbits around.

I am explaining what a bunch of other people believe by the way.

This guy's funny:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QciLVJZNq4c

I lol'd:
http://i.imgur.com/mSiQNmv.png

People claiming they did it then offering no details. :roll:

orraloon

Manc33 wrote:

I'm telling you about the Flat Earth Theory, not that I believe it.

Ok, we have one nutjob theory that you don't believe. Any more?

Manc33 wrote:

They have been through all this, those flights just kinda fly around a part of the coastline and certainly not all the way across the Antarctic, which is the requirement.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_route

Commercial flights don't fly all the way across Antarctica simply because there are no commercial routes that require it.

Arctic crossflights however are common.

Why do you think there is anything specially mysterious about the South Pole vs the North Pole?

RDW

pinarello001 wrote:

I really think that this thread would be much more worthwhile if we post decent pictures of sci-fi burds. Like 7 of 9 in that skinny stretch fit suit.

Fans of 90s conspiracy-based TV series that weren't The X-Files may recall that Jeri Ryan previously starred in Dark Skies, where everything bad that happened in the 60s was basically the fault of aliens:



Rather gratifyingly, there's a conspiracy theory about the show itself (which was of course mysteriously cancelled before the full story could be told):

http://geekmom.com/2013/06/forgotten-fa ... ark-skies/

'A small number of individuals believe that the show was created in response to the Loengard Letter which formed part of the show’s pitch to NBC. Written by a real man calling himself John Loengard, the letter demanded that the creators pitch his story under “the cover of fiction” to get the truth about the alien invasion out to the world. Some supposedly classified documents have been “leaked” online along with a “wiretap” from 2010 that reportedly has the real Loengard talking to the show’s producers about bringing the show back to “finish what they started.”

It is almost certain that this was part of a viral campaign for the DVD release in 2011, but several people claim to have seen evidence to the contrary and say that the network has helped cover it up.'

RDW

Shame about the rest of the show.

(well, the hologram Doctor was also quite good).

pinno

Star Trek was undeniably shyte. I have however, unpeeled Miss 7 of 9 in that well known thread near you.
Payment by BACS accepted Blakey.

Oh and while I am at it, Apple-pay act as a secure third party, holding the funds until everything is ok. Thank you for your constructive input none the less. *

* I am exercising my given right to go off topic here in BB, so don't any of you start.

RDW

I enjoyed the original show (Leonard Nimoy RIP), and The Next Generation had its moments, but it was diminishing returns after that, as the Forces of Blandness conspired to assimilate it. The current film version has a bit more life to it, but unfortunately they forgot about writing coherent plots.

pblakeney

pinarello001 wrote:

Payment by BACS accepted Blakey.

You can hold my funds.

Best offer I have made this week.

RDW

...the remake of Battlestar Galactica, on the other hand, was terrific, with a good conspiracy running through it (anyone can be a Cylon, and they have a Plan).

Manc33

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^



The best Star Treks were the old ones with Shatner where they went to other planets and had fights with aliens. All the Picard ones seem to be just on the Starship Enterprise. Despite all the fakery of the older ones, they were better just because there was more space exploration going on.

Didn't it just turn into a soap opera in space?

The best Sci-Fi programme ever has to be Red Dwarf... again the old ones.

Clare Grogan back then in Red Dwarf HNNNNNG.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QszEKNqFrY

Back to Flat Earth again lol...

RDW

Manc33 wrote:

Didn't it just turn into a soap opera in space?

Pretty much, especially Voyager and Enterprise.

Manc33 wrote:

Clare Grogan back then in Red Dwarf HNNNNNG.

Was Clare Grogan's appearance in a space-based science fiction series coincidental, or a subtle message that NASA was indeed using 'altered images' to conceal the real situation on Earth..?

Manc33

All that "no flights over Antarctica" stuff with Flat Earth, this guy explains why they are adamant about the Earth being a flat disc and they claim this is about the best proof of it because it cannot be hidden...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0FuO8lQV18

I don't know enough about aviation to debunk this but please someone do. :P

Is anyone sitting on the fence yet about this or is the world still unanimously a ball?

ai_1

Manc33 wrote:

All that "no flights over Antarctica" stuff with Flat Earth, this guy explains why they are adamant about the Earth being a flat disc and they claim this is about the best proof of it because it cannot be hidden...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0FuO8lQV18

I don't know enough about aviation to debunk this but please someone do. :P

Is anyone sitting on the fence yet about this or is the world still unanimously a ball?

This is not a debate. It's a screening device for total idiocy.
I really hope you're not actually trying to make this into a topic of serious discussion.

Manc33

Ai_1 wrote:

Manc33 wrote:

All that "no flights over Antarctica" stuff with Flat Earth, this guy explains why they are adamant about the Earth being a flat disc and they claim this is about the best proof of it because it cannot be hidden...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0FuO8lQV18

I don't know enough about aviation to debunk this but please someone do. :P

Is anyone sitting on the fence yet about this or is the world still unanimously a ball?

This is not a debate. It's a screening device for total idiocy.
I really hope you're not actually trying to make this into a topic of serious discussion.

If you think its idiocy, explain it. You haven't said anything to counter it. :shock:

Imagine some guy walks into a school classroom teaching geography and says "Come on kids, no need to learn this". That's what you're doing. It requires at least an explanation.

You can't explain why Qantas or any airline is wasting fuel flying people all over the world if they could just fly between Australia and Chile in one go, its about 6,000 miles and planes routinely fly that far.

Have you explained anything? Nope. Thats what annoys me, you laugh at something you know ZERO about. You laugh because you don't know about it I guess, I don't know.

Whats comical is how you think you can say "Oh haha how silly" without even covering any of it.

I'm not saying the Earth is flat or there isn't some rational explanation for having no flights there but instead of explaining why, you laugh. Laughing isn't explaining why this is though is it... the flight problem remains.

People are more worried what their mates will think because they are looking into this stuff, lmao. How free are you really then, you're imprisoning your own mind in a way.

You don't need to look into any of it because it is idiocy... but you don't really know if it is, right K.

Can you explain why they turn a 6,000 mile journey that would take 12 hours on one flight, into a 37 hour journey on multiple flights? How is that idiocy or funny or whatever? It would be better to just answer it.

Explain why they use all that extra fuel for starters. Let me guess "because they just do" lol. Yep, in every other conceivable business model ever devised, the aim is to make a profit but with flights in the Southern hemisphere, oops, they just love using twice as much fuel! Its OK you don't need any explanation to this either, it just "is".

chris_bass

http://www.quora.com/Do-airplanes-take- ... -the-route

As for flat planets, just look at Saturn's rings, can we move on now?

Manc33

Chris Bass wrote:

http://www.quora.com/Do-airplanes-take-the-most-direct-route-between-two-points-If-not-what-factors-determine-the-route

The sea between Australia and Chile isn't some magical storm thrashed no man's land like they are trying to claim it is. Flights could cross it on a globe earth no problem.

Chris Bass wrote:

As for flat planets, just look at Saturn's rings, can we move on now?

You can't say that unless you've been to it and flown around it.

All we can do is believe what we are told about it.

It appears to be some sort of broadcasting station anyway. You only have to look at it to see that. Maybe it is transmitting something, or receiving, or both.

Richard C Hoagland says part of Saturn's rings are not natural and appear to be some sort of glass. When Neil Armstrong purportedly landed on the moon he is supposed to have said something like "They are watching us land" and there were mushroom shaped glass structures there. You can't know.

Look how the main astronauts behave when they are sat in a panel taking questions. If they went to the moon wouldn't they be enthusiastic and want to tell you so many things about it? Instead they just give vague answers and look almost depressed that they have to answer stuff. Patrick Moore (from Sky at Night, a brilliant programme I might add) was one of the people asking them questions. I think it was the first press conference they ever did after the moon landing in 1969 and they looked like they didn't want to be there. I actually feel sorry for the astronauts and wonder what they must be embroiled in behind the scenes.

After that, astronauts pretty much said nothing about it. Yes because they never went, you can tell that from the way they act. :roll: Go off your gut instinct.

chris_bass

Buy a telescope and you can see it yourself.

I'm out

andcp

Manc33 wrote:

Can you explain why they turn a 6,000 mile journey that would take 12 hours on one flight, into a 37 hour journey on multiple flights?

Economics amongst other things. There are just not enough people who want to fly between Australia and Chile in one go. Think of air travel as just a bus service between places. By way of an example, how many buses go directly between Manchester and, say, Skegness? None, because there is no demand. If you believe Google, this is the route:
Manchester (Coach Station) to Bradford, to Hull, to Lincoln to Skeggy. This is not because the earth is flat, it's because of viability of routes.

See how it works? Believe me, if Qantas could get enough passengers to fly directly to Chile they would. They might be able to get enough for a full plane once every 2 to 3 weeks, but it would not be viable - they have to pay for landing rights at airports, and to cover the cost of these routes they need to ensure full utilisation - a plane every two weeks is not full utilisation. Even if they could get enough people to fly from Sydney, how would the passengers from Adelaide get there? where would they fly to? Santiago? how would people get to Puente Alto?

Manc33

Thanks Andcp you presented a far better answer than anyone here ever usually does. I agree there's barely any demand, but it still doesn't make sense to me wasting all that fuel, demand or no demand.

It does make more sense though if a plane was going to X destination "anyway" so they chuck you on it to get you there going around the houses, alright I can go with that but still only in that "it would be an acceptable answer" kind of thing and it can still be probed.

There's more to it - the planes drop off GPS altogether around that area. So you can't actually track a plane that does fly between Chile and Australia. The guy doing the video about it said other planes also vanish, not just ones in the Southern hemisphere, but they would have to do that to cover up it only being in the south. :roll:

His main point though is that these planes are not being tracked and isn't that dangerous? This is GPS itself we're talking about, not this plane website or that plane website, all of them because they all use only one system - GPS. He also points out how reliant pilots are on GPS - perhaps so reliant that they could not fly anywhere without it. Funny that isn't it - because it didn't even exist in the past and pilots managed.

So you could argue GPS was introduced to cover up whilst being a great new way to know where you are at all times. Anything like this (that could have an insidious aspect) always has to have a sales pitch that goes along with it. Otherwise they would have to say "We're just going to start deceiving you with this new thing, just letting you know" lol. No, they have to get people demanding it and clamoring to use it.

Chris Bass wrote:

Buy a telescope and you can see it yourself.

I'm out

I never said you can't see it.