NASA'S F.E. DBA STRATEGY

If NASA faked the moon landings, does the agency have any credibility at all? Was the Space Shuttle program also a hoax? Is the International Space Station another one? Do not dismiss these hypotheses offhand. Check out our wider NASA research and make up your own mind about it all.

Re: NASA'S FLAT EARTH DBA STRATEGY

Postby simonshack on Sun Aug 30, 2015 2:01 am

hoi.polloi wrote:Simon, I am sorry that I really do not understand what you are saying in your above post, even though I want to because it looks like it will be humorous when I do understand it. Could you please explain in slightly clearer language what you mean?


Sure, no problem !

I was just wondering how the flat earth map is meant to work out. See, USHUAIA is the Southernmost place in Argentina.

In reality, USHUAIA gets 17+ hours of sunlight - on December 24.

According to the flat earth map, the USHUAIA people see the sun setting at 10:12pm - when the sun is on the opposite side of the 'disc'(or pancake).
So why doesn't ALERT (Canada) get any sunlight at all - on December 24?

Image

I hope that clears it up. The flat earth "movement" is - sadly - growing ever larger - and the "joke" is on us, Hoi.
NASA's propaganda department is doing a pretty god job, it seems. *Sigh*.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6618
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: NASA'S FLAT EARTH DBA STRATEGY

Postby Xious on Sun Aug 30, 2015 3:17 am

The "movement" may be growing, for now... but I disagree that "the joke is on us". The flat earth map is easily debunked.

"He who laughs last...."
Xious
Member
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2015 9:24 pm

Re: NASA'S FLAT EARTH DBA STRATEGY

Postby hoi.polloi on Tue Sep 01, 2015 3:45 pm

Thusfar, I have only heard people interested in the subjects of our "world" (which I am defining as the physical continents, physical oceans, physical atmosphere, observable sky and observable heavenly/cosmic objects) within the context of two major parties:

Group 1. Those who accept NASA's model for our world (solidified from hot gases, Earth formed a ball, is presently spinning at a tilt and orbiting around the sun, in the arm of the Sagittarius Brown Dwarf galaxy as it's absorbed by the larger Milky Way galaxy, in turn being absorbed by the Andromeda galaxy, in a universe of galaxies amongst a family of other dimensions that only can effect us in extreme realms of outer space — such as the event horizon of black holes — and which human beings are now exploring the vast expanse of using specially designed crafts and devices that are capable of mostly floating and/or flying safely there).

~and~

Group 2. Those who (for a variety of reasons) question any aspect of NASA's model.

---

My intent in addressing Simon's concern about everyone — which is a concern that encompasses potential allies in both Group 1 and Group 2 — is to actually refute the notion that we do not benefit from discussions of Group 2 when those discussions focus on Flat Earth.

Instead, I would propose the strategy of the zealots and followers of Group 1 is to mischaracterize the entirety of Group 2 as a single type who believe in a particularly designed, as-yet-unnamed and particularly weak argumentation which describes itself as a Flat Earth Theory, but which is, in fact, a cheap and pacifying rhetoric. In other words, it is akin to a playground bully who declares a child outside of its gang a special species of weakling in order to target them and make them feel the need to embarrass themselves with an emotional reaction or join the gang. Group 1 is bullying Group 2 by claiming Group 2 associates with weak arguments, in order to provoke. Simon (and others) may be falling for the bait if they retort by saying, "I am not a weakling Flat Earther!" endorsing Group 1's strategy to associate weaklings with alternative world shape theories in one fell swoop.

As Xious pointed out recently, the stronger position can be one which hardly even responds to such jockeying. I disagreed with the particular case of the rocket question, which I think I had the right to say seemed laughably absurd to me. However, in the case of a "Flat Earth" DBA strategy, I would agree with Xious. In fact, we shouldn't even accept that the DBA strategy has anything to do with real Flat Earth studies whatsoever.

Without curmudgeonly comments from passersby with no real interest in those excited by curiosity and discovery, and which actually can match the tone of NASA's dismissals of intelligent questions, let us identify what the DBA strategy of Group 1 (and even some minor aspects of Group 2, which match Group 1's extremism) really is.

---

My first question to attempt to answer this would be:

Q. What do the most embarrassingly bad "Flat Earth videos" resemble most closely, in terms of other derailments of controversial topics?

A. My answer is that the videos that begin with an evil conspiracy as the very premise and prima facie bias of the whole theory, and which also combine arbitrary uninvestigated beliefs in the authorities that they are also claiming are the most untrustworthy, are extremely problematic.

In fact, such types of arguments demonstrate a complete dismissal of the main, largely unspoken philosophies of CluesForum, as I have observed them to be. Though, naturally, since we are so amorphous and I may not be able to pin down how everyone feels, here're what I think the public might largely feel those are, when they appreciate what we do:


Yin. Who to trust and who not to trust is an ongoing responsibility and power of the individual — and there isn't an easy way to dismiss this problem unless you simply become an adherent to a dogma, which we generally do not tolerate due to our strong individualism.

~and~

Yang. That ongoing responsibility and power greatly involves the personal effort of each individual towards compassionate and thoughtful investigations in the interest of the whole population of the world — including all peoples and all species and all forms of life.

---

An antagonism toward these values is clearly demonstrated when one philosophy is pitted against the other rather than being taken as a part of the whole. For example, when there is discussion about a primary evil in someone's life (such as the U.N. or The Jews or The Jesuits or a particular Government/State, etc.) which becomes the basis for the public investigation. This means that it robs the individual of their power and their responsibility to conduct their own investigations into who to trust or who not to trust. This often spirals into a lazy form of investigation due to the loneliness of focusing on personal enemies. It leads to paranoia and conspiracy theories. The other imbalance that triggers my warning flags is when someone's interest in a subject overtakes all personal sense of trust or mistrust. When one is too eager for fast friends in a subject just to gain information and support, they will seek their own TOE (Theory of Everything) and descend into networks and gangs that have nothing to do with the value of treasuring our safety and health. Hence, it might be described as the opposite of a conspiracy theory — a religious fervor.

"Flat Earth" is just a theory. That is all it is, with its merits and numerous problems, just as all TOE have. Just as "Ball Earth" theories and "Concave" and "Geocentric" theories or theories which combine aspects of different theories have.

Therefore, the DBA strategy — to me — is not a "Flat Earth" DBA but a "Conspiracy Theorist" DBA and "Dogma" DBA.

We are meant to be divided against ourselves — unwilling to investigate subjects on the one hand, but contrarily too eager to push our own TOE on the other. This will be characterized by people coming into our forum promoting our own beliefs with poor information and poor reasoning. It will be characterized by an intolerance for and dismissal of questions that we, ourselves, happily subjected other theories to.

---

If we are going to ban discussion of certain topics to avoid this problem, as brianv and nonhocapito sagely advised, we should do that. If we are, however, going to avoid this problem by pushing forth with the CluesForum tool into the deep subjects of world theories, let us not be hypocritical and demand of ourselves a TOE that condemns us to the pyrrhic victories of dogma.

---

If we ban the subjects which Simon finds distasteful, I am alright with taking my explorations of these topics elsewhere and continuing moderation of other topics here at CluesForum. However, if these conditions apply, we should also hope that Simon doesn't insist his model is the ultimate model which is not subject to questions whereas other models are. (And of course, we must, if we are still sane, entertain the idea that Simon's model will not be perfect, will have as many unanswered questions as the old one — if not more — and that its strength will largely rest on the power of the public to gain its own ability and willingness to conduct investigations and confirm the observations he makes.)

If we are confident, however, that other models will be accepted should they prove compelling to the reader, and fair questions can be thrown at all strong models (without their complete collapse by showing an inability to admit unknowns), I would be happy to dive into the true "Flat Earth" discussion as I see it, and not the one that has been set up for us with the "Conspiracy Theory" and "Dogma" DBA strategies.

---

To be short, my second (less rhetorical) question is: would it be alright with everyone if I posted my thoughts on points from various world theories in a separate thread under our own "Apollo, and more space hoaxes" forum, such as the "Our Universe that isn't" topic — or should we stay away from it and thereby also avoid Simon's insights with his latest model — or something else?
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5053
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: NASA'S FLAT EARTH DBA STRATEGY

Postby Xious on Tue Sep 01, 2015 5:33 pm

I for one, would be interested to hear what you have to say.

I suspect that whatever you have, it's well thought out.
Xious
Member
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2015 9:24 pm

Re: NASA'S FLAT EARTH DBA STRATEGY

Postby simonshack on Tue Sep 01, 2015 6:20 pm

hoi.polloi wrote:To be short, my second (less rhetorical) question is: would it be alright with everyone if I posted my thoughts on points from various world theories in a separate thread under our own "Apollo, and more space hoaxes" forum, such as the "Our Universe that isn't" topic — or should we stay away from it and thereby also avoid Simon's insights with his latest model — or something else?


Hoi,

I think the "Our Universe that isn't" thread has been - and remains - the ideal place for discussing various world theories - as long as they are cogently expounded and supported by sound evidence, of course - as always has been the basic requirement here. If I understand well though, you're asking if it's ok to open a separate thread? If so, what would its title be? As it is, I'm not sure if I'm understanding correctly your question(s) - nor what you mean by "or should we stay away from it and thereby also avoid Simon's insights with his latest model". However, I do think I understand your concern for this forum to 'keep an open mind' and not dismiss offhand any world theory just because it sounds bizarre. To be sure, if you have / or support / or wish to develop one particular (or several?) world theory(ies), I will be the first one to read about it with sincere interest. As you may imagine, this line you just wrote ("I would be happy to dive into the true "Flat Earth" discussion as I see it") left me curious as to how exactly you see it - and with the inevitable feeling that you are somehow withholding a share of your thoughts from us all. Please don't - get it out there, bro! ^_^

Having said that, if you have withheld your world-theories to this day, I hope you might find it wise (as a Cluesforum admin) to withhold them for a little bit longer - say for a few months or so. This, in order to avoid some potentially confusing / bewildering 'overlap' (for our readership) with my upcoming TYCHO-SSSS which - as you well know - is almost nearing completion (and which has, to a quite surprising degree, resolved pretty much all of my personal lifelong questions regarding the old - Copernican - model).
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6618
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: NASA'S FLAT EARTH DBA STRATEGY

Postby hoi.polloi on Tue Sep 01, 2015 7:20 pm

I would be happy to add to the existing discussion in the already existing thread, and I would also be happy to withhold my reflections until you finish your calculations. However, I do not have a particular theory in my mind, and my comments will probably not challenge your model (that I've had the privilege of viewing in person as we try to develop a moving 'motion graphics' version for later release) since I am confident your calculations are going quite well.

I also think it would be wise to wait a bit — though since I think it doesn't contradict your findings, I won't necessarily hold my breath until you finish your most fascinating discoveries. And if you don't mind me saying so, I think what I have to say might actually be much harder for people to process than your logical and elegant Tycho-based system, so I don't anticipate any disruption or contradiction yet.

Anyhow, I just heard the "John Le Bon" show at Fakeologist, in which he responds to accusations that he is associating with bad entities and I am impressed with his hint that if he is, he is ignorant of it and that the "DBA" would be something beyond his power to control. I wanted to chime in and say, "Good on ye" (without endorsing any of his shows in particular, nor any of his guests) while also anticipating a time I can address any points of the "Ball Earth Skeptics" we have inadequately addressed or unnecessarily left dangling. My bias at the moment is not to any particular theory, and I just wanted to dismiss a number of poorer arguments coming out of the information-disinformation swirl with logic when I had time. Again — later rather than right now.

Thanks, Simon.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5053
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: NASA'S FLAT EARTH DBA STRATEGY

Postby hoi.polloi on Wed Sep 02, 2015 3:15 pm

Case in point — the latest attempt by intelligence agencies to distract people from good arguments about Earth is to make them focus on Pluto.

http://www.newsweek.com/2015/08/28/plut ... 64203.html

Forensic scientists that don't work for the State (or their hobbyists) are now being called "Flat Earthers" and "Pluto Truthers".

This definitely indicates to me that their DBA strategy is to actually generate and run their own investigation groups in order to populate them with effigies. It starts with "Flat Earth" and goes on to "[Insert Space Topic] Truther" and will probably eventually join (or become) a useless political party, as well — where the intelligence agencies have vast experience in derailing populist goals.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5053
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: NASA'S FLAT EARTH DBA STRATEGY

Postby brianv on Wed Sep 02, 2015 8:06 pm

A bemused Dr John Watson regarding his new acquaintance a certain Mr Sherlock Holmes. "It was unbelievable the things he knew...and the things he didn't."

Watson: Really Holmes, you didn't know the Earth moves around the Sun?
Holmes: Really!
Watson: Why every schoolchild knows that.
Holmes: Now I know it too and shall promptly proceed to forget it.
Watson: But why?
Holmes Yes! Why? Why should I remember it?
Watson: It's a natural phenomenon.
Holmes: Is it important? If you told me the Earth went around the Moon would it make any difference to our way of life?
Watson: Well, no.
Holmes: Well then, it's useless information. I shall do my best to forget it.
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3959
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm

Re: NASA'S FLAT EARTH DBA STRATEGY

Postby Xious on Wed Sep 02, 2015 11:44 pm

hoi.polloi wrote:Case in point — the latest attempt by intelligence agencies to distract people from good arguments about Earth is to make them focus on Pluto.

Forensic scientists that don't work for the State (or their hobbyists) are now being called "Flat Earthers" and "Pluto Truthers".

This definitely indicates to me that their DBA strategy is to actually generate and run their own investigation groups in order to populate them with effigies. It starts with "Flat Earth" and goes on to "[Insert Space Topic] Truther" and will probably eventually join (or become) a useless political party, as well — where the intelligence agencies have vast experience in derailing populist goals.


Good point but the few people who are really looking, will find good arguments. However, the problem that I see every day, is that most people aren't looking... for much of anything... except maybe sports scores or crappy television shows to watch.

Image
Xious
Member
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2015 9:24 pm

Re: NASA'S FLAT EARTH DBA STRATEGY

Postby Selene on Thu Sep 03, 2015 12:09 am

The FES* is clearly a DBA* strategy but not the only strange "model" perpetrated by the plotters.

Freemason clown Neil DeG-T. has a new revolutionary idea; PES*


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyzSK_gqxtU

Now DBA'ing himself?
Care to explain plate tectonics with "pear-induced" lateral forces, Neil? You claimed to have a physics education, right? Got it from Apple or Blackberry? :rolleyes:

oh well... you don't need to go over the hassle of explaining that. Whatever you claim is right, we knew it from the Gods of Science topic...

*FES = Flat Earth Scam
*PES = Pear Earth Scam
*DBA = Discredit By Association

Selene
Selene
Banned
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2015 7:59 pm

Re: NASA'S FLAT EARTH DBA STRATEGY

Postby simonshack on Thu Sep 03, 2015 11:05 am

hoi.polloi wrote:Case in point — the latest attempt by intelligence agencies to distract people from good arguments about Earth is to make them focus on Pluto.
http://www.newsweek.com/2015/08/28/plut ... 64203.html

I beg to diametrically differ, Hoi - but that's ok, we can't always agree on everything. Let me rephrase that sentence of yours according to my views:


Case in point — the latest attempt by intelligence agencies to distract people from good arguments against the latest NASA Pluto hoax is to make them focus on silly arguments about Earth.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6618
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: NASA'S FLAT EARTH DBA STRATEGY

Postby hoi.polloi on Thu Sep 03, 2015 12:25 pm

Actually, you have a point. In my opinion, though, it's a calculated split. Serves both goals, while continuing to distract us.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5053
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: NASA'S FLAT EARTH DBA STRATEGY

Postby ICfreely on Mon Sep 21, 2015 5:16 pm

"Mighty waters draw much stone and rubble along with them, mighty spirits many stupid and bewildered heads." -- Friedrich Nietzsche


Dear Gustave,

I must say that I was waiting with bated breath for more of your thoughts/insights/research regarding the ‘NFE Phenomenon’ as you call it on the ‘Cold of Space…’ thread after hoi’s (btw, A for effort) exceptional post. Instead you chose to challenge a fellow CF contributor to a silly debate. Although I respectfully disagree with Kham, Selene & others regarding the Copernican Model I would never challenge them or anyone to a shilly debate. What purpose would that serve? How would it contribute to the greater good? Speaking of contributions, where are yours in CF? What purpose do you serve here?

Kham contributed a few solid posts in the dino & rocket threads. You’re obviously interested in all things science. Regale us, o’ wistful sage, on how you came to the profound conclusion that, ‘ …the entire 'scientific' establishment is an utter fraud.’ What’s your take on electromagnetism again? Can you tell us more about gravity besides reading the wiki page? Or are you waiting for my, smj and others posts before presenting ‘your’ research to your audience? It’s people like you who are stifling honest dialogue (intentionally or not) with your sophomoric sensationalism.

BTW, how are your off-season ‘flat earth find-a-mate’ talks going with Ms. Potato Head Fire Crotch? I mean that with all due respect, good will, peace, love & all that good stuff.

G’day (& check) mate!

P.S. Goose, try as you might, you're no Maverick. Up your game or slow your roll on the highway to the danger zone!
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 570
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: NASA'S FLAT EARTH DBA STRATEGY

Postby John bin Gustave on Tue Sep 22, 2015 1:16 pm

Post #3

Hello ICFreely. Allow me to respond to some of your points.

"Instead you chose to challenge a fellow CF contributor to a silly debate."
This is simply untrue. I did not challenge KHam to a debate and am not interested in such a debate. My position with regards to KHam was all explained, in some detail, in an audiochat I recorded at Fakeologist.com on August 30 (from which I subsequently created a video presentation, uploaded to my YouTube channel on September 16). I have no beef with KHam and have never made any personal accusations against her, and have not challenged her to any debate. I do not know why you would suggest or imply otherwise.

"Speaking of contributions, where are yours in CF?"

To date, I have made no direct contribution to this forum. I made this clear in my post in this very thread. I have however promoted this forum and the work of its contributors many, many times, on my live shows and in the videos I create for my YouTube channel. From memory I have said only positive things about the site.

"...are you waiting for my, smj and others posts before presenting ‘your’ research to your audience?"

I do not know who you or SMJ are. And to be perfectly honest, I do not care. My interest in this forum is in the research, information and opinions which are provided here. I have little to no interest in personalities. Forgive me if I have misunderstood your tone but it appears to me that you are implying that I intend to plagiarise your work. If I have been guilty of doing so in the past, please bring it to my attention and I will immediately seek to give you credit for whatever you (or others) discovered and which I failed to give credit for. To date I do not believe that I have plagiarised any work here at Cluesforum. In fact I was rather surprised to learn that nobody on this forum had looked into the 'Cavendish experiment' in any detail, when this is (so far as I can tell) one of the most obvious examples of the FRAUD of modern 'science'. Now, if you can share with me some more egregious examples of fraudulent 'experiments' which underpin modern 'science', I will be the first to make videos about them and give you full credit for your information. Only, of course, with your permission. I wouldn't want to share with the world any research which was meant only for the eyes of Cluesforum readers.

"It’s people like you who are stifling honest dialogue (intentionally or not) with your sophomoric sensationalism."

This is another baseless slur.

"BTW, how are your off-season ‘flat earth find-a-mate’ talks going with Ms. Potato Head Fire Crotch?"
I take it that you are referring to 'Patricia Steere'. Perhaps you have confused me with somebody else, as I have had nothing to do with Ms Steere - save for one comment she left on one of my YouTube videos a few days ago, and my brief reply to said comment.

I hope that my reply to your post has satisfied whatever desire within you led to your posting it. Take care.
John bin Gustave
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 11:03 pm

Re: NASA'S FLAT EARTH DBA STRATEGY

Postby ICfreely on Tue Sep 22, 2015 2:04 pm

Goose, nephew, you so far have been nothing more than a research lecher turned YouTube preacher. And a disingenuous one at that. I neither want nor need you to 'promote' my research. I'm just a silly screen name. If I wanted 'credit' I'd set up my own blog or channel. Like I said, up your game instead of click hunting and picking fights with girls!
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 570
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Apollo, and more space hoaxes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests