New Change for Conspiracy Theory section: only space and astronomy

[Neverfly]

MY QUESTIONS:
1. In theory, is it possible that the moon is hollow? Why doesn't it spin?

It does spin.
If it did not spin, we wouldn't always see the same side.
The mass of the Moon demonstrates that it is not hollow.

2. In theory, given the compartmentalization of government alphabet agencies, is it possible that no one person would really know 'everything'? If government members themselves can't see the whole picture, how can we as civilians be expected to?

Compartmentalization only works in the small sector. For a large conspiracy, the barriers break down. It cannot be contained once a conspiracy has grown past the small.

3. Given 2, isn't every opinion useful at present?

If I opinionate that rainfall is caused by flying dragon sneezes, that opinion will not prove to be very useful.
Simply put- No.
Opinions must be rational, educated and logical.

4. In theory, if the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) is very concerned about government secrecy, shouldn't I be too?

In theory, if I am concerned about underwear stealing gnomes, should you be too?

5. Is there a distinct correlation between conflict/arms and wealth? To increase wealth, is it possible that conflicts are engineered? Are space and our biosphere weapons-free areas? If so, for earth's heritage and future, should they be, via international treaties? Or does nobody give a sh*t.

Feel free to estimate probabilities and we can continue there (or not, if zero).

Oh, and hey, did you see the new Amero coins?

There are many ways to pick a fight. But at a level of military we have, the size, and a war- a conspiracy is not even needed.
A conspiracy might be able to create a skirmish, but not a war. I will note on the side- if you are thinking of 9-11, it has been thoroughly debunked on this forum. Use the search function.
It is no longer a topic discussed on BAUT as CT is now Space and Astronomy Only.


There are a great many ways to build wealth. Conflict is not required to build wealth. Conflict is also an expensive route and a PR nightmare. There are many other options that are much more attractive.

If you wish to discuss a Conspiracy theory that is space related- Please start a new thread on the topic in CT forum

[k9trek]

How about also applying the other rules from ATM on this part.................., and to make points in more than a link?

Speaking to making points in more than one link (or thread)...

Is it possible for the moderator/administrator to combine all of the separate independent threads posted under the same topic and place all thread (and posts within threads) within one thread stemming from the main topic?

When I first joined, I didn't understand the protocols until reading the rules where it is recommended to open an existing thread (if you are posting on the same topic) as opposed to starting a new thread within the same topic.

Perhaps the multitude of threads located :Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum > Space and Astronomy > Conspiracy Theories > (((here)))
Could be consolidated into the same thread under the same topic.

Not sure if the administrator can do this but it may be helpful in organizing all these threads under the same topic.

Does this make sense?

[NEOWatcher]

Is it possible for the moderator/administrator to combine all of the separate independent threads posted under the same topic and place all thread (and posts within threads) within one thread stemming from the main topic?

It's possible, but time consuming for the mods, and might end up being even more confusing for the reader.

When I first joined, I didn't understand the protocols until reading the rules where it is recommended to open an existing thread (if you are posting on the same topic) as opposed to starting a new thread within the same topic.

Recommended, but there are pros and cons.
First; It shows you actively understand the previous conversations and have at least made some attempt to do a bit of your own research.
Two; A lot of times the comments are just different twists, or extensions of previous didscussions.
But;
A very old thread can be confusing and irrelevent (timeliness-wise) with many missing links.
A very old thread has posters that no longer exist, so it's like talking to the wall.
A newer thread may have a "train of thought" that would probably be best left alone. I prefer new thoughts with links and a bit of explanation of the relevence to a previous discussion in these cases.

In other words, it can be a judgement call.

[Swift]

I have moved J Riff's conspiracy ideas to their own thread. I don't really see any further need to discuss this, so I'm closing this thread. If someone has a need to discuss this rule change in this thread, Report my post.