The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Media => Topic started by: Dr David Thork on February 11, 2020, 09:24:50 PM
-
This morning Mark Sargent (the guy who did the viral youtube video 'flat earth clues') was on 'This Morning' with Holly Willoughby and complete and utter piece of shit, Phillip Schofield. More on him below*.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wClJlarfyhE
Sargent didn't do a great job in the interview. And just from a political point of view, saying on British TV that all the Scots hate the English, as an American commentator ... are you an idiot, Sergant?
I found most of his rebuttals to be pretty weak. I was actually quite impressed with Schofield's line of questions. He wasn't just reading from an auto-cue. He'd obviously put in quite a bit of research to formulate his own arguments. I'd argue he was far better prepared for the interview than Sargent.
*Schofield's research into the topic despite the media shitstorm he has whipped up in recent days is quite amazing.
Last Friday Schofield decided to come out as gay. Despite his being married with two kids and being 57 years old and working in the media ... the was heralded as 'brave and courageous'.
On Saturday it was revealed he'd been grooming a 15 year old boy, by the time the kid was 18 he'd got him working on the show as a runner, and has been bumming him for the last 5 years behind his wife's back. Having fallen out, the runner had threatened to tell the media everything forcing cowardly Schofield to out himself to minimise the damage. The mainstream media have not reported any of this. Utter media black out. If you are gay ... you can cheat on your wife and groom children in the UK ... you are untouchable. Meanwhile news anchor Alistair Stewart of the same TV network was fired for Tweeting a line from Shakespeare that a black woman decided could be racist despite his having tweeted it to a white person in the past. Welcome to the Woke Kingdom. >o<
-
Quite impressed that Schofield knew about the Antarctic Treaty.
Do you guys think Mark Sargent really is a Flat Earther? Or is he just in it for the clicks?
-
All of those last bullet points he made that he said no one could answer have been answered already. Calling it "spooky" that heat happens to get trapped easier in closed off spaces compared to open spaces where moonlight happens to hit just shows Mark Sargent really wants to believe the earth is flat despite the evidence. He enjoys the flat earth idea, enjoys the spotlight.
-
Do you guys think Mark Sargent really is a Flat Earther? Or is he just in it for the clicks?
Personally, I'm sceptical of anyone who associates with FEIC too closely. They're the same masterminds who got all giddy when Logan Paul reached out to them and asked if they'd like to be trolled, and the geniuses who manufactured the "Flat Earthers are going to Antarctica!" myth, only to then very impotently dismiss it. And their acronym begs to be pronounced as "fake", for Christ's sake.
I'm not going to go as far as to directly accuse anyone, but I think their group is at least partially compromised.
-
FE research must be controlled . Sargent and his group are there for that .
-
Funnily enough, that's what they say about us.
-
Should have asked about measured distances, what would he have said?
-
Sargent talks about preparing for the show and some background info here:
https://youtu.be/cTi9SKRDp8M
-
Sargent talks about getting preparing for the show and some background info here:
VID
Are there any salient points to take away from this?
-
Sargent talks about getting preparing for the show and some background info here:
VID
Are there any salient points to take away from this?
He talks about how they flew him out, how they went over questions, and then the hosts went off script to talk about the Concord, and how he shut down their surprise questions by responding about Tyson saying that no curve should be seen from a high altitude balloon. He was talking fast to cram everything into his time window, and forgot to plug his book. The hosts were very interested in the theory. He gave them gifts. Some of the producers believe in FE, and that's why they invited him on. That's about it.
-
He talks about .... Some of the producers believe in FE, and that's why they invited him on.
Holy carp.
-
the hosts went off script to talk about the Concord, and how he shut down their surprise questions by responding about Tyson saying that no curve should be seen from a high altitude balloon.
Tyson did say that to be fair.
That said, it's quite a common claim that it could be seen from Concorde and saying that Schofield saw the curve because he "wanted to" is a weak response.
-
That said, it's quite a common claim that it could be seen from Concorde and saying that Schofield saw the curve because he "wanted to" is a weak response.
It's a response that's usually true. There are plenty of idiots who claim to have seen the curve from altitudes where it absolutely shouldn't be possible under RET assumptions. They say it with unshakable conviction, despite the impossibility of their claim under either model. They see it because they want to see it.
We now have an altered claim in which the altitude has been increased to one where the curve is eh-kinda-possible-but-extremely-unlikely to see in one model, and still impossible in the other model. Suddenly, the response becomes weak in your eyes.
It sounds to me like you're assessing the strength of a response based solely on whether it caters to your RET presuppositions.
-
People have seen it from space but it seems the higher up humans go, the less FE'ers believe they went that high.
And at what point is "you saw it because you wanted to see it" a strong response? I mean yea there may be a bias but hey, you only believe the earth is flat because you want to believe it, people only believe in their gods because they want to believe it etc. It's a statement that is a non-argument, it adds not much rebuttal to a back and forth dialogue. Concords fly at nearly double the altitude of normal commercial flights today, at what point in the globe model would you begin to see an obvious horizontal curvature? It would have been perfectly possible to see from a concord and who's to say they didn't see it? Since FE'ers seem to be big on seeing for themselves so it's amazing Mark could tell someone else what they did or didn't see without having been there with them... Almost like how Buzz Aldrin totally didn't see the earth from the moon because all the FE'ers were totally there with him that day to see what he saw.
-
You don't seem to have addressed what I said. I have nothing new to say on the matter. My response stands unchallenged.
-
You don't seem to have addressed what I said. I have nothing new to say on the matter. My response stands unchallenged.
OK. Here's why I see it as a weak response.
You guys promote checking stuff out for yourself, relying on your senses to discern the truth of the world we live in. Yes?
Not entirely unreasonable, with a side dish of me doubting whether a lot of people really have the skills to do that but that's another topic.
But if you're going to promote that approach then it's a bit hypocritical when someone presents an observation which doesn't confirm with your worldview to then tell them that their observation was wrong.
Actually, I remember Schofield telling his Concorde story to some flat earthers he had one time previously and their "explanation" was that it was because the windows were round and thus distorted the horizon.
I take the point about people claiming to have seen curvature from regular planes when I wouldn't expect you to be able to and I've certainly never noticed any when I've flown. But if people's observations aren't reliable then how do we discern reality? How do we know, say, that in the Bishop experiment he didn't just "see what he wanted to see"? And if I repeat it then what if I'm just seeing what I want to see?
-
You guys promote checking stuff out for yourself, relying on your senses to discern the truth of the world we live in. Yes?
Yes, with a side dish of... oh, wait. You already said it. We're in agreement then, great!
But if you're going to promote that approach then it's a bit hypocritical when someone presents an observation which doesn't confirm with your worldview to then tell them that their observation was wrong.
We have ample evidence, both experimental/observational and theoretical, that the vast majority of people who claim to have made this observation haven't actually made it (and would be physically unable to) - they simply thought they did. The basis here is not whether or not he agrees with us, but rather the likelihood of him being correct, regardless of the Earth's shape.
Ultimately, you believe that many people won't be able to make good observations by themselves (you're correct), but you choose to selectively not apply it to a creepy TV personality for... reasons. I suspect those "reasons" are that he thinks the Earth is round, and therefore you think he's correct. It seems to me that you're guilty of the very fallacy you're accusing us of.
But if people's observations aren't reliable then how do we discern reality? How do we know, say, that in the Bishop experiment he didn't just "see what he wanted to see"? And if I repeat it then what if I'm just seeing what I want to see?
People's observations are reliable when performed rigorously and in large numbers. Each observations is a piece of the puzzle. Some will be incorrect, because humans are silly meatbags who are easily tricked. However, these failures are less common if the observations are kept simple, repeated frequently, and diversified. We look at the preponderance of evidence, the bigger picture.
For example, you think the Earth is round. That's fine. Let's humour you and pretend that it is round. This does not mean that every meatbag observation that concludes the Earth is round is correct, or even plausible. In this case, it very likely isn't. You should be able to notice that without acting like your broader viewpoint is threatened. It isn't.
-
We have ample evidence, both experimental/observational and theoretical, that the vast majority of people who claim to have made this observation haven't actually made it (and would be physically unable to) - they simply thought they did. The basis here is not whether or not he agrees with us, but rather the likelihood of him being correct, regardless of the Earth's shape.
OK, that's fair.
Ultimately, you believe that many people won't be able to make good observations by themselves (you're correct), but you choose to selectively not apply it to a creepy TV personality for... reasons. I suspect those "reasons" are that he thinks the Earth is round, and therefore you think he's correct. It seems to me that you're guilty of the very fallacy you're accusing us of.
,
This is similar to the discussion about space tourism. I find those claims credible because (I believe that) space travel is a thing, the ISS is orbiting earth and has people on it. So the claim that someone who is very rich could pay to spend time on the ISS is credible to me. When 7 people have done it without anyone (as far as I know) calling them out on it all being a lie, I see that as a fairly credible claim.
With any claim, part of how credible we find it has to be whether it fits in with our world view or model of reality. If someone claims to have seen a real life Gruffalo then I'd be sceptical because, famously, there's no such thing as a Gruffalo. If someone had claimed to see a kangaroo (in London) then OK, I know kangaroos are a thing but you don't see them hopping around the streets of London so I'd want to know more - were they at a zoo? And so on.
In the case of Schofield's claim I think his claim is credible because (I believe that) the earth is round and the curve of the earth could conceivably be seen at the cruising altitude Concorde flew at. Those are my reasons, and it's that second part which makes his claim credible. He must fly around a bit and he's not claiming he can see the curve whenever he flies, but he does recall seeing it from Concorde and I've heard others make that claim. I don't think it should be dismissed with a "that's just what you wanted to see", but neither am I declaring it conclusive proof of the globe earth.
No argument with the rest of your post.
-
and the curve of the earth could conceivably be seen at the cruising altitude Concorde flew at
Supposedly, under very specific conditions, with an unusually wide field of view and under exceptional atmospheric conditions, and even then you might just catch a hint of it. That's why I described it as very unlikely, but not entirely impossible.
-
This seems more like a post set up to bash Phillip Schofield more than anything.
Anyway, Mark Sargent only had a set time limit to talk. He keeps getting questions, so it's a little difficult to answer questions that require a detailed answer in such a short time before he has to answer another one.