1

Flat Earth Community / Intuitive understanding of the world.

« on: June 06, 2023, 06:09:38 AM »

FE - uniquely to other theories such as chem trails - gets a large portion of its new believers due to intuitive misunderstanding of the world and our collective “mental models” of physics.

For example: you are a full grown adult and get a job where you don’t really need to think about the effects of fluid dynamics on aircraft. You scroll on Facebook and see someone posing a question you’ve never seen before - “how do airplanes stay horizontal with the curve of the earth and not go to space!” You’ve never thought of this before and get curious, throw in some mild distrust of authority and congratulations, you are now a flat earther.

It’s a trap many beginner flat earthers make, trying to “break” the globe model. More knowledgeable ones know that breaking the globe model is a losing gambit and will end up like tfes (refining the FE model with phenomena such as EA rather than breaking the RE model)

I will absolutely put people that join FE out of misunderstanding in the same camp as people who have their minds blown about “how does the mirror know what’s behind the paper”.

It doesn’t help that a lot of the RE “community” can be quite rude to FE in debates, when often it’s people that simply misunderstood. I’ve gotten plenty of people to become round earthers again through calm logical discussion, and continue to do so.

2

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Flat Earth alternative to a globe

« on: June 06, 2023, 05:58:15 AM »

The globe distorts the shape of the world the least.

3

Flat Earth Media / Re: NASA: Going Nowhere Since 1958

« on: June 06, 2023, 05:56:04 AM »

I actually bothered to watch it while working.
Literally says nothing, this isn’t “dangerous” at all. Conspiracy grifting nonsense.

4

Flat Earth Media / Re: New Photos of Moon suggest Flat Earth?

« on: June 06, 2023, 05:54:02 AM »

Lol at quoting the “pear shaped” thing
Painfully obviously meant playfully as “a sphere but morphed 0.0001% into a pear shape”.

5

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Do liberal elites worship Satan?

« on: June 05, 2023, 05:48:20 AM »

You do know they WANT you think they worship Satan, right? Some of you have some research to do.

6

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: There is no LGBT agenda within the government.

« on: June 05, 2023, 05:46:29 AM »

It’s because it’s an emotional argument that must be disguised as a logical one.
There is no reason why kids can see a Disney princess kiss a Disney prince AOK, but a similar scene replaced with a Disney Prince kissing another Disney prince becomes bad.

7

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: There is no LGBT agenda within the government.

« on: May 25, 2023, 10:48:01 PM »

As a skeptic, can you provide an example of an event - or an official narrative regarding an event - that you are skeptical about?

Yes.
The media minimizes the popularity of FE beliefs, with the narrative being that they are a loud minority.

8

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: There is no LGBT agenda within the government.

« on: May 25, 2023, 03:41:48 PM »

I'm not at all convinced that the notion is "incredibly popular", or even popular at all. It sounds to me like you're mistaking seeing lots of posts on social media expressing that viewpoint for the viewpoint being common.

Please remember that SoMe is extremely unrepresentative of the population, with some voices being artificially amplified or suppressed. This isn't even necessarily intentional - it's just that emotive posting attracts responses, and the recommendation algorithms like engagement.

This is a good point.

9

Philosophy, Religion & Society / There is no LGBT agenda within the government.

« on: May 24, 2023, 10:06:43 PM »

There is an incredibly popular notion these days that government is (for many “reasons”) “pushing” some sort of LGBT related agenda in everyone’s face.
It’s a VERY old and extremely common series of events:
-Group A is marginalized by Group B
-Subset of Group B seeks to reduce marginalization of Group A
-Years pass
-Group A now apparently runs everything and there is an active agenda to shove Group A propaganda “down your throat”.

Common example: some hate crime occurs against (trans people, Jews, etc) and the majority of comments will be entertaining the idea that the hate crime was actually faked by le gubment to “make people think trans people experience hate crimes”(?)

Here’s what a lot of people don’t want to realize: LGBT acceptance is NOT the status quo. Conservative outlets will vigorously work to make it seem like LGBT acceptance is this huge powerful evil force reaching into every aspect of society when it’s simply not.

10

Flat Earth Media / Re: New Photos of Moon suggest Flat Earth?

« on: May 12, 2023, 03:07:26 PM »

Oh, so you're a skeptic, are you? Here's a quote that I found on the internet:

Sadly, or sillily, internet skeptics are really just bulwarks for established orthodoxies. They learn Logical Fallacy 101 but never really doubt their own doubts - which is the essence of skeptictism. They have an arrogance and smugness that an actual skeptic couldn't possibly have because it is inconsistent with the very notion of doubt.

What? Thanks for the quote(?), but I’m talking about the real world.

11

Flat Earth Media / Re: New Photos of Moon suggest Flat Earth?

« on: May 11, 2023, 08:53:54 PM »

You would love to think I just eat up whatever narrative. I’m here because I’m a skeptic in the first place. I found out the earth is a globe myself without believing what any external source said. I carefully and honestly considered all possibilities and eventually realized the earth is a globe.

There are mainstream narratives I don’t believe, thank you for asking.

12

Flat Earth Media / Re: New Photos of Moon suggest Flat Earth?

« on: May 09, 2023, 03:07:52 AM »

You are asked to get proof you went to the moon.
You go to the moon, take pictures, take rocks back home, get video, measurements, perform experiments. You thoroughly explain how it‘s done and televise it globally.

You are again asked for proof, despite having exhausted all means of providing proof. The onus is no longer on the party that claims to have gone to the moon.

If the claim is that the data came from a million miles away, you need to prove that I'm afraid.

What, exactly, is the problem with data coming from a million miles away? I find it perfectly understandable. Maybe instead of looking for an easily digestible single fact, consider the gestalt of spaceflight and its history. For most people, the sheer breadth and depth of the industry and its achievements is more than enough proof. For some people it’s not enough, sure. I’m sure the people actually doing shady business are happy that people are wasting their time looking into space being fake.

13

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Altitude related g... where are the experiments?

« on: April 26, 2023, 01:19:50 AM »

In this thread:

People misconstruing booking trips to the North Pole (a semi-dangerous trip made significantly easier by booking with a guide) with “being restricted like North Korea”. There is just no argument there.

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Altitude related g... where are the experiments?

« on: April 24, 2023, 10:46:41 PM »

Do any of you notice anything strange?

The whole thing is just a white smudge that a 5 year old could make in Photoshop. In other words, nothing to see there.

Is there supposed to be something strange here? I’m not sure how a specific random image is relevant. You picked an image (out of thousands of similar images) where the ice (a fluid and changing element) is on a lower resolution layer than the ground layer (which is static). This image does not claim to be a photograph, it is in a map/diagram rendering style.

Nothing surprising about a model showing computer-generated sea ice. You know this sea ice exists on a flat earth too, right? Just as much as it would on a globe.

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Visibility of the ISS

« on: April 13, 2023, 05:32:41 AM »

I don’t see why it isn’t as simple as:

“Oh look, a clear photo of the ISS with a walmart telescope. This must mean orbits are real and therefore the earth is a globe.” (Yes, I know the talking points for this inside and out. I have been with secular FE groups for years. That doesn’t mean I think they hold any water.)



Luckily, for most people this is enough. Much easier to conclude that it is simply an object in a boring, explainable and predictable orbit instead of the multiple “alternate explanations”.

I can’t imagine living a life where I am convinced that everyone is lying about space being fake, and simultaneously having to admit that they’ve thought of everything from accurately faking the ISS floating overhead, onboard videos, constant launches, etc. Sounds like a maddening way to live.

16

Flat Earth Community / From what source would a globe photograph be accepted?

« on: April 11, 2023, 02:21:17 PM »

There’s countless photographs from space demonstrating a globe, from partial curves to full disks in high orbit. But I know these can just be disregarded, so what would be an acceptable source? Someone sufficiently independent?

17

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Visibility of the ISS

« on: April 11, 2023, 01:05:53 AM »

Except it doesn't disappear from view in only a select few regions, the ISS disappears from view while above the horizon (when obstructed) everywhere that it appears above the horizon.

You are saying once it disappears from your view, it is also invisible to everyone else?

Come now...

Your horizon isn't everyones' horizon.

You’re so close to getting it.

18

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Appearance of the sun

« on: April 06, 2023, 12:05:55 AM »

There are two arguments here:

The clouds are darkening the moon like a room filled with smoke and the camera adjusts to compensate

This would necessitate that the clouds equally darken the Moon. In the above videos we can see that is not the case. There are different cloud layers and gaps of sky in the clouds. If the clouds were darkening the Moon we would see the clouds.

That the clouds are there but it's being erased by over-exposure

Over-exposure in those videos occur when the camera is zoomed out. When the camera zooms in the camera adjusts and exposure is corrected. The grey clouds do not appear in front of the Moon when two different cameras correct for exposure.

So you have it backwards. The over-exposure is the bright version.

No.

Clouds = brighter than space (as they are moonlit). They will appear as gray over the black sky.
Clouds = darker than moon. They will appear as black over the white moon.

Exposure up = bright things lose contrast, dark things gain contrast. Thus you lose the clouds in front of the moon and gain the clouds around it.

Exposure down = dark things lose contrast, bright things gain contrast. The clouds in front of the moon are resolved and the clouds around the moon are lost with the black sky.

19

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Appearance of the sun

« on: April 04, 2023, 09:46:44 PM »

The plain simple answer: high exposure with thin clouds over moon = not enough contrast to make out a difference, even with your naked eyes. Use a camera and lower the exposure, and clouds will be resolved in front of the moon.
You can test this with a light source, some smoke, and a camera. You will get the same effect.

So many people in those comments kicking and screaming about how the sheeple blindly believe authority, when you can just think for yourself and come to this conclusion.

20

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Appearance of the sun

« on: April 04, 2023, 02:02:26 AM »

Another interesting phenomenon for this is that the Moon will sometimes appear to be in front of clouds. Clouds that will normally easily obscure a bird can't obscure the Moon. I saw this for myself just yesterday from the Bay Area California. The Moon and all of its details seemed to be floating in front of the clouds behind it. Only the darkest of clouds could obscure the Moon. This is similar to what I saw:

Are you suggesting that the moon is at a lower altitude than some clouds?