The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Investigations => Topic started by: Pete Svarrior on August 31, 2018, 03:04:03 PM
-
A common point raised against the Flat Earth Theory, one which has been doing the rounds for months now, takes a visual format. It is a selfie of a man (often attributed to Reddit user amazed_spirit, though that does not appear to be the origin - more on that later) from the top of Mt Everest, with a very curved Earth firmly on show.
By now, I have seen it so many times that I've taken to referring to it as That Everest Photo. Let's talk about it. I'm sure you've seen it before, but here it is as it appeared on Reddit in April 2018, with an annotation of "Checkmate, Flat Earth Society!":
(https://i.imgur.com/Sm8s6lN.jpg)
Most of you here, RE'er or FE'er, will already know that in the Round Earth Model, the curvature should not really be discernible from atop Everest. It's "only" 29,000 feet tall. A curvature *this* pronounced would suggest that the Earth is round and very small. Personally, I think this shouldn't be a controversial statement. Many of us have flown before, thus having an opportunity to view the Earth from much higher than that. It just doesn't look like that. The flags in the background are also strangely curved. A true mystery, indeed! (Of course, it's no mystery, and most of you are probably rolling your eyes hard at me not just saying what it is)
None of this, however, gave the mainstream media any pause; they went absolutely insane about the subject. Some examples include:
The Independent - Show this selfie from the top of Everest to a flat Earth conspiracy theorist. Immediately - click (https://www.indy100.com/article/flat-earth-conspiracy-theory-selfie-mount-everest-8297226)
LADBible - Flat-Earthers Shot Down By Amazing Everest Selfie - click (http://www.ladbible.com/community/viral-weird-flat-earthers-shot-down-by-amazing-everest-selfie-20180410)
T2 Online - Man's Everest selfie is dropping the mic on 'Earth is flat or round debate', effective immediately - click (http://t2online.com/t2-digs/man-s-everest-selfie-is-dropping-the-mic-on-earth-is-flat-or-round-debate-effective-immediately/cid/19457)
India Times - This Man's Selfie Atop The Everest Shuts Up Everyone Who Thinks The Earth Is Flat - click (https://www.indiatimes.com/culture/this-man-s-selfie-atop-the-everest-shuts-up-everyone-who-thinks-the-earth-is-flat-343222.html)
The absence of critical thinking is astonishing here. One of the articles (T2 Online) even states that "So far, we don't think the image is Photoshopped or any way tampered with. Hence, we will choose to believe that it's the real deal." Of course the photo hasn't been tampered with! That's the problem. Another one (The Independent) proudly states that "Everest is just shy of 9,000m above sea level and thus a prime position to see just how unflat the world is." No. No, it isn't. Even if we assume RET for granted, that's not how geometry works. Try something like 60,000ft.
It's almost as if these people already decided what conclusion they want to reach, and thus decided that everything else must check out.
So, a quick Google reverse image search gets us to the original photograph. Sure enough, it wasn't taken in 2018, and sure enough it has nothing to do with the Reddit user. It was actually taken in 2012 by Dean Carriere. More importantly, Dean was kind enough not to strip EXIF data from the photograph. A copy of the (seemingly) unaltered original file can be found here (https://cbcdn2.gp-static.com/uploads/photo_of_the_day/image/43469/GOPR0067.jpg).
Anyway, let's finish stating the obvious, now that no speculation is required. The photo was taken with a GoPro Hero3-Silver Edition with a (35mm-film-equivalent) focal length of 16mm. It's an ultra wide-angle lens, and so the entire image is distorted. That's not Photoshop or tampering, that's just simple optics. The photographer was surely aware of this, but apparently our Reddit poster and mindless journalists were not.
Adobe Lightroom Classic has a pre-defined lens correction profile for the Hero3 Silver, intended to bring the image closer to something a human eye would see. Here's what the photo looks like after this adjustment:
(https://i.imgur.com/k9R5GwG.jpg)
If you want, you can reproduce this image yourself (and I encourage you to - you shouldn't blindly trust me, that's largely the point of this thread!). Lightroom Classic can automatically pick the correct lens correction profile based on EXIF data. I've made no changes to the photo other than ticking that one checkbox and letting Adobe do its magic.
Now, none of this is intended to prove that the Earth is flat. You can still detect some (irregular) curvature on the horizon (I'd attribute this to imperfections in both the lens and the correction algorithm), and, well, no reasonable RE'er would have claimed that you can see the curvature from Everest in the first place. But that's not the point here - this isn't a discussion about the shape of the Earth per se. The point is that none of this is arcane knowledge, and yet the media coverage of this has shown itself to be profoundly scientifically illiterate (or, for those who mis-attributed the photo to a random Reddit user, they have shown themselves incapable of using Google). The original is not hard to find, the "issue" behind the photo is not challenging to figure out, and, in my mind, any reasonable person's intuition should immediately prompt some questions about the photo.
Why has this not happened? Why is no one holding these journalists to account? Why are we still getting spammed with That Everest Photo?
-
With MS Paint, add a straight line, and a rough pixel count indicates more pixels above the line in the middle than at the sides .... suggesting that it is actually curved.
If someone wants to apply a better pixel counter or counting method, have at it.
(https://i.imgur.com/MEdPQYa.jpg)
-
What I almost find more interesting is that within the first 5 top comments on the Reddit post are people pointing out how the original photo has a fisheye lens attached. (Also the title of the Reddit post gives away this is supposed to be satirical, but if one hasn't been on sites like Reddit enough it would be hard to catch.) Do you have any more well known locations running with this story? From what I know of all of the publications you posted, they're generally considered rather trash 'rags' as it were. Although I'm not completely familiar with all of them, that would be a potential reason none of them have been corrected. The Independant 'article' doesn't even have a single comment on it.
Note I'm having difficulty finding more reputable news sources running with this in any manner.
-
Tumeni, try reading the OP. I readily conceded that some curvature can still be detected, and pointed out that this thread is not here to convince anyone of the Earth's shape.
Curious Squirrel: I was trying to get a decent smattering of sources, starting with trash (ladbible) and trying to make my way toward more reputable stuff - the Independent is a fairly major British newspaper. It did decline recently (and moved away from print format), but I'd still call it firmly mainstream.
That said, more sources would be good. I'd be particularly relieved if we found a major article pointing out that the photo is hardly the smoking gun it's being painted as.
-
With MS Paint, add a straight line, and a rough pixel count indicates more pixels above the line in the middle than at the sides .... suggesting that it is actually curved.
If someone wants to apply a better pixel counter or counting method, have at it.
(https://i.imgur.com/MEdPQYa.jpg)
It’s not often that I’m on “team Pete” but you really have got the wrong end of the stick here. Arguably the wrong stick entirely.
Forget about what the photo shows. The real point is that the original photo does not show anything like what you would see from Mount Everest. The curvature is clearly a lens effect. Shame on the Independent, a paper which I would regard as a good deal more trustworthy than red-top rags like The Sun and The Mirror, for running with this and believing there is anything significant in this photo which adds any weight to the idea of a globe earth.
Unfortunately Pete is spot on. While I lament some of the reasoning I see on here, the inability to reason logically or think critically is not something FE has a monopoly on. I find it all a bit depressing. I saw some video on the Internet a while back about how education is still very much about learning facts - 1066 Battle of Hastings, 1666 Great Fire of London and so on. And while it is good to know things, knowing when all the kings and queens of England came to the throne is not the most important thing, especially now we can look it - and pretty much anything else - up instantly. But given how much “fake news” and misinformation there is out there on the internet there should be more focus on teaching how to think critically, how to check things and less on learning lists.
-
I believe that there are two problems:
1. The educational system doesn't properly teach astronomy to the public. We are taught in school about some vague concepts like the earth is round, about the seasons and the solar system, but not really much more beyond that. This means that the Round Earth Theory can essentially be whatever you want it to be and is up to your own imagination.
2. People are often predisposed to look favorably or unfavorably on FET based on initial impressions to the Flat Earth Theory. How many people have come to the forums to argue in favor of FE? Not many. And if they do, they stick out. They are getting a negative first impression by some means.
My first impression to Flat Earth Theory and the Flat Earth Society was an occasion where someone shared a Flat Earth seasons diagram and was asking others on how he could show that the sun needed to change speed over the year because he wanted to prove it wrong.
He shared something looking like this:
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/a/a1/Seasons.png)
I had no initial opinion other than interest. Another person then queried the asker "Why would you try to prove it wrong? You should be helping them."
Thinking about that; why should I try to prove it wrong, indeed. This eventually evolved into "Perhaps it is the mainstream model that should first prove itself to me."
I would say that this simple and initial introduction had a fundamental impression on how I saw FET going forward, and as I learned more about it. Another helping factor was that at the time was there wasn't much easily accessible content and material about FET online, and so I was forced to order a physical copy of Earth Not a Globe to learn about it, which gave greater gravity to the subject matter.
People tend to be exposed to it very differently, and this affects their opinion on it. The YouTube movement is interesting because they seem to have a nice formula down to get people on board and grow the movement. If I had the time my approach to exposure would be a fundamentally different one designed around critical thinking with fleshed out examples, illustrations, etc., but the YouTube methods seem to be proven to work, which is why we should embrace that as the way forward to get people interested in the matter.
-
With MS Paint, add a straight line, and a rough pixel count indicates more pixels above the line in the middle than at the sides .... suggesting that it is actually curved.
If someone wants to apply a better pixel counter or counting method, have at it.
IMG
It’s not often that I’m on “team Pete” but you really have got the wrong end of the stick here. Arguably the wrong stick entirely.
Forget about what the photo shows. The real point is that the original photo does not show anything like what you would see from Mount Everest.
Yes, but MY point is about the corrected photo; that once the photo is corrected through the stock software filter, there's a regular, non-erratic curve over the straight line.
I get it. The original is an exaggeration due to the wide-angle lens.
-
Tumeni, try reading the OP. I readily conceded that some curvature can still be detected, and pointed out that this thread is not here to convince anyone of the Earth's shape.
Curious Squirrel: I was trying to get a decent smattering of sources, starting with trash (ladbible) and trying to make my way toward more reputable stuff - the Independent is a fairly major British newspaper. It did decline recently (and moved away from print format), but I'd still call it firmly mainstream.
That said, more sources would be good. I'd be particularly relieved if we found a major article pointing out that the photo is hardly the smoking gun it's being painted as.
This one at least points it out part of the way through, but the general tone of the article seems to suggest the writer doubts it was taken with a fisheye lens.
https://incrediblenat.com/selfie-top-everest-attempts-destroy-flat-earth-theory/
They seem to all LOVE throwing in things like this though, even ones that acknowledge the photo has a fisheye effect to it.
And even if the photo was legit, the flat-earth people would still find another excuse to quarrel about the curvature and undermine the facts.
From: http://www.24hviralphotos.com/selfie-from-top-of-everest-attempts-to-destroy-flat-earth-theory-once-and-for-all-3-pics/
But I can't find an article by anyone larger at present. I'll admit I've heard of The Independant, but wasn't aware it was that big. Most hearsay was not exactly positive, but I know little about it personally.
-
The absence of critical thinking is astonishing here.
Just like that FE meme showing N. America appearing different sizes in images from different years.
-
I think it is likely the brain drain in the media. The clamour to hire 'diversely', over hiring based on talent has left newsrooms with some proper idiots. The shear number of spelling mistakes on the BBC these days is testimony to this. In an age of spell check, you have to wonder what the editors get paid for. Anyone with half a brain will have left because they will be looked over for promotion and they'll have to deal with filling their quota of identity politics based news reports each week.
I think this has wider ramifications for investigative journalism. Journalists these days aren't very smart, and if they can't do so much as spot an obviously stupid image, how are they supposed to spot governmental crimes, banking frauds, corporate abuse or politicians lying to them?
-
I think it is likely the brain drain in the media. The clamour to hire 'diversely', over hiring based on talent has left newsrooms with some proper idiots. The shear number of spelling mistakes on the BBC these days is testimony to this. In an age of spell check, you have to wonder what the editors get paid for. Anyone with half a brain will have left because they will be looked over for promotion and they'll have to deal with filling their quota of identity politics based news reports each week.
I think this has wider ramifications for investigative journalism. Journalists these days aren't very smart, and if they can't do so much as spot an obviously stupid image, how are they supposed to spot governmental crimes, banking frauds, corporate abuse or politicians lying to them?
Where on the BBC?
-
It almost surprises, but certainly amuses me to see that this picture generates so much commotion inside the flat earth community. Of course this photo doesn't show the earth as we observe it with our own eyes from such an altitude. As Pete Svarrior rightly mentions, we all know what the earth looks like seen from an airplane flying on a much higher altitude.
The reason why this picture got that much attention in the media and was victoriously presented as a globe earth proof to destroy flat earth, was mere a joke to banter the FE community not by journalists lacking critical thinking, but done by people fatigued and fed up with the constantly recurring argument of FE'ers that a flat horizon would prove a flat earth. Because what is irritating the globe-earth community is the supercilious attitude of many flat-earthers that “Globers” are too stupid or too brainwashed to notice that a flat horizon would debunk the globe.
If it was that simple, that a flat horizon would prove a flat earth, the old Greek philosophers would never have spend their precious time discussing and promoting a spherical earth. Or do FE'ers really think that men like Anaxagoras, Thales, Conon, Eratosthenes or Seleucus never looked at the horizon and wondered why the horizon did not follow the curvature of the earth? Do you really think that if a flat horizon would prove a flat earth Eratosthenes would have spend time measuring the circumference of a globe?
Of course those who initiated the globe-earth model, and all those scientists who proved and improved this concept in recent centuries all knew the horizon is flat, but they also knew why a flat horizon does not debunk a globe, in contrary, they all knew, (and we still know) that a flat horizon supports the globe: On a globe horizons have to be flat, because a horizon is not a straight line over the curvature, but a horizontally flat circle on the surface of the globe, curved horizontally 360 degrees around the observer. And, as I've said in an other topic before, a circle observed from its centre is seen as a flat line around the observer. That's why a sharp and flat horizon supports a ball earth more than it supports a flat earth, and Eratosthenes knew that when he measured the circumference of that ball.
Therefore it was not an astonishing absence of critical thinking, as Pete believes, that this picture of an almost ball-shaped earth behind mountaineers on the Everest was presented as a triumph of the globe over the flat earth, it was a prank, a bone thrown into the flat-earth community where due to an astonishing absence of critical thinking people still believe that a flat horizon is proof for a flat earth. And they all jumped on it, not aware it was a take-in to get you by the balls with an absurd but funny picture.
-
it was not an astonishing absence of critical thinking, as Pete believes, that this picture of an almost ball-shaped earth behind mountaineers on the Everest was presented as a triumph of the globe over the flat earth, it was a prank, a bone thrown into the flat-earth community where due to an astonishing absence of critical thinking people still believe that a flat horizon is proof for a flat earth. And they all jumped on it, not aware it was a take-in to get you by the balls with an absurd but funny picture.
A fun thought experiment, and a convenient excuse, but your conclusion defies logic and flies in the face of what is actually happening. The FE'ers remain unfazed by this photo. Most are aware of its flaws and how easy it is to "fix". Your proposal is that mainstream journalists declared something untrue to be the truth as a "prank". Not because they were incompetent, but because they were malicious. This, to me, seems to be a far less likely conclusion - why would you deceive your readers just to annoy someone, and why would you not issue an errata once the attempt at annoying the people you were trying to attack has failed?
See, there's a reason behind me making this thread now, and not 5 months ago when this story blew up. I, too, was curious to see how this would play out. I have not seen any of this "Flat Earthers all jumping on it, not aware it was a take-in". Indeed, I'd be very interested to see you substantiate that claim. But no, what we've all seen is this photo being sent daily to us by Round-Earthers, blindly convinced by the media articles which decry this photo as legitimate through statements like "So far, we don't think the image is Photoshopped or any way tampered with. Hence, we will choose to believe that it's the real deal."
Your post is an excellent example of the same phenomenon. To some people, facts and critical analysis don't matter. What matters to them is twisting facts to fit the narrative they're interested in. If a bunch of mainstream outlets foolishly and publicly declared an ultra-wide-angle photograph to be representative of the Earth's curvature, clearly they must have all been simply joking. And the damage they've caused to public discourse? Obviously a joke as well.
No, Humble. That won't do at all. Substantiate your claims, or reveal yourself to be part of the same problem.
-
No, Humble. That won't do at all. Substantiate your claims, or reveal yourself to be part of the same problem.
Didn't you read the comments on Reddit? Most comments don't even address the curvature neither the fact that this would prove anything about the shape of the earth. More discussion about the garbage on the Everest: “Checkmate Clean Earth Society” And those who comment on the earth in the background immediately notice that this is not the earth as seen from a mountaintop:
elju123
Theyre using a fisheye lens
kronaz
Which is exactly what the flatearthers claim people are doing when they show these pics, so deceptive shit like this plays right into their hands.
anonymoushero1
i mean the earth is round but not as round as this picture shows it to be. this picture makes it look like he's at ISS levels of height.
Ol0O01100lO1O1O1
Even at ISS levels of height you can only see 2.5% of earth at any given time.
What is making this picture 'absurd' if you would see it as a picture to prove the globe, is that this is not the first and only picture taken from such or even higher an altitude, and we know exactly how the earth looks from mount Everest, not as if taken from space. Now if you reread those articles, and take attention to the sarcastic tone of the articles; those writers do not take the FET seriously for one inch. They just make fun of it. And if someone doesn't take your theory seriously, he will neither feel the need to respond with a counter argument meant to be taken seriously. The mindset of those writers is:
“Hi guys, we live in a space age, satellites send us daily thousands of pictures of the earth taken from hundreds, even thousands of miles above the earth. Are you guys really that ignorant that you think we still need pictures taken from an alp to prove you anything? Well, in that case, here you go, here you have one, enjoy it.”
These people know perfectly well that conspiracy theorist who claim that all pictures taken from space are fake and CGI, will dismiss every other photograph disproving flat earth as well.
In the eyes of 'globers' it is astonishing that there are people around who believe that in the 21st century we still need pictures taken from weather balloons or mountain peaks to prove anything about the shape of the earth, we past that station centuries ago. So they give you what you are asking for, a picture from a mountaintop, joking it would prove the globe. But if you just would've Googled “panorama Everest” you would have found hundreds of pictures taken from that same spot showing you a perfectly flat horizon 360 degrees around the Everest, and you would have known someone is trying to prank you. http://www.panoramas.dk/fullscreen2/full22.html (http://www.panoramas.dk/fullscreen2/full22.html)
-
Regardless of the earth's shape the mainstream media are evil. I don't think it's so much a lack of critical thinking as it is a deliberate attempt to manipulate public opinion. I despise MSM.
-
I think Humble has the right idea as far as the original thread is concerned (the title is a dead giveaway of it's satirical nature) but I find the difficulty of finding it on many things beyond sites close to the level of blogs a bit telling in terms of what the majority seem to think of it. This is definitely nothing even approaching a 'deliberate attempt to manipulate public opinion' from the media. It's not widespread enough. The majority of articles are sites I've never even heard of. The Independant is quite literally the only one I've heard of before, and if you look at the stuff the writer of that article is putting out he looks like a clickbait or tabloid writer more than anything. I think the small or click based sites jumped on board, while most everyone else ignored it for how silly it was. As noted above from the Reddit thread, most online communities tended to focus in on the garbage strewing the peak over the Earth in the background. I remember similar when the image appeared on imgur.
-
Didn't you read the comments on Reddit?
That only reinforces my point. Although many of these comments are older than the articles, it provides the journalists with yet another thing they had to completely ignore to produce their articles.
Your justification makes sense for the original Reddit thread (though Curious Squirrel already made that point, so it was a waste of everyone's time), but that's entirely unrelated to the topic at hand. Remember, we're talking about fairly major publications here, not social media. You seem to suggest that a sarcastic tone will give the photo enough of a wink-wink-nudge-nudge feel to it and turn it into a joke, but we already know that this hasn't happened, and the droves of RE'ers demanding that we explain it over and over again demonstrate that succinctly. So, again, nice try, but you're part of the problem - you decided that I must be wrong and chose to distort your interpretation to match the prediction.
And yes, you're right (although you're just restating what I already said while pretending to make an original point) in saying that a single Google search dismisses this image readily. That's the problem. The journalists you're desperately trying to defend and their readers did not do that. What we want to know is why.
Mind you, these are the same people who incorrectly attributed the photograph to the OP on Reddit, and not to the photographer - is that a hilarious prank as well, in your eyes?
This is definitely nothing even approaching a 'deliberate attempt to manipulate public opinion' from the media. It's not widespread enough. The majority of articles are sites I've never even heard of. The Independant is quite literally the only one I've heard of before
While I agree with you that it's not a deliberate attempt (it's definitely gross incompetence, and not malice), I do disagree with you trying to handwave these sources away as minor. Yes, one of them is a shitty tabloid, but they all have huge readerships in their respective countries. And, frankly, I propose that even shitty tabloids should do better than this.
-
Now let me make this clear first: I'm not defending the media as a reliable source of information, I agree with Boots that the mainstream media are evil when it comes to politics or economics, selling us evil wars to serve the war industry and unhealthy drugs to serve the pharmaceutic industry and their bankers, but not when it comes to selling the earth as a globe. Not that I dismiss every conspiracy theory just because it is a conspiracy theory. I'm 100% convinced 9/11 was an inside job and Eagles will crash when they try to land with a rocket engine blowing into a dustbin loaded with rocks.
…..... it provides the journalists with yet another thing they had to completely ignore to produce their articles.
Google search dismisses this image readily. That's the problem. The journalists you're desperately trying to defend and their readers did not do that. What we want to know is why.
What, in my humble opinion, is distorting your interpretation of the mentioned articles is your prepossessed position that the media are complicit in a large cover up with regard to the shape of the earth. And this biased frame of reference is what is making you look for bears behind every tree, so eager to find one that you mistake a playing squirrel for an attacking bear.
That's why you wrongly accuse those journalists and their readers of lack of critical thinking, because you incorrectly believe they are “desperately trying to defend” something with this picture, while they are not. For them the shape of the earth is not at stake, they are just surprised by the phenomenon of a growing number of flat-earthers around the globe.
Common sense does tell me that when someone is using a single picture that can be debunked within seconds to prove anything, he is just joking, or trying to fool around with people who suffer a severe lack of critical thinking. Give you some other examples:
A crook on Youtube publishes a picture of a star shinning through the moon and claims this proves the moon is transparent. He is immediately applauded and praised by his followers for his excellent research. Now who is suffering a decline of critical thinking, that guy who found an easy way to make money on Youtube, or his ignorant followers who believe that one single picture is proof of something that is contradicted by all other observations of the moon?
Or a crook is publishing a video showing the sun dramatically shrinking before sunset and claims that this is proof that perspective makes the sun shrink. He is immediately applauded and praised by his followers for his excellent research. Now who suffers a decline of critical thinking here, that guy who found an easy way to make money on Youtube, or his silly followers who believe that one single video is proof of something that is contradicted by all other observations of the sun?
Same thing you should ask yourself about this Everest picture, who is lacking critical thinking here, those who publish a picture that can be debunked within seconds with risible titles as “Flat-Earthers Shot Down By Amazing Everest Selfie” or those who are taking it that seriously as an attempt to disprove flat earth that they accuse the media of a decline of critical thinking?
What many flat earthers lack is a sense of humor and some self-relativity. With what more sense of humor you are more sensible to notice when someone is serious, or when he's just joking.
Google search dismisses this image readily. That's the problem. The journalists you're desperately trying to defend and their readers did not do that. What we want to know is why.
Why?
Because not one of the journalists working for the M.S.M. is taking any FET argument seriously enough to feel the need to debunk it, or defend the globe against people ignorant enough to believe they can attack it. In their articles they are just wondering why in a time of GPS and spacewalks a growing number of people are returning back to junk science to explain the shape of the earth as flat, while that concept was fully debunked ages before Mary and Joseph found a barn to spend their first Christmas Holiday. If the media really would have tried to defend the globe, they wouldn't have used a modified picture, like FE'ers often do, but they would have used their time better by explaining their readers why on a ball earth the horizon has to be flat, even around the highest hill on the globe. When you believe journalists are trying to defend a globe then you are missing the most important issue here: Flat earth is not threatening the globe as long as FE'ers think they can win the battle with pictures of a flat horizon or stars shining through the moon.
That is why.
-
I think Pete had a good point, and it is sad that people are so easily disillusioned - if they truly believe this is how the earth looks from Everest. If you put even just one ounce of thought into it, you'll realize the earth couldn't possibly curve that sharply. Even if you have never been to altitudes that high, or seen pictures from that high, it just looks off. Intuitively it doesn't make sense that it would curve so sharply. The curve isn't even consistent all the way across the photo. The angle appears to change and is more shallow on the left side than the right side.
Honestly, if people want to allow themselves to be so easily mislead, that is their problem and I doubt most would take them seriously anyway. At that point, you can't really convince someone to be smarter or be more intuitive. They will just be blind because that is what they want.
It would be nice if the RE FE debate could get passed the apparent or un-apparent curve as proof one way or the other. I think it's slowing the entire movement. The magnitude of round or flat earth would make any observation useless since we are so very small in comparison. And the fact the most people (if you believe in space travel) have not been to space to get such a vantage point, so most people don't have an arcetype or schema for perceiving such a massive object from such a narrow vantage point. Therefore our perception is very narrow as well. Shame on the media, and shame on REers for buying into it.
-
What, in my humble opinion, is distorting your interpretation of the mentioned articles is your prepossessed position that the media are complicit in a large cover up with regard to the shape of the earth.
This is not the case. You are making assumptions about me and others here, and given how long you've been here for, and how wildly off your previous assessments of us have been, I would suggest that you need to take a step back and try to understand this community before judging it.
That's why you wrongly accuse those journalists and their readers of lack of critical thinking, because you incorrectly believe they are “desperately trying to defend” something with this picture, while they are not.
Now you're just misquoting me. It is you I'm accusing of desperately trying to defend someone.
Common sense does tell me that when someone is using a single picture that can be debunked within seconds to prove anything, he is just joking, or trying to fool around with people who suffer a severe lack of critical thinking.
Those are two of the possibilities, and you're trying to deny the obvious third. But you've set yourself up. Using the same common sense, if one person puts something up with the intention to deceive those who lack critical thinking, there are now some people who are both convinced of something and unable to think about it critically. What, pray tell, compels you to believe that these people couldn't then put an article up on the Internet?
Same thing you should ask yourself about this Everest picture, who is lacking critical thinking here, those who publish a picture that can be debunked within seconds with risible titles as “Flat-Earthers Shot Down By Amazing Everest Selfie” or those who are taking it that seriously as an attempt to disprove flat earth that they accuse the media of a decline of critical thinking?
Ah, but now you're changing your argument entirely. It's no longer a joke, but rather a quick and cynical attempt at making some money. That's far more believable, and much more consistent with the writers' inability to correctly identify the photograph's author.
But, once again, you fail miserably. The premise of the article is that mainstream media are dishonest, and blatantly so, and that even an ounce of critical thinking would persuade them to not write what they did.
What many flat earthers lack is a sense of humor and some self-relativity. With what more sense of humor you are more sensible to notice when someone is serious, or when he's just joking.
Sigh. Let's try again. Your proposal that journalists can just "joke" in mainstream media articles under the guise of "haha sarcasm" flies straight in the face of any and all journalistic standards of the Western world. If you have any evidence that these standards were deliberately breached, you should probably be presenting them in a court of law, and not on the Flat Earth Society forum.
Why?
Because not one of the journalists working for the M.S.M. is taking any FET argument seriously enough to feel the need to debunk it, or defend the globe against people ignorant enough to believe they can attack it.
This, again, is incorrect. It takes one Google search for you to correct yourself. Once again, you reveal yourself to be part of the problem.
-
Honestly, if people want to allow themselves to be so easily mislead, that is their problem and I doubt most would take them seriously anyway. At that point, you can't really convince someone to be smarter or be more intuitive. They will just be blind because that is what they want.
My point is; no one with any common sense left is mislead by this single Mt Everest picture, because we all, FE'ers & BE'ers including all journo's, know very well that this picture doesn't show the earth as observed from that altitude. The only ones misleading themselves here are those who make themselves believe that publishing this picture was an attempt to debunk FET, and then wrongfully accused the alleged 'debunkers' of lack of critical thinking.
And no Pete, I'm not changing my argument entirely. The articles are not jokes, neither an attempt to defend the globe. They are just articles written by potboilers mentioning the existence of a flat earth community, using that Reddit picture as a coat hanger to start with. But what still is a joke is the picture itself and the claim that it would debunk flat-earth. That was just joking and nothing to be presented in a court of law, because humour is not a misdemeanour in journalism.
But like all jokes, this joke will become a prank when taken too seriously.
-
You have yet to demonstrate that the journalists in question were joking. Given their other failures, this seems extremely unlikely.
You have also now introduced three different arguments, each ridiculously flawed in its one way. Can you please pick one so that at least we know what we're dismantling?
Also, your claims about "anyone with common sense" are irrelevant. We already know that there are numerous individuals vehemently demanding an explanation for this - you pretending not to know this is not a counter-argument.
-
Pete, if you really want to believe there is a conspiracy in which media need ridiculous unrealistic pictures to defend the globe,
I rest my case and wish you luck fighting your windmills.
(http://www.lehuaparker.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/windmills.jpg)
-
Also, your claims about "anyone with common sense" are irrelevant. We already know that there are numerous individuals vehemently demanding an explanation for this - you pretending not to know this is not a counter-argument.
When the thrust of an article (I use that term ‘article’ very loosely in this case) is predicated on something like, "In a Reddit post, captioned…” one should know right quick that they're not in for any sort of Woodward and Bernstein-esque investigative journalism or anything that should be deemed ‘journalism’, for that matter. The onus is on the reader to determine whether something should be trusted or not.
As for those vehemently making demands, they are obviously ignorant and/or have never had a window seat on a plane. Seems like it’s their personal problem and not an indictment of all journalistic endeavors and certainly these rags shouldn’t be considered the bellwether for the decline of critical thinking in the media. We’ve got plenty of proof of that regarding far more important issues elsewhere.
-
Pete, if you really want to believe there is a conspiracy in which media need ridiculous unrealistic pictures to defend the globe
I already told you that this is not the case. Nobody is proposing a conspiracy, and you seem to be the only person who insists on pretending otherwise. If you're going to just make up your opponents' arguments, is there any point in discussing things with you?
Perhaps there might be a reason for you not answering my question, and instead choosing to mock an argument I haven't made? ;)
-
To some people, facts and critical analysis don't matter. What matters to them is twisting facts to fit the narrative they're interested in.
Have you seen Tom's posts? That is literally his jam.
It's unfortunate that you have been bombarded with people sending you this picture with "check mate, flat earthers!" type messages from RE people, just as it is unfortunate that you see so many "The horizon is flat, check mate, round earthers!" type comments on the internet from FE people. And as I've highlighted to you recently, your own FAQ contains this kind of reasoning:
The evidence for a flat earth is derived from many different facets of science and philosophy. The simplest is by relying on ones own senses to discern the true nature of the world around us. The world looks flat, the bottoms of clouds are flat, the movement of the sun; these are all examples of your senses telling you that we do not live on a spherical heliocentric world. This is using what's called an empirical approach, or an approach that relies on information from your senses.
And yes, I've seen the first sentence, you're not claiming this is the totality of your evidence but I would suggest if you're interested in critical thinking it should be no part of your evidence or argument.
"The world looks flat" isn't evidence of anything other than the earth is large.
"the bottoms of clouds are flat" isn't even true
"the movement of the sun" is more evidence that the sun goes round the earth rather than the earth rotating but that is more a heliocentric/geocentric argument, not a shape of the earth argument.
I agree with what you're saying, but neither FE or RE has a monopoly on stupids or people who can't think critically.
And yes, it is unfortunate that this sort of thing extends to the media, that - and the sheer amount of nonsense on the internet - makes it even more important that kids are taught to think logically and critically.
-
And as I've highlighted to you recently, your own FAQ contains this kind of reasoning
You know what? Fine. Please start a thread about this in FE Projects and we can consider re-phrasing it (but not removing the appeal to intuition - it's useful to newcomers, who are already expected to take in quite a lot when they first encounter us). I think you understand the intended sentiment well enough to make a sensible proposal.
I agree with what you're saying, but neither FE or RE has a monopoly on stupids or people who can't think critically.
Well, obviously. I think in this particular case it's worth focusing on the RE crowd because of the way the logic loops onto itself. They're so deeply convinced that we're wrong that they jump to the conclusion that we're never right. This thread (or, rather, its reshare on Twitter) featured many individuals who went "gotcha, you obviously altered the photo to make it look flat!" - clearly not bothering to even read the OP. Even if we were to concede that FE'ers are completely mistaken, a lazy and incorrect argument against us would only be harmful to everyone.
And yes, before you repeat yourself, you could very easily pick a different scenario with the roles swapped. Only one of us has control of MSM, however ;)
And yes, it is unfortunate that this sort of thing extends to the media, that - and the sheer amount of nonsense on the internet - makes it even more important that kids are taught to think logically and critically.
Yes - I'm slowly finding this to be a much more interesting and worthwhile endeavour than FET itself. FET yields itself well into the "question absolutely everything" mindset, but perhaps it doesn't go far enough. Perhaps a more general movement is needed.
-
If we renamed ourselves the Critical Thinking Society then the government actually would start sending assassins out to get us. Think about what you're doing, Pete. Let the grassroots grow first, don't try to jump straight to the world tree.
-
Yes - I'm slowly finding this to be a much more interesting and worthwhile endeavour than FET itself. FET yields itself well into the "question absolutely everything" mindset, but perhaps it doesn't go far enough. Perhaps a more general movement is needed.
The world doesn't work like this. You undoubtedly surround yourself with people you find interesting ... and that means they will have a similar IQ to you. And those people will be capable of critical thinking.
But the average IQ is 100. And 100 ... its not very smart. I wish that it were not true, but most people in life need to be told what to think, because they aren't capable of forming complex opinions of their own. Sure, they can decide for themselves that they are hungry, or that they want to go to the pub, or that their Facebook profile hasn't been updated in 3 days and that it can use a new selfie. But they can't decide if Capitalism is of any use. They can't decide if Marxism might be dangerous. If their college professor tells them that anything other than Socialism is a wicked and cruel thought, that's what they will believe. And that's why so much money is poured into political propaganda.
Those who would push nonsense ideas know that they will never convert you. And they don't care, because you are a minority (being smart) that will be obliterated at the ballot box. You are asking people to choose between right or wrong, when they are not capable of doing that. You have to make the argument simple so they can grasp it. And if that argument is "If you vote for me, I'll give you free stuff" ... that's as complicated as it is going to get. This is why soundbites exist. Anything more and average Joe Citizen has lost interest and has gone back to counting their Instagram likes. How do you make an entire country Nazis? How do you make an entire country Communists? Because they'll believe pretty much anything you tell them, as long as you keep it simple.
-
Yes - I'm slowly finding this to be a much more interesting and worthwhile endeavour than FET itself. FET yields itself well into the "question absolutely everything" mindset, but perhaps it doesn't go far enough. Perhaps a more general movement is needed.
The world doesn't work like this. You undoubtedly surround yourself with people you find interesting ...
I saw an interesting video a while back not quite about what you've said but it's along the same lines:
https://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bubbles#t-344730
This guy is talking about what he calls "filter bubbles", the idea that my Google results are filtered differently to yours even if we search for the same thing because of our interests or all kinds of criteria. And that can stop us seeing information which might challenge our way of thinking. I don't think there is anything malicious about this, they're trying to be helpful, to give us results they think we will be interested in, but the result is it can stop us broadening our horizons.
-
Yes - I'm slowly finding this to be a much more interesting and worthwhile endeavour than FET itself. FET yields itself well into the "question absolutely everything" mindset, but perhaps it doesn't go far enough. Perhaps a more general movement is needed.
That is why Rowbotham and Lady Blount called their societies the Zetetic Society and the Universal Zetetic Society rather than the Flat Earth Society.
-
Yes - I'm slowly finding this to be a much more interesting and worthwhile endeavour than FET itself. FET yields itself well into the "question absolutely everything" mindset, but perhaps it doesn't go far enough. Perhaps a more general movement is needed.
That is why Rowbotham and Lady Blount called their societies the Zetetic Society and the Universal Zetetic Society rather than the Flat Earth Society.
From Schadewald’s book:
"The founding meeting of the Universal Zetetic Society was apparently held on Wednesday, September 21, 1892, at John Williams’s Southwark home. [ref. 4.2] It’s not clear who besides Williams attended, though probably most of those selected to the UZS Committee were there. The founders decided on a name, a motto, an object, and a set of rules as follows:
OUR MOTTO
For God and His truth, as found in Nature and taught in His Word.
OUR OBJECT
The propagation of knowledge relating to Natural Cosmogony in confirmation of the Holy Scriptures, based upon practical investigation."
Definitely seems larger in scope than the subset of a flat earth.
-
Yes - I'm slowly finding this to be a much more interesting and worthwhile endeavour than FET itself. FET yields itself well into the "question absolutely everything" mindset, but perhaps it doesn't go far enough. Perhaps a more general movement is needed.
That is why Rowbotham and Lady Blount called their societies the Zetetic Society and the Universal Zetetic Society rather than the Flat Earth Society.
However both these societies were largely unsuccessful. More people on earth have heard of 'The Flat Earth Society' - it is part of the lexicon, than had ever head of The Universal Zetetic Society. I think keep the message simple ... the earth is flat. Where you go from there is another matter, but I don't think a rename would be a good idea.
-
To be clear, I was talking about myself and what I choose to do with my time. I have no intention of trying to transform FES into anything other than FES.
-
Nobody is proposing a conspiracy, and you seem to be the only person who insists on pretending otherwise. If you're going to just make up your opponents' arguments, is there any point in discussing things with you?
Perhaps there might be a reason for you not answering my question, and instead choosing to mock an argument I haven't made? ;)
There can't be a flat earth without a conspiracy to hide it for mankind. That makes every FE'er a conspiracy theorist by definition.
And I answered your question by explaining to you that if you believe the use of that Everest picture by the media has something to do with a lack of critical thinking, than that lack is on your side, not theirs.
-
There can't be a flat earth without a conspiracy to hide it for mankind.
You are, once again, changing the subject. You know perfectly well what "conspiracy" was relevant in the context of this discussion (You brought it up yourself!). Pretending not to know this context further cements your failure. If you aren't interested in an actual discussion, please, save us both the trouble.
And I answered your question by explaining to you that if you believe the use of that Everest picture by the media has something to do with a lack of critical thinking, than that lack is on your side, not theirs.
And we (FE'ers and RE'ers alike) have thoroughly debunked every aspect of your proposal - even when you changed your argument. It's up to you to defend it - not restate it without evidence.
-
You are, once again, changing the subject......
No sir, I did not change the subject. Introducing an argument you didn't mention is not changing the subject, it is introducing an argument you didn't mention.
And we (FE'ers and RE'ers alike) have thoroughly debunked every aspect of your proposal....
No sir, you, neither someone else, debunked anything I saïd on this subject. Your own claim that the use of the Everest picture is a symptom of a decline in critical thinking by the media is your personal biased opinion.
Your comment that my counter-arguments are not valid because I can't prove it, is in this discussion a false argument for als long als your own initial statement is not proven and no more than your personal but unfounded opinion.
So, if proof is essential for you, let's turn back to the core of this discussion; the title of this thread says that the decline of critical thinking is exemplified by the use of the Everest photo. Now where is your evidence, how do you prove that "lack of critical thinking" is the only right answer on the question why they used this picture without debunking it als proof for the globe?
-
Okay, I'm done with you. You keep arguing against things that nobody is claiming (and strawmanning your conversation partners is fundamentally different from just introducing a new argument - again, you fail).
If at any point you feel like actually contributing, let me know
-
Ah, now there's a brief breath of fresh air. Metro.co.uk (a large British newspaper run by the same group as perhaps the slightly more internationally-known Daily Mail) have now covered the OP (https://metro.co.uk/2018/09/05/flat-earther-busts-everest-picture-everyone-is-using-to-prove-earth-is-round-7916632/) (or at least the Everest photo aspect of it) without attempting to skew what I'm saying, but rather acknowledging the point. On the off-chance that Rob Waugh, the author of the article, sees this: thank you!
And then there's this tabloid (https://www.sickchirpse.com/flat-earther-pretty-good-counter-argument-photo-proving-earth-round/) who doesn't seem to have understood anything of what I said.
-
Ah, now there's a brief breath of fresh air. Metro.co.uk (a large British newspaper run by the same group as perhaps the slightly more internationally-known Daily Mail) have now covered the OP (https://metro.co.uk/2018/09/05/flat-earther-busts-everest-picture-everyone-is-using-to-prove-earth-is-round-7916632/) (or at least the Everest photo aspect of it) without attempting to skew what I'm saying, but rather acknowledging the point. On the off-chance that Rob Waugh, the author of the article, sees this: thank you!
And then there's this tabloid (https://www.sickchirpse.com/flat-earther-pretty-good-counter-argument-photo-proving-earth-round/) who doesn't seem to have understood anything of what I said.
I've actually heard of both Metro and Daily Mail. Nice to see the piece even if it took you saying something about it to create one, and they're certainly far less begrudging than that second one.
-
Ah, now there's a brief breath of fresh air. Metro.co.uk (a large British newspaper run by the same group as perhaps the slightly more internationally-known Daily Mail) have now covered the OP (https://metro.co.uk/2018/09/05/flat-earther-busts-everest-picture-everyone-is-using-to-prove-earth-is-round-7916632/) (or at least the Everest photo aspect of it) without attempting to skew what I'm saying, but rather acknowledging the point. On the off-chance that Rob Waugh, the author of the article, sees this: thank you!
And then there's this tabloid (https://www.sickchirpse.com/flat-earther-pretty-good-counter-argument-photo-proving-earth-round/) who doesn't seem to have understood anything of what I said.
Some mighty fine backlinks you just got us there.
I'm surprised they went to print with it. normally if we are right about something, it gets ignored.
-
normally if we are right about something, it gets ignored.
So, all the time? ;)
-
Ah, now there's a brief breath of fresh air. Metro.co.uk (a large British newspaper run by the same group as perhaps the slightly more internationally-known Daily Mail) have now covered the OP (https://metro.co.uk/2018/09/05/flat-earther-busts-everest-picture-everyone-is-using-to-prove-earth-is-round-7916632/) (or at least the Everest photo aspect of it) without attempting to skew what I'm saying, but rather acknowledging the point. On the off-chance that Rob Waugh, the author of the article, sees this: thank you!
And then there's this tabloid (https://www.sickchirpse.com/flat-earther-pretty-good-counter-argument-photo-proving-earth-round/) who doesn't seem to have understood anything of what I said.
Nice to see an article that looks at both sides. However if it's intelligent and critical thinking your going for I would be careful about linking to these 2 newspapers. The Daily Mail is basically just a tabloid trying to give off an image of a more credible newspaper. It's far closer the The Sun and The Mirror in terms of content and decent journalism. The Metro is a bit better but again I wouldn't put too much stock in it. It's a free newspaper given out on the morning commute. Nothing wrong with that, it's just I know from previous reading the level of journalism that this paper contains.
-
I found this interesting, so I created a 360° panorama - now you can see precisely how the photo fits in context.
https://kuula.co/post/792h3
The red line is your eye level - a plane, viewed from in the plane. It will always appear as a straight line.
The purple line is your sea-level horizon, at 2.9° below eye level (as calculated with Walter Bislin's earth curvature calculator, http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Advanced+Earth+Curvature+Calculator).
Note that the purple line is the edge of a planar circle. You can see the curvature of the edge because you are not in the plane - you are looking down at it from above.