I've always desired to speak with you
« on: March 09, 2021, 05:57:04 PM »
Hello everyone

I apologize in advance for make any mistake in my English (non native speaker here).

This is my very first post. I've just logged. I'll thank you to take the time to read this introduction.

I have long time wanting to find respectable 'flat earthers' to speak with, but when I look for communities in google, results are exclusively from 'anti flat earthers POV. Then I searched with other engines but happened the same thing. I found a forum, but when browsed the topics, there were only messages from not flat earthers, insulting and mocking. Finally I tried in English and found some sites, like this one. I hope in the end be able to share some ideas.

I used to be a positive science enthusiast, but  let me tell you something shocked me a couple years ago: YouTube started censoring flat earth content. So, myself have been banned several times in several sites for different reasons. BY saying things I know are the truth. When Flat earth things were banned, I knew the main-stream is scared of you the same way is scared of other people who hold the truth. In other words, only stupid entertainment, shitty content and mainstream speech is allowed. When something is banned, the  main reason uses to be, such a thing is the truth.

Important: I'm not a flat earther. But I am neither a 'science believer'. In name of science have been told the biggest lies in recent history. Before this, lies were told in name of god (and other things). The bad thing is not the science, but they who use its name to speak (to lie).

The proofs about a round earth are irrefutable
Are they?
I was educated in math and science, and think they are, in fact, scientific proof (the shadow of this planet in the moon, the climate, the simultaneous shadow longitudes of distant obelisks, etc). But, whether these proofs come from the reality or these proofs sustain a reality, is other business. I strongly think, these irrefutable proofs sustain a reality. And that's why becomes sacred (what is at once, a non scientific principle). He who doubts of that sacred, is gonna be punished (ridiculed, banned, rejected). Why? That is no part of the science, as is it in fact the doubt. But science has become a religion.

And, beyond my education, I had other life experiences. So I am not a science fanatic. I pretty know how power uses today the science and other figures (the law, the politically correct) to turn into sacred some or other believes. But the truth is never tied to those figures. The truth is the truth by itself, independent of respect to law or not, being correct or not, or being 'scientific' or not. So, after knowing this, by simple (and extremely underrated) intuition, I find exactly the same strategy of perceptual monopolization against flat earth theory than against other theories. The main stream bans and fight against some topics in such a furious way, I started thinking they are afraid. The search results about the topic 'flat earth' are exclusive, page after page, from articles speaking about in third person, specially with vehement reactions of dignity and mocking. But hardly you find something said by someone who is a flat earther.

It is exactly, traced the same, what happens with other sacred believing systems, almost religions, and against the theories that refuses them. I have some examples, but they are in effect (sadly) so sacred I prefer don't mention them because probably offend somebody.

I'm not a flat earther but I afford doubt of what I (believe) I know.
I amply know the education and main stream give us a version of life and world that is only what is supposed for us to 'know'. You realize that via intuition, that is a sense not officially recognized by science, so is pseudo-scientific  and then, automatically, fringe and invalid. By being not scientific, is not test susceptible, and can't be proved. So is depictable. This scheme explains how proof must fit to pre-existing model (science), and thus, proof is intended to sustain reality, instead of being something coming from it. When proof doesn't fit to sustained reality, are rejected.
Science (or the power that manages it) has been able to lift a lot of new knowledge, proudly scientific, that labels people who gives value to phenomenons that do not sustain reality or the accepted world. Example: The Apophenia and Pareidolia, are strictly scientific and respectable concepts that explain how pseudo-scientificists think. Easy or not? Is a well valued bias: «If you think different, it is because you have this specific condition». I have a lot of examples, but wont extend too much here.

In the topic of flat earth, being not a flat earther, my opinion is this one:
When I played Pacman, I realized the pacman exits in the left of the screen and re-appears in the right. So, for him, its world is round (or at least, cylindrical), it doesn't matter we see it flat. Now think from the perspective of the pacman. It says «the world is cylindrical» but you tell him «no, it is flat» but it thinks you are wrong. Imagine now you are the pacman. You don't think you 'diss-apear' in one side to 're-appear' in the opposite one. You, the pacman, simply 'go around, directly'.
So, flat or round earth depends on the viewer. And there's no a wrong or correct view, only the specific view.

And the view we are (commanded, obligated?) to adopt is exclusively that irrefutably proved by science, in which earth is round and nothing else.
I would say not this if weren't so obvious the religious character of the round dogma.

I think, in a 3D universe (plus the time strand), the earth is round. Round. Period.

But...

In this same universe, but appreciated with evolved eyes (he who plays the pacman, and not the pacman), with more than 3D, is not necessary for earth to be round. Why is almost a crime to consider this? Why they want us to stay confined in a 3D universe? Of course (and how convenient it is), everything related to a universe understood in more than 3 dimensions (specially all about spirituality, which encompasses the intuition) is pseudo-scientific, fringe and depictable.

Well, that's it.

I hope have been clear and in some way, helpful.


« Last Edit: March 09, 2021, 06:10:13 PM by Juan Manuel »
The worst crime is to defend the truth