"Flat Earth" photo, and why it's so hard to debunk pseudoscience

Flat Earth Theory
Watch for this Photoshopped image to appear on the net as "proof" that the Earth is flat.

https://diqn32j8nouaz.cloudfront.net/flat_earth.jpg

Why do people believe this garbage? A decent answer is: poor critical thinking skills and the proliferation of pseudoscience.

After that, it may be because of something called Escalation of commitment - when our position is challenged, we "ramp up" our belief about it, to the point that we are too committed to retract it. We've all done this!

What if we were to put some flat Earth believers into a spaceship, and launch them into space, so that they could see for themselves that the Earth is not flat?

This is something called Disconfirmed expectancy, where we observe something that contradicts our beliefs.

Upon seeing the Earth from outer space, would the flat Earth believers then say: "I was wrong?"


When Prophecy Fails
Social psychologists Leon Festinger, Henry Riecken, and Stanley Schachter famously studied this phenomenon, and wrote about it in When Prophecy Fails. The psychologists pretended to be members of a doomsday cult headed by a housewife named Dorothy Martin. Martin claimed that her extraterrestrial communications had foretold that the world would end in a great flood on December 21st, 1954, and that her cult of true believers would be rescued from this disaster by a flying saucer sent from a planet called Clarion.

Here's Martin in the center. Behind her is a doctor named Charles Laughead who endorsed her position, and I believe some of her other followers:

https://diqn32j8nouaz.cloudfront.net/dorothy_martin.jpg

So, on the night of December 21st, 1954, the doomsday cult, headed by Martin, and secretly infiltrated by social psychologists, went outside to wait for the flying saucer from the planet Clarion. This was a big deal at the time, and was covered in the press.

https://diqn32j8nouaz.cloudfront.net...n_laughead.jpg

Needless to say, the Earth was not destroyed in a flood, and the flying saucer never arrived.

Did the cultists then abandon the cult, now that Martin had been proven wrong? No. Most of them stayed. In fact, their devotion to the cult increased. We call this Belief perseverance.

Martin then claimed that she received another extraterrestrial message, notifying her that, because of her followers' faith, the Earth had been spared from destruction. Martin had saved her cultists from a fate worse than the Earth being destroyed - admitting that they were wrong.


The Semmelweis Reflex
Why, when presented with evidence contradicting our beliefs, do we reflexively reject it? This is called the Semmelweis reflex, after Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis, a Hungarian obstetrician. Here's Semmelweis:

https://diqn32j8nouaz.cloudfront.net...semmelweis.jpg


Dr. Semmelweis made a very important medical discovery in 1847. This discovery significantly reduced the fatality rate of newly-born infants. Semmelweis tried to convince his colleagues of this discovery, but they would not believe him. They said his findings lacked scientific reasoning. They ridiculed him, and he lost his job. Semmelweis had a mental breakdown; he was confined to an insane asylum, where he eventually died.

Dr. Semmelweis's rejected medical discovery was: washing your hands.

Semmelweis discovered that when obstetricians washed their hands with a disinfectant, the mortality rate of babies in their care suddenly dropped. Semmelweis had carefully logged the data, which is still accepted to this day:

https://diqn32j8nouaz.cloudfront.net...lweis_data.jpg

Years after Semmelweis died, his theories were confirmed by Louis Pasteur and others, and mankind officially accepted that many diseases were caused by micro-organisms we call "germs", and that one of the most important things doctors could do was to wash their hands. Semmelweis is a medical hero in modern times. The oldest medical school in Hungary was renamed Semmelweis University. Hospitals are named after him. Multiple statues of Semmelweis were made. He even appears on a 2008 Austrian coin.

But in his own time, he was ridiculed and driven to insanity. After all, this was in the Golden Age of Medicine; doctors were considered scientists and gentlemen. It was wrong to accuse such upstanding gentlemen of killing babies with tiny creatures that lived on their hands.


Pseudoscience in Modern Times
But what about sane, grown adults, living in modern times (not in 1847), who aren't members of a cult? Do they really believe crazy stuff like that the Earth is flat?

Here we have Sherri Shepherd, a comedian and former co-host of a very popular talk show called The View, claiming that she doesn't know whether the Earth is flat or not. 2:33 clip, but I've queued it up to the critical part at 0:59:

<iframe class="restrain" title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/UkrkaH_V7fE?wmode=opaque&amp;start=59" frameborder="0" id="yui-gen6"></iframe>

Ironically, in the clip above, another co-host, actress and comedian Whoopi Goldberg, positions herself as the rational and scientifically-minded person. Among technically-minded people, Goldberg is most recognizable as the wise and respected Guinan character on Star Trek: The Next Generation, whose legendary "intuition" is often called on to save the crew of explorers when their scientific knowledge fails them.

Here she is dispensing her sage advice to a perplexed Captain Picard (is that a model of the Earth on her head? ;) )

https://diqn32j8nouaz.cloudfront.net/guinan.jpg

And here's a 1:43 clip of Whoopi Goldberg herself, real name Caryn Johnson, publicly questioning whether we really ever landed on the moon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAlqQmiDesE

Both Goldberg and Shepherd have legitimate contributions to make to the non-technical components of society. It seems like they each encountered a chunk of pseudoscience, carefully crafted to their Confirmation biases, and they didn't have the technical skills necessary to decode it.


Strategies for Countering Pseudoscience
So what do we do to counter beliefs that we know are pseudoscientific? If we just tell people "You're wrong", it often has the opposite effect, and it strengthens their Belief perseverance. We've all seen this happen in internet discussions. Have you ever "won" an argument on the internet? In almost 20 years online, I don't think I ever have.

Here are some tactics that will probably fail:

-You're wrong.
-You're stupid.
-Here's a rebuttal quoting all of your wrong points...
-Here's a long explanation of why you're wrong...
-It's you vs. me, and here's why the winner is me...


Although there are a few studies examining online debate techniques, we don't yet have much data. However, here's a strategy that works in consideration of Escalation of commitment, Disconfirmed expectancy, Semmelweis reflex, and Belief perseverance:

-State something correct that the person said.
-Carefully state convincing evidence, without attacking their position.
-Create a positional "exit ramp" for them to gracefully change their mind. If they can't save face, they won't change their mind.
-Don't counter their one-sided argument with your one-sided argument.
-Hedge, instead of being forceful. Say things like "possibly", "potentially", "maybe".
-Keep to the high road. Present yourself as someone whose side they would like to be on in the future. You're an ambassador for your position.
-Don't punish them for admitting they were wrong; reward them. Avoid an "I was right all along" mentality. They need to be able to join your worldview as a respected and equal member.
-Wait. Be patient. Let them come and go, gaining repeated exposure to your worldview.


Will this work? Usually not. From everything I've read, it's extremely difficult to get people to change their minds. However, if you present your position well, a process called Normalization will occur, by which the person slowly alters their norm from the conspiracy theory to the truth. Because you never antagonized them, they feel safe in admitting their error. At that point, they can be recruited into a fellow debunker.


More:
Moon landing conspiracy in popular culture
Modern flat Earth societies

Previously: https://www.homemadetools.net/forum/...2417#post96268

WOW! Who would believe that??? :lol:

The "Flat Earth Society" claims that their group is the largest one on the globe!

I've encountered many otherwise seemingly rational and intelligent people who firmly believe that no man has ever been into space let alone land and walk on the moon. To them the entire space program is nothing more than some Hollywood backed publicity scheme conceived by the Scientologist

I think it all starts with indoctrinating children to believe in something called 'God' whose powers are so far fetched as to be absolutely unbelieveable but believe people do.
Apparently there are different 'Gods' for different people and every one of them is the only 'True God'.
Many years ago I deliberately went mad to stop myself going insane trying to argue with the various 'God bothers'. How does the human race survive?

Found one of the Semmelweis coins. This is a €50 gold coin minted in 2008.

Look at the reverse side photo. They're washing their hands! :cool:

https://diqn32j8nouaz.cloudfront.net...in_obverse.jpg

https://diqn32j8nouaz.cloudfront.net...in_reverse.jpg

Says aligemeines krankenhaus wien - Vienna General Hospital.

This was a fascinating, well-thought-out, and well-researched article. It was also chock full of hubris. I'm not saying I believe in these strange conspiracy theories, but just because you've been told that they are false by some self-righteous scientist on TV doesn't mean you should immediately discount it either. I've learned over my many years to be comfortable with the phrase "I don't know." Is the Earth flat? I doubt it, but I've never been in orbit to see for myself. Therefore, "I don't know." Was the moon landing faked? Probably not, but I haven't been to the moon, OR seen evidence of the landing through a telescope. Therefore, "I don't know."

To be absolutely and supremely confident about something you haven't actually witnessed with your own eyes is simply the OTHER extreme from the wild-eyed conspiracy nuts. It makes a person into a wild-eyed conspiracy hater, and no better than the people they ridicule.

...Just a thought to consider.

Cybersam

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cybersam

To be absolutely and supremely confident about something you haven't actually witnessed with your own eyes is simply the OTHER extreme from the wild-eyed conspiracy nuts. It makes a person into a wild-eyed conspiracy hater, and no better than the people they ridicule.

---

Intelligent skepticism is always healthy but at some point one has to begin relying on the credible research and experimentation that has gone before. It's simply not possible to confirm everything personally and, if you try, you'll never get anything useful accomplished.

Are you seriously suggesting that everyone has to go into space to convince themselves that the earth is not flat?

It's an interesting point. Obviously, we don't believe that the Earth is flat. But how are we not succumbing to Semmelweis reflex ourselves?

Each example above plays out differently.

Flat Earth Theory - This one is the easiest. We can reasonably verify that the Earth is round without examining it from a far distance.

Moon Landing Conspiracy Theory - the conspiracists use observation in light of physical laws to make their position, just like scientists, but their analysis is very shallow. Here's a common example:

Science tells us that there's no wind on the moon. But, look at the photo below: we can clearly see that the US flag on the moon is "waving" in the breeze. Therefore, according to science, it must be fake!

https://diqn32j8nouaz.cloudfront.net/moon_flag1.jpg

It's true, there's essentially no wind on the moon (except that created by the Lunar Module). So how is the flag waving? Is it a conspiracy? When we analyze the flag photo more closely, we can see that there's a top support bar holding it in place. The flag is crinkled because it was folded up to conserve precious space in transit, not because it's waving in the breeze.

https://diqn32j8nouaz.cloudfront.net/moon_flag2.jpg

In fact, we know that properly flying the flag on the moon was VERY important, but difficult, so NASA engineers came up with a purpose-specific Lunar Flag Assembly Kit:

https://diqn32j8nouaz.cloudfront.net/moon_flag3.gif

In fact, for the second moon landing, Apollo 12, the astronauts couldn't get the horizontal pole to latch correctly, and the flag just dangled like this:

https://diqn32j8nouaz.cloudfront.net/moon_flag4.jpg

Dorothy Martin UFO Cult - Interestingly, analyzing this one is a little tougher. After all, don't we intervene in and "save" other less-intelligent animal species when their habitat is being destroyed? The universe is vast; it's reasonable to guess that it contains other intelligent life, and that such life would both be able to predict a world-ending catastrophe on Earth, and would want to intervene to preserve our civilization. In this case, our best bet is to apply the concept of "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Martin's claim was extraordinary, but her evidence was very skimpy.

Similarly, "We landed on the moon" is an extraordinary claim. But, the third party evidence for Apollo Moon landings is also extraordinary, so it's reasonable to believe the claim.

This is the difference between pseudoscience (fake use of science), and simply saying "We don't know."

So, cybersam, in that regard, yes, I agree. The best answer is always "We don't know." In fact, some scientists believe that the true secrets of technology are indeed concealed from us. Not because corporations are "hiding free energy" or the government is concealing a pill that turns water into gasoline or similar such nonsense. The belief is simply that when revolutionary scientific discoveries occur, they're immediately and wrongfully dismissed, because of Semmelweis reflex.

More broadly, we can look at Brain in a vat theory, which is an example of Simulation hypothesis. This concept is commonly explored in popular culture, most notably with the movie The Matrix. Brain in a vat theory proposes that our reality is simulated, and that everything that we think is real is just being fed to a brain sitting in a vat in a lab. We can't prove or disprove this theory, and we may never be able to do so.

"...The universe is vast; it's reasonable to guess that it contains other intelligent life..."

Waddaya mean "other"? I've got my doubts about its existence here.

Are we alone in the universe? Yes or no, the answer is equally scary.

Religion says "yes" but religion's track record on getting scientific questions right is pretty poor; just ask Galileo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon

It's an interesting point. Obviously, we don't believe that the Earth is flat. But how are we not succumbing to Semmelweis reflex ourselves?

Each example above plays out differently.

Flat Earth Theory - This one is the easiest. We can reasonably verify that the Earth is round without examining it from a far distance.

Moon Landing Conspiracy Theory - the conspiracists use observation in light of physical laws to make their position, just like scientists, but their analysis is very shallow. Here's a common example:

Science tells us that there's no wind on the moon. But, look at the photo below: we can clearly see that the US flag on the moon is "waving" in the breeze. Therefore, according to science, it must be fake!

https://diqn32j8nouaz.cloudfront.net/moon_flag1.jpg

It's true, there's essentially no wind on the moon (except that created by the Lunar Module). So how is the flag waving? Is it a conspiracy? When we analyze the flag photo more closely, we can see that there's a top support bar holding it in place. The flag is crinkled because it was folded up to conserve precious space in transit, not because it's waving in the breeze.

https://diqn32j8nouaz.cloudfront.net/moon_flag2.jpg

In fact, we know that properly flying the flag on the moon was VERY important, but difficult, so NASA engineers came up with a purpose-specific Lunar Flag Assembly Kit:

https://diqn32j8nouaz.cloudfront.net/moon_flag3.gif

In fact, for the second moon landing, Apollo 12, the astronauts couldn't get the horizontal pole to latch correctly, and the flag just dangled like this:

https://diqn32j8nouaz.cloudfront.net/moon_flag4.jpg

Dorothy Martin UFO Cult - Interestingly, analyzing this one is a little tougher. After all, don't we intervene in and "save" other less-intelligent animal species when their habitat is being destroyed? The universe is vast; it's reasonable to guess that it contains other intelligent life, and that such life would both be able to predict a world-ending catastrophe on Earth, and would want to intervene to preserve our civilization. In this case, our best bet is to apply the concept of "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Martin's claim was extraordinary, but her evidence was very skimpy.

Similarly, "We landed on the moon" is an extraordinary claim. But, the third party evidence for Apollo Moon landings is also extraordinary, so it's reasonable to believe the claim.

This is the difference between pseudoscience (fake use of science), and simply saying "We don't know."

So, cybersam, in that regard, yes, I agree. The best answer is always "We don't know." In fact, some scientists believe that the true secrets of technology are indeed concealed from us. Not because corporations are "hiding free energy" or the government is concealing a pill that turns water into gasoline or similar such nonsense. The belief is simply that when revolutionary scientific discoveries occur, they're immediately and wrongfully dismissed, because of Semmelweis reflex.

More broadly, we can look at Brain in a vat theory, which is an example of Simulation hypothesis. This concept is commonly explored in popular culture, most notably with the movie The Matrix. Brain in a vat theory proposes that our reality is simulated, and that everything that we think is real is just being fed to a brain sitting in a vat in a lab. We can't prove or disprove this theory, and we may never be able to do so.

---

Well stated. In I believe one day this theory will be able to be proven either in truth or being false. However I do not believe this will be able until the human brain evolves (sorry creationist humans do evolve and have been doing so since for lack of a better explanation their creation, more on that later) anyway when the brain evolves to the point that we are able to consciously tap into what I call the universal pool of knowledge we may find this to be just that a large vat with a single brain in it. Using vat as an analogy only for I doubt very seriously it will be vessel of any sorts containing a lump of living tissue emitting neuro-electrical pulses feeding the throng of people walking around on the planet's surface. I don believe however that one may find again for lack of a better word a vast cloud if you will of pure energy which is not feeding to but absorbing from every living thing on the planet. Saying planet only to limit this to something closer to where we can understand not trying to include the entire realm of possible beings or entities of the known and possibly unknown universes.
Now back to evolution when an infant human is born it does not automatically know how to do much of anything, it has to be taught, but if one were to measure the intellectual level of a 1 year old say 200 years ago and measure that of one the same age born recently you will find many behavioral differences. Now one may say these differences are due to parental intervention the way infants are handled and treated today as opposed to 200 years ago. To that I say possibly but that would not explain why by 12 months of age most infants are now walking many even already possessing certain motor skills which were not the norm back say 200 years ago and almost certainly by age 4 or 5 children have a much faster capacity for learning new things. I'm not discounting the availability to modern technology has not in all likelihood contributed to this. I believe the human brain has evolved and may be evolving at an exponential rate
Be honest now for those of you who are old enough to remember when hand held calculators came on the scene and the very first one you ever tried to use. How long did it take you to master all of the complex functions of the simple 10 key machine which only did four basic functions adding subtracting multiplying and division. I'll tell you if you were 10 years old it took you as long as a week to become comfortable with one hand a 5 year old your smart phone today and in an hour it will have hacked your personal information found all of your stored photos and probably read your emails and texts as well.
SO if my theory of a universal consciousness has any merit what so ever what will the minds of 5 year old's be like in another 100 200 or 300 years. Will a 20 year old prodigy be able to wake up one morning with no prior knowledge decide it wants to learn everything there is about mixing amalgamated metals then right after breakfast go out and be able to combine 5 to 15 of the primary periodical elements with a few secondary elements and come up with a previously unknown synthetic metal structure that me might call unobtainium today l.
I just DON"T KNOW LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mklotz

"...The universe is vast; it's reasonable to guess that it contains other intelligent life..."

Waddaya mean "other"? I've got my doubts about its existence here.

Are we alone in the universe? Yes or no, the answer is equally scary.

Religion says "yes" but religion's track record on getting scientific questions right is pretty poor; just ask Galileo.

---

Amen brother! :)

All my life has been spent trying to understand human behavior(starting with my parents)and the most baffling of this is to have such inflexible "belief" that you are impervious to any kind of logic.

A book I found facinating was "A First Rate Madness" by Nassir Ghaemi. He studied presidents and generals and found those he called homoclite that were supposedly "normal" were ok when things were going good. But horrible in a crisis, basically deer in a headlight and more likely to double down than to understand they are not responding creatively. And would never admit they were wrong nor change course.

On the other side Lincoln, Churchill, Kennedy etc each had mental problems and not particularly good when things were just going along. But excelled when in a crisis. I blame homoclite majority for Nixon's landslide in '72 despite Watergate and I'll leave it at that with that one of many blunders.

My old neighbor was a really "regular guy", would give you the shirt off his back. But evangelical that KNEW humans were the only people in exsistence, the Earth was 14,000 years old(because there's no way carbon dating works) etc. His belief was real and anything to the contrary was not, period, end of story.

Carl Sagan explains how Eratosthenes, the chief librarian at the Library of Alexandria and the inventor of geometry, became the first person to calculate the circumference of the Earth over 2,000 years ago.

<video controls autoplay loop>
<source src="https://diqn32j8nouaz.cloudfront.net/carl_sagan_explains_why_earth_is_round.mp4" type="video/mp4">
Your browser does not support the video tag.
</video>


More: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes

If you accept that the earth revolves around the sun and the moon revolves around the earth (yeah, there are lots of people who don't), then the earth must cast a shadow on the moon.

The shadow so cast is always circular; there's never a line image of a flat earth. For the shadow to be circular, the presumed circular and flat earth must have its axis of symmetry always pointed at the moon.

Thus the sun must always be on the side opposite ours of the flat earth to cast the shadow. But this means there would be no daylight for the side we live on. If the sun is on the side to illuminate us, it can't cast an earth shadow on the moon. Or alternately, the moon is always on the dark side, in which case we can't see the moon.

Whenever you encounter a flat-earther, get him to explain the phases of the moon; fun for hours.

Incidentally, it was the persistent circular shadow on the moon that led the early Greeks to hypothesize a spherical earth, since only that shape would always cast a circular shadow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mklotz

If you accept that the earth revolves around the sun and the moon revolves around the earth (yeah, there are lots of people who don't), then the earth must cast a shadow on the moon.

The shadow so cast is always circular; there's never a line image of a flat earth. For the shadow to be circular, the presumed circular and flat earth must have its axis of symmetry always pointed at the moon.

Thus the sun must always be on the side opposite ours of the flat earth to cast the shadow. But this means there would be no daylight for the side we live on. If the sun is on the side to illuminate us, it can't cast an earth shadow on the moon. Or alternately, the moon is always on the dark side, in which case we can't see the moon.

Whenever you encounter a flat-earther, get him to explain the phases of the moon; fun for hours.

Incidentally, it was the persistent circular shadow on the moon that led the early Greeks to hypothesize a spherical earth, since only that shape would always cast a circular shadow.

---

Yes but their argument would then be that the that the earth must be a flat disk so it can cast a circular shadow on the moon causing the lunar phases as it swings like a button suspended from its middle on a string. Flat Earther's can be very entertaining when questioned on their beliefs.
Like mklotz said fun for hours

It's always amusing to hear a globehead make their claims that the earth is a ball, and they always do so by making numerous assumptions that prove they are flawed. In this video, Carl Sagan makes the assumption, which is the same assumption that Eratosthenes made (at 1:01), that the sun is "so far away that it's rays are parallel". First of all, no one KNOWS just how far the sun is away, scientists change the distance all the time. Is it a million miles away, or is it just 1,000 miles? Every claim is nothing more than an "educated" guess, a theory! Flat earthers understand that the earth is flat and that the sun is only a few thousand miles away, which not only means that it would cast different length shadows on those two obelisks but also means that it is NOT as huge as "scientists" IMAGINE it to be. Do you think it is just a coincidence that the moon and sun are the SAME SIZE in the sky? So considering the smaller size and the closer location, it is EASY to show how the phases of the moon are made on a flat earth. And, by the way, if the persistent circular shadow on the moon is what led the early Greeks to hypothesize a spherical earth, then they were NOT as intelligent as everyone thinks, because it is NOT the only way that would always cast a circular shadow-- shine a flashlight on a ball and you'll see that the light conforms to the shape of the ball -- no straight line.

If you shine a flashlight on a ball, the light conforms to the surface of the ball, hence a "circular" shadow -- a flat earth doesn't have to be a disk! Besides, on a flat earth, neither the sun nor the moon ever go behind the earth, so the earth is NOT the shadow. The size of the shadow is entirely dependent on the distance between the two. :hattip: :idea:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rattlerjake

It's always amusing to hear a globehead...

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

flat heads.

"Sphere mongers"

with flat brains.

Me: 'Tell me you're not a sailor, without telling me you're not a sailor...'

Flat-Earther: 'Earth is flat!'

any moron can tell the earth aint flat. even saylors. and possibly some demoncrats too. but not many as they cant pull thier heads out of the slave masters ass.

If the earth is flat, why isn’t the moon?

because it has been corrupted by the dark side.

Lol....."Just ask Galileo".
His statements [verbal, written and that digit] are my favorite in clash between proof and beliefs, certainly not only instances that such debunking occurs.

Can't exceed 100 mph. There aren't particles that small; well ok, but you cannot split them. Signals can only be transmitted visually. Cannot assemble a timepiece that will remain accurate at sea...(so then) You can't circumnavigate globe. Can't escape gravitational pull of earth. (IDK, wouldn't their flat earth have very low gravity?). Ballistics, especially trajectories were considered black magic. You can't build a skyscraper safely. You can't maintain a skyscraper vertically (on such a small footprint).
You can't teach an old dog new tricks?
You Can't Judge a Book By Looking At The Cover?
Ahem; ya'll know my penchant for musical references.

Call me ornery, call me orrery, either way heliocentric.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rattlerjake

It's always amusing to hear a globehead make their claims that the earth is a ball, and they always do so by making numerous assumptions that prove they are flawed. In this video, Carl Sagan makes the assumption, which is the same assumption that Eratosthenes made (at 1:01), that the sun is "so far away that it's rays are parallel". First of all, no one KNOWS just how far the sun is away, scientists change the distance all the time. Is it a million miles away, or is it just 1,000 miles? Every claim is nothing more than an "educated" guess, a theory! Flat earthers understand that the earth is flat and that the sun is only a few thousand miles away, which not only means that it would cast different length shadows on those two obelisks but also means that it is NOT as huge as "scientists" IMAGINE it to be. Do you think it is just a coincidence that the moon and sun are the SAME SIZE in the sky? So considering the smaller size and the closer location, it is EASY to show how the phases of the moon are made on a flat earth. And, by the way, if the persistent circular shadow on the moon is what led the early Greeks to hypothesize a spherical earth, then they were NOT as intelligent as everyone thinks, because it is NOT the only way that would always cast a circular shadow-- shine a flashlight on a ball and you'll see that the light conforms to the shape of the ball -- no straight line.

---

Excellent hypothesis.
Meanwhile, pray tell then, why well made shotguns have two beads aligned on the rib, and that at muzzle is slightly larger.
Inline with that, both rifles and hand guns have a rear sight notch/ aperture and blade/ post at front. Familiar with what are essentially standard available sizes?
https://www.brownells.com/rifle-parts/sights/index.htm
https://www.brownells.com/handgun-pa...ghts/index.htm
https://www.brownells.com/shotgun-pa...ghts/index.htm

Comparing a flashlight's meager filament to the Sun's every apparent square inch generating light, and substantial heat. Both those figure into computation [approaching verification] of distance in triangulation, that trigonometry compares with respectable percentage. It's distance is also computed in comparison with ranging by laser to other targeted bodies; by well documented divergence of the beam...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mklotz

.... at some point one has to begin relying on the credible research and experimentation that has gone before.

---

You would be correct if it was "credible research and experimentation", but considering that NASA is the only one who can verify it, it cannot be considered credible. Credible is when others are able to do the same research and experiment to verify the findings.

Supposedly the earth averages 9 million miles from the sun. So how is it that an astrophotographer can take a detailed photo of the sun, but NO ONE has been able to take a detailed photo of the ISS and it is only 220 miles? And his photo of the sun was done with a modified telescope, not the hubble, or one at an observatory. https://hyperallergic.com/697829/thi...s-going-viral/ Then look at what NASA claims to be their most detailed "photo" of the sun; scroll down at this link to NASA's photo https://www.republicworld.com/techno...-see-pics.html. If you believe that is a photo, you're blind in one eye and can't see out of the other!

About all I'm willing to contribute at 04:00 CST......
a] https://www.google.com/search?q=why+...client=gws-wiz

b] Spare 1.02 seconds, and review any quantity of results. Plenty to chose from, a nice round 299,000,000 items...first was Huygens in 1653 via phases of Venus.
https://www.google.com/search?client...e+from+the+sun. With quill pen and paper, and early slide rule likely. Estimates are acceptable in realm of figuratively infinite calculations. That subsequent researchers have used different bodies or methods only reinforces the entirety, ever narrowing range of error(s).

c] re Flat Earth;
Mt. Everest @ 8,848 meters (29,029 ft) ~ 5.50 miles
+ Marianas Trench @ 11,034 meters (36,201 feet) ~ 7.0 miles
rather assures a minimum 19,882 meters (65,230 ft) ~ 12.35 miles 'thickness', minimum.
What remains unclear, how large is the drain plug?
Convention says about 2412.17 meters (41785656 ft) ~7913.95 miles, from two points roughly equatorial in latitudinal position and mere 6018947 meters or 3740 mi that is 19°8'10" apart (about 1.28 time zone which are 15° each.)

d] We'll await description where those pesky 340° 51' 46.8" are...........

i wonder if the flat earth is square ( as in cube)...with the corners rounded off...and put on the flats....and...there we have it the flat earth is now rounder with mountains.( any ****ing moron can clearly tell that a mountain is not flat...well most ****ing morons can.

Found these memes the other day, and can't still decide whether they're "truely" meant to be taken seriously, or are just tongue-in-cheek:

Attachment 41228 Attachment 41229

Attachment 41230 Attachment 41231

Where's the meme for mathematics? That's the field of study by which they seem most confounded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marksbug

i wonder if the flat earth is square...with the corners rounded off...and put on the flats....and...there we have it the fat earth is now rounder with mountains.( any ****ing moron can clearly tell that a mountain is not flat...well most ****ing morons can.

---

Lol. Started out like a folded pizza, then opened and connected with those sides now adjacent. Like a fanfold Hallmark ball Christmas decoration! They forgot to pull a patent, fools.

"women "seem to be the main thing thats never been solved...or agreed upon. oh so many variable's....

about 4 years ago when I was in Milan Italy we were at a off the beaten path restraunt, full of locals, tottaly awesome food and even better prices. when we were done the wife went up to pay the bill....we had 2 pizzas&2 calzone's...the guy said 4 pizzas $20.....my wife started arguing as females tend to do...no we had 2 pizzas and 2 calzones....his reply, ok 4 pizzas $20......so the wfe got fustrated and tried to speak more clearly and slowley.......2 p i z z a s....2 c a l z o n e s. he then spoke slowley 4 pizzas. then gestured. pizza round calzone = pizza folded...no charge for the folding. it was priceless. I hope we can find that place in may when I go back for my daughters wedding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cybersam

This was a fascinating, well-thought-out, and well-researched article. It was also chock full of hubris. I'm not saying I believe in these strange conspiracy theories, but just because you've been told that they are false by some self-righteous scientist on TV doesn't mean you should immediately discount it either. I've learned over my many years to be comfortable with the phrase "I don't know." Is the Earth flat? I doubt it, but I've never been in orbit to see for myself. Therefore, "I don't know." Was the moon landing faked? Probably not, but I haven't been to the moon, OR seen evidence of the landing through a telescope. Therefore, "I don't know."

To be absolutely and supremely confident about something you haven't actually witnessed with your own eyes is simply the OTHER extreme from the wild-eyed conspiracy nuts. It makes a person into a wild-eyed conspiracy hater, and no better than the people they ridicule.

...Just a thought to consider.

Cybersam

---

What makes you think you have to go into orbit to figure out if the world is flat or not? As for the moon landing, I've talked to Michael Collins, who said he was in orbit around the moon. I believe him. He commented to me about how lonely it was up there, waiting to find out if the ascent stage would work. I've only been about half-way around the world, but you can see the curvature if your aircraft flies high enough. Or you can walk across the country (any county, pretty much) and watch the mountains spring up in front of you, or shrink down behind you. And you can model a globe with a basket ball and a match stick, and flat earth with a table and a match stick. I'm not particularly absolutely supremely confident about much of anything, though I do like to check up on folks who make absolute statements about such things. Heck, they may even be right, but I'm probably not going to take their word for it unless I know something about them.

Bill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mklotz

Where's the meme for mathematics? That's the field of study by which they seem most confounded.

---

Here you are, Sir! :)

Attachment 41233

hey bill I had a moron tell me one time the reason for the mountains appearing and going away is the human eye can only see a hundrad or so miles.....so i pointed up in the sky and asked what they **** is that half moon shaped thingy up there and all those shiney thingys that he apparently could not see...but he did seee them,,...he then realized that his smart degrees were just a waste of $$$. you cant fix stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marksbug

hey bill I had a moron tell me one time the reason for the mountains appearing and going away is the human eye can only see a hundrad or so miles.....so i pointed up in the sky and asked what they **** is that half moon shaped thingy up there and all those shiney thingys that he apparently could not see...but he did seee them,,...he then realized that his smart degrees were just a waste of $$$. you cant fix stupid.

---

If you can't fix it, you should muffle it with duct tape. Duct tape won't fix it either, but will reduce the noise.

funn you bring up duck tape....the NHTSA lets GM ductape patch the child seat sensor for the airbags instead of fixing them, and when that craps out in about 20 seating cycles the owner is now on the hook for the $1000 bill to have it fixed/replaces as it should of been in the first place with the updated sensor.....and yes I own one of those cars...oops. 2 of those cars. one that has the ducttape ans went bad after the ducks went for a few rides and the other will not go in for the ductape fix. I may swap sensors then take it in with the bad one that had the ductape and then went bad...only them will they replace it. can you say kick back/pay off?? yup. thats what our kids&wives life is worth a 6" strip of duck tape.

[QUOTE=Toolmaker51;193688]About all I'm willing to contribute at 04:00 CST......
a] https://www.google.com/search?q=why+...client=gws-wiz

b] Spare 1.02 seconds, and review any quantity of results. Plenty to chose from, a nice round 299,000,000 items...first was Huygens in 1653 via phases of Venus.
https://www.google.com/search?client...e+from+the+sun. With quill pen and paper, and early slide rule likely. Estimates are acceptable in realm of figuratively infinite calculations. That subsequent researchers have used different bodies or methods only reinforces the entirety, ever narrowing range of error(s).

c] re Flat Earth;
Mt. Everest @ 8,848 meters (29,029 ft) ~ 5.50 miles
+ Marianas Trench @ 11,034 meters (36,201 feet) ~ 7.0 miles
rather assures a minimum 19,882 meters (65,230 ft) ~ 12.35 miles 'thickness', minimum.
What remains unclear, how large is the drain plug?
Convention says about 2412.17 meters (41785656 ft) ~7913.95 miles, from two points roughly equatorial in latitudinal position and mere 6018947 meters or 3740 mi that is 19°8'10" apart (about 1.28 time zone which are 15° each.)



Your a] reply is worthless. Maybe you should go back and 1) actually read what I stated, and 2) read what you provided. What you provided doesn't address taking a closeup photo showing the actual ISS in detail, all it does it address taking a picture of a dot traveling cross the sky.

Your reply c] just shows a blatant ignorance of the term "flat earth". The term "flat earth" simply means the earth is a horizontal plane. Mountains and oceanic trenches are nothing more than forms of relief on that plane, no different than a "relief map".

Your reply b] also shows your complete ignorance of understanding of astronomy and mathematics between 1600s and present day. 1) Nowhere is there any reference to what the distance is that he calculated, same goes for the majority of those early "astronomers, and 2) it states: "However, because Huygens' method was partly guesswork and not completely scientifically grounded ..."