Pretty much what I've been saying this whole time about that particular "conspiracy." It's a steaming, stinking pile of shit used to discredit anyone who has a hand in it or in the immediate vicinity. Guilt, or in this instance, crazy by association. Having it here makes the rest of us look like "those nutty conspiracy kooks."

What those flat earther creepers are doing now is taking any big news event, making conspiracy videos about it, and wrapping in flat earth bullshit. I think its a psyop by an alphabet tbh

Yep. Just like people who believe the moon landing was a hoax. I wouldn't be surprised to see them do the same.

Wouldn't it, by definition, be an undigestible flat plane of shit, rather than ball?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

Thanks for making this content-less dismissive post. The more that people see behavior like this, the more they'll be tipped off that there's something here worth looking into.

If you're interested in more information, here is a basic primer on the topic.

If you're interested in an argument, you're welcome to go to Eglin Air Force Base and waste all the time you want tilting at windmills.

You did not even mention all the ample evidence of so-called "Space Agencies" lying in video, print, and photos.

I figure it's just conspiracy theorists playing the 'no true scotsman' card at each other. Just like Christians care not for their fundamentalist or super-liberals and happily count each other out as members, the same applies here.

Those gosh darn pesky conspiracy theorists.

People like to include the mole people and tinfoil hats along with any plausible conspiracy theory to discredit the plausible one. It's used derisively, in speech that implies that they are all in one category and that we need not believe it or we might be crazy.

It is a way to make your average Joe into thinking that conspiracy theories are in general bullshit.

Whoever "they" are wants us all to fight each other. Congrats to them.

Can someone explain me the second paragraph in a better way? English isn't my native language so sometimes its kinda hard to understand some explainations. I understood few parts and its curious and sounds like an interesting thought.

OP doesn't make any sense. I doubt English is his native language either

That makes perfect sense. Thanks for clarifying.

On the same topic, that is why I have always thought ISIS has multiple names. ISIS/IS/ISIL/Daesh. The government and the media use them all interchangeably. Makes denying the truth easier.

Wow, the rabbit hole goes deep. and I wonder if we are just scratching the surface.

I remember someone on here talking about how they were a bartender for their meetings, as said for the most part, it's a bunch of old dudes that use the meeting as another night to drink, and just talk about some bullshit, and that most people don't believe it.

However; "Any community that gets its laughs by pretending to be idiots will eventually be flooded by actual idiots who mistakenly believe that they're in good company."

I'm sorry but this is so fucking dumb it's not even funny. Why the fuck would anyone "release the dirt" about themselves in the first place. Grow a fucking brain.

use your brain, you have to think about this further.

Thanks for making this post, I can see which of the regular FE-promoting accounts are still active.

You're absolutely right, FE is just disinfo, useful when conspiracy theorists need to be ridiculed.

Word of advice: don't bother disputing with them, they copypaste rubbish from FE forums and never respond to actual counterarguments.

Flat Earthers have been around for at least two-three years on /r/conspiracy The movement has been around since the 90s... of the 19th century.

It doesnt matter how long it was in existence. Its just another method of control brought back from the dead if it ever lived beyond the last couple of years.

UFOs another example of this

Out of curiosity, how so? Can you disprove UFOs? By definition, UFO is exactly what it is. Doesn't matter if it is of natural, man-made or possibly non-terrestrial origin correct?

yeah us govt made it all up

Proof? The history of UFOs far exceeds the technological age of placing aircraft in our atmosphere. They have been described as mechanical long before machines became common place.

So no, they are not all made up by the government. And who is to say the government hasn't made up those stories to redirect the attention away from another possibility. Disinformation is common place and while they can make "some" claims of experimental aircraft I wouldn't accept their claims simply because it doesn't fit all cases nor the history of unknown aerial phenomena that was surely not of a natural origin.

watch mirage men

UFO is still very contentious subject. While I agree that certain elements have their agenda in exploiting the phenomena, certain occurences still fall on the "unexplained' territory, and the possibility of ETI must be considered.

Do you know about their "truth bomb" activity? That's a doozy.

[removed]

Please read the rules on the sidebar and don't do this again. This will be your only warning.

It is a limited hangout. Flat earth theory contains valid criticisms of the official heliocentric spinning globe model, but at the same time it offers a flawed alternative model. These two models create a false dichotomy so that when people are presented with the problems in the flat model they treat these as proofs of the spinning globe model. This is a logical error and neither of those models is correct.

There is more to the topic than just a distraction. You have decided that it is entirely bs here to distract and discredit. Set that aside for a moment and take the time to get into the specifics of the arguments being made. The official model does not work.

Flat earth theory contains valid criticisms of the official heliocentric spinning globe model,

No it does not.

A quick one: The distance you can see over water is too far. For a globe of circumference ~25,000 miles to work with observations over water light is required to always bend downwards through the atmosphere to allow us to see around the curve. Light does not do this. If light travels in straight lines, then the earth cannot be a globe.

There is an example of a problem with the globe model that is pointed out in Flat Earth theory. The catch is that it leaves out important information. Any visual observation we make must be interpreted in the context of how light bends in the atmosphere. Our eyes or any other light measuring device can only measure photons as they are when they arrive, there is no information on their path to get there. So if we want to use visual observations as data points we need to know how light acts in the atmosphere. This experiment with theodolites demonstrates that light always bends upwards through the atmosphere, not down (http://www.wildheretic.com/bendy-light-the-evidence/). When visual observations are interpreted in this context we get a concave earth.

This video has good discussion of light and the implications of its bending in the atmosphere: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTGxoMppZM8

Light does not do this. If light travels in straight lines, then the earth cannot be a globe.

TIL you don't know what refraction is.

There's no evidence that back the Flat Earth Hypothesis. They don't even have a model!

Sure they have a model. The standard flat earth model has the North pole at the center with Antarctica as a ring around the outside. The sun takes an orbital path around the North pole, parallel to the ground, a few hundred miles above us. The radius of this path changes to give seasons. Some variations include a dome over us. Some include the concept of an infinite plane beyond the edge of Antarctica, possibly with other earth like "puddles".

There is lots of valid evidence presented in the area of flat earth, however most of it happens to disprove the official heliocentric model, not prove the alternative flat model.

Since the topic of flat earth exploded earlier this year I have watched how proponents of it have behaved. Much of the activity has gotten away from discussing the specifics of the topic and devolved into conflicts between proponents. This form of limited hangout involves building up proponents with a following, then imploding them all. People who realized that valid arguments were there are disenfranchised when their leaders are exposed. Here is the forum of one of the primary proponents of Flat Earth, Eric Dubay: ifers.boards.net I have been banned from there twice myself. No questioning of the model is allowed there, they are extremely trigger happy with the ban button and label everyone with the slightest disagreement to their position a shill. Watching the history of new users, bans and deleted posts gives a better idea of what the place really is.

Is your first paragraph a joke? Because not only does that not make sense from a physics standpoint, but the geometry doesn't line up with what is observed in the real world.

You realize that I am not advocating for the flat earth model? I was merely giving you a general description of it since you seem to be unfamiliar with it.

Because not only does that not make sense from a physics standpoint, but the geometry doesn't line up with what is observed in the real world.

It sounds like you really haven't spent much time on the topic. You can't refute the arguments properly without knowing what arguments are being made. There are problems with the Flat Earth model, but they really aren't any more egregious than those of the official spinning globe model which does not match real world observations.

What you've described would result in no sunsets.

What errors are in the globe model?

Again, I am not advocating for the flat model, just giving the standard explanation that proponents of the flat model usually do.

Sunsets in the flat earth: The sun sets due to perspective. As objects move away from you they occupy less of your 2-d viewport. Consider looking down a very long hallway. When looking down the hallway, the lines of intersection of the walls, floor and ceiling form straight lines that intersect in the middle of your view. Since these lines are straight, we know our vision is finite, there is a vanishing point. The appearance of the sun setting is due to the effect of objects approaching the vanishing point, similar to the ceiling in the hallway. Note that in the flat earth model the sun is much closer to the earth.

What errors are in the globe model?

There are many, here is one I mentioned elsewhere in this thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/3vez08/the_real_conspiracy_behind_flat_earth/cxn3km5

That perspective explanation doesn't explain why a Sun would appear to be meeting the horizon when it's supposed to be more than 20^o (if we assume a relatively close Sun) above Earth. Until I see a model or hear a valid explanation, I'll take the hypothesis seriously.

I appreciate you telling me their beliefs, though. I was hoping for something with scientific backing, but I'm not surprised there isn't any.

All objects will disappear into the vanishing point at some distance based on the 2-d size of their exposed profile and distance from the observer. The gap between the sun and the ground will disappear at some distance. To see this, consider the hallway example and scale it up. The height of the ceiling represents the height of the sun above the earth. No matter how high the ceiling is, when you look down the hallway, at some point it will meet the floor from your perspective.

Right, but it doesn't with the values given on the Flat Earth model on that message board.

The entire analogy of looking down a hallway and having the ceiling and floor converge is just not true. Yes, the perspective lines appear to converge and when sketching they are treated as such, but there is no "finite" distance we can see due to our perspective lines converging. In reality, our perspectives converge asymptotically. How do these Flat-Earthers account for being able to see stars at night? I imagine it's something crazy like "stars are really tiny and move over the flat earth at night" or something similar.

our perspectives converge asymptotically.

Asymptotes approach limits. If you keep getting geometrically smaller approaching zero, you might as well be at zero. Your eyes (or any other light measuring device) do not have infinite sensitivity.

Stars are an interesting topic. Are they really faraway suns or something completely different? The flat earth model generally has the earth as stationary while celestial objects move around us. Some speculation I have seen:

1) Holes in a barrier that let light through.
2) Sono-luminescence. The result of sound within a container filled with a liquid.
3) Electromagnetic effect manifested visually on a barrier with source at the North pole.

Yes, asymptotes do approach a limit and there definitely is a limit to the sensitivity of our eyes. However, that does not mean there is a limit to the distance our eyes can see. It purely comes down to the size of the object being looked and the amount of light it gives off. In this sense, I think the hallway perspective analogy really fails and the Flat Earth theory is discredited.

I haven't seen a model that even tries to explain planetary apparent retrograde motion.

A flat one? Neither have I. But retrograde planetary motion does make sense in the Concave earth model: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TatnEtoORc&feature=iv&src_vid=o9-TmZj5K5A&annotation_id=annotation_3666568915

That video is definitely not the place to start with the concave model, it makes a lot more sense with more background. But it is an elegant explanation for planetary retrograde motion.

It really is a shame you are getting downvoted. You are adding to the discussion in a reasonable manner without being biased.

Thanks. Unfortunately the downvote button is usually used more as a disagreement button. For this topic nearly any statement that isn't along the lines of "This is stupid and is here to make us look bad" gets downvotes.

Yeah I've never seen a conspiracy theory attacked on this level. I hate seeing debates on this subject because the replies are usally unintelligent vulgar remarks.

Kind of says something doesn't it?

So what does it say?

You know what else is interesting? Overnight all of my posts on this thread taking the position that flat earth is a limited hangout got hammered with downvotes. However the user high-priest-of-slack, a flat earth advocate, who posted a link to his primer on the subject in this thread sits at positive votes. That was not really something I expected, but is quite telling.

Yeah. I don't care if you support the flat earth or are against it. Just debate in an intelligent manner and use the downvote wisely. I only downvote people that do not add to the conversation. I will admit though. If you look up pictures of "earth" you see something pretty creepy and interesting.

I just came to the conclusion that there "might" be some fuckery going around concerning our planet and common people "might" not know as much as we think we do.

Besides I have no way on knowing either way. Its not like I could build a rocket and go see. But that is just my opinion.

I haven't seen a model that even tries to explain planetary apparent retrograde motion.

Is your first paragraph a joke? Because not only does that not make sense from a physics standpoint, but the geometry doesn't line up with what is observed in the real world.

That makes perfect sense. Thanks for clarifying.

On the same topic, that is why I have always thought ISIS has multiple names. ISIS/IS/ISIL/Daesh. The government and the media use them all interchangeably. Makes denying the truth easier.

Yes, asymptotes do approach a limit and there definitely is a limit to the sensitivity of our eyes. However, that does not mean there is a limit to the distance our eyes can see. It purely comes down to the size of the object being looked and the amount of light it gives off. In this sense, I think the hallway perspective analogy really fails and the Flat Earth theory is discredited.

Wow, the rabbit hole goes deep. and I wonder if we are just scratching the surface.