Comments (40)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Ifwewalktogether 12 points ago +12 / -0

It’s hard to have a discussion on this topic with most people, even in fringe conspiracy circles. You will typically encounter either fervent believers, or fervent disbelievers, and typically just get insults or dismissive reactions.

I think it is a discussion worth having. There are some interesting points in the flat earth world. There are also some good points in the conventional round earth position.

The truth is that the extent to which we have been lied to, manipulated and indoctrinated is staggering, as is the length of time this manipulation has been going on. We are living in the matrix already.

Convincing society that the earth is a round ball flying through space, when it’s not, is absolutely something “they” would and could do- if that were the case. The ability to also believe something (such as round earth) is entirely obvious, evident and easily provable when there are angles and fallacies embedded in that belief is also possible.

Creating a flat-earth conspiracy movement as a psyop to fuck with all of our heads when the earth is actually round but they know they have us questioning everything and trusting nothing is also something they would do.

You ask a good question which I don’t have any answers to. When you apply the rules of logic and epistemology to any belief or theory you can see that most of our reality models are castles made of sand.

Belief perception and expectation dictate our realities including the perceived outcomes of our experiments and observations. And much of our description of these conclusion are semantic more than fundamental.

And there are more possible answers than either or. Could be both, neither or something else. Look at the wave particle duality. The fervent assertion that matter is atomic was pushed as entirely obvious. As had the wave nature. Now they say it’s both but it may be neither.

Remember just the act of observing and experimenting is intricately wound into what we perceive as absolute and out there, and the observer ultimately cannot be separated from the observed, allegedly lol.

There are always angles, positions, factors etc that we don’t see that could totally obliterate as what we hold absolute, proven and fact.

I’ve wanted to analyze all this more but there are just way more pressing things for me to research, and it could totally make sense that a flat earth psyop could be used to keep us focused on shit that doesn’t matter, like usury.

For a fun plot twist though, remember plate tectonics is an unproven theory. Germ theory has also never been proven, and has been disproven. But we assert that it must be true because it’s “obvious “proven” and “evident”. All those scientists doing all those experiments. If you research it you can see how people could think the results of experiments prove germ theory and then when you dig to the underlying foundations and experiments (and history) of it, it becomes clear that it’s not.

I find a lot of the flat earth stuff to be hogwash. But some of it (which is interestingly censored and hard to find) addresses this and some of those people make some great points. I also find it interesting that just about anybody that is against flat earth refuses to debate, is very dismissive and relies on logical fallacies to silence the conversation. Because everyone knows the earth is round and its obvious and you’re crazy. Yeah folks in this forum have never heard that before.

I’m not taking a position either way on this in this post. Learning how to think, understanding how you know what you know (epistemology) and realizing that its entirely possible to be ‘convinced’ with ‘proof’ that something is fact when it is not are essential tools in the seekers toolbox.

You must study and listen to all sides of a debate. Other than the person right to speak, the first amendment is also about the open market of ideas. One cannot draw any serious conclusions only examining a limited set of ideas on a subject. One must be ready to totally discard what they believe to be absolute truth at any given point of time. That’s TRUE science. But not willy nilly and gullible either. Discernment is key here.

Most of the great minds and intellectual advancements in human history are typically some “fringe wing-nut” asserting that a commonly held “absolute fact” is actually wrong. They are usually treated as heretics, piss off the status quo and are dismissed (of beheaded, hung, house arrest, excommunicated, etc).

There are also fringe wing-nuts that are very gullible, see connections that aren’t there and draw erroneous conclusions. As truthers, we learn that they have been lying to us. And the depth of those lies has no bottom. This can lead some to falling in logical traps just to refute the status quo.

Also psyops are scientifically engineered to do what they do and make it almost impossible to discern the truth while dividing people.

Unfortunately the majority of the content in my post is not the norm in how people think, which is why the masses are never responsible for a paradigm shift in civilization. Just make sure you’re on the right end of the bell curve!

Kudos to you for keeping an open mind seeking truth. Careful not to be gullible. Study your logical fallacies and careful with authority and convention.

Remember all theories are just models. They are called theories for a reason. And even the so called “laws of nature” have been discarded or revised many times as well. I will leave you with this:

“Nature can never be completely described, for such a description of Nature would have to duplicate Nature.

No names can fully express what it represents.

It is nature itself, and not any part (or name or description) abstracted from Nature, which is the ultimate source of all that happens, all that comes and goes, begins and ends, is and is not.

But to describe Nature as “the ultimate source of all” is still only a description, and such a description is not nature itself. Yet since, in order to speak of it, we must use words, we shall have to describe it as ‘the ultimate source of all.’ ... To try to express the inexpressible leads one to make distinctions which are unreal.

Although the existence of Nature and a description of that existence are two different things, yet they are also the same.

For both are ways of existing. That is, a description of existence must have it’s own existence of that which is described; and so again we have to recognize an existence which cannot be described.”

HeyJesusBringMeABeer 4 points ago +4 / -0

Best comment