The Flat Earth Society is Controlled Opposition!
Source: IFERS - international flat earth research society Eric dubay Posted, December 31, 2015
Main Points:
Flat Earth Society (FES) was founded in 1970 by Leo Ferrari, a philosophy professor and suspected Freemason.
Ferrari mocked genuine flat Earth research by mixing satire with false arguments to discredit the movement.
Samuel Shenton created the original International Flat Earth Research Society (IFERS) in 1956 as a genuine flat Earth advocacy group.
Globalists countered Shenton’s influence by promoting the Flat Earth Society, turning flat Earth research into a joke.
Leo Ferrari’s Tactics:
Carried a "pumpkin-sized rock" as a fake artifact from the "edge of the Earth" during interviews.
Published satirical articles blaming "global fallacies" for racial prejudice.
Gave convoluted answers in interviews, e.g., using Einstein's theory to explain Earth’s round appearance.
Charles K. Johnson later took over IFERS after Shenton's death. He exposed Ferrari’s FES as a fraud.
Johnson's house and flat Earth materials were destroyed in a suspicious fire he blamed on a NASA agent.
Modern FES: Now an online forum managed by individuals accused of making flat Earth research seem ridiculous.
Daniel Shenton (no relation to Samuel Shenton) is the current FES president, accused of further discrediting flat Earth research by giving incoherent interviews.
Common strawman arguments promoted by FES:
FES wrongly claims that Earth is accelerating upward to simulate gravity (deemed easily disprovable).
FES is a psy op, the intention is to dominate the FE topic with twisted truths so anyone will immediately think FE topic is ridiculous.
Did u fall for it?
Additional Points from 2016 Updates:
Vice.com Interview Criticism:
FES spokespersons used confusing jargon like "electromagnetic and optical acceleration through an aetheric whirlpool" to explain different star visibility.
IFERS claims the real reason for different star visibility is simple perspective, citing Dr. Samuel Rowbotham ("Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!").
Rowbotham’s Observations:
The horizon is a vanishing point, not a physical boundary.
Stars like Ursa Major and Orion are visible across wide latitudinal ranges inconsistent with a globe model.
None of those "controlled" talking points have anything to do with why I'm sure the Earth is a globe (a toroid at the very least).
What does this even mean? FE just goes on forever?
You see, stars are very far away so, if you are near the equator, you should actually be able to see pretty much all of them in the course of a year. What exactly is "inconsistent with a globe model"? If it were flat, we should all be seeing the same stars all the time.
Stars are not very far away, you see, that's just something you believe based on what you are told.
If you understand Airey's failure, you can begin to see that it's easy to prove the stars move and earth is stationary.
The earth is flat and motionless. The horizon is a vanishing point not a physical barrier, so your eyes can only see a certain distance due to the law of perspective, as something goes farther from you, it sinks into the horizon,. So you see, that is proof that you cannot see all the stars on a flat plane.
Anyway, I doubt you can process that so easily. But here is another though for you to contiplate. In your belief structure (the same one I was raised with and dropped year ago) the universe is expanding and expanding, so big and massive our brains can hardly grasp how many stars there are....so, if there are infinity stars and nothing to block the light of stars, then why don't we see all light from all stars when we look up? Don't worry of you don't understand the question, it's a well known paradox. Do you know what a paradox is? It usually means a theory is wrong. So check out Olber's Paradox and think for a while.
This directly answers your question and then shows the inconsistency with the heliocentric model of the universe. But I doubt you'll be man enough to admit it.
More inconsistencies to do with stars? Sure. Think about the orbital path you believe in. If you're not sure what I mean, you can try by think of the earth moving around the sun, and the sun moving around the milky way. For all intents and purposes the stars are so far away they are essentially fixed to our view during our lifetime. And yet, since ever we have recorded, the star Polaris (called north star) stays exactly in the same place, as do all the stars, they always line up in the same exact place, like above the pyramids, for 5000 years.
and the north star stays fixated. How does a star, which are so far away stat perfectly fixed in one spot while the earth is changing orbital paths significantly and constantly, especially when you consider the sun's path. A spiral effect occurs and I'm sure you've seen the popular graphic before on discovery channel or something. Here it is, this is what you believe. https://youtu.be/0jHsq36_NTU?si=ZjuTlZRDbA-a09-_
See the vortex? How the fuck would one star always stay exactly in the same place? Think hard.
Not if the stars are the one's moving around the fixed star of Polaris.. just sayin
Why not?
If you're at the equator, and the stars aren't so close that the curve of the Earth blocks them (and they aren't) you should be able to see them all, no? Unless they're moving in geosynchronus orbit, and no one is suggesting that.
Imagine drawing a little hat on a circle. The peak of the hat is your observational height and the underside is what you can't see. You'd intuit that you wouldn't be able to see a lot of stars if you were very close to the Earth if your height were low (which it is). However, the stars are so insanely far away that, by the time your "hat" gets to them, it's already "descended" to the point you can see everything on your side of the equator.
If you're on the equator, you get to see both sides, therefore you see all stars.
What fe suggests is the stars are the ones moving around Polaris and the earth is stationary.
Exactly what my own senses suggest to me.
No one knows what the truth is cause we haven't seen it with our own eyes. To rule out the possibility is closed minded imo and it's exactly how i thought not to long ago.
You can see Polaris from northern Australia. That should not be possible.
"While the majority of the celestial sky is visible on both hemispheres, you are not able to see Polaris on the south pole, since Polaris is pointing directly towards the north pole. I know that during winter time, you can definitely just see the plough/big dipper (part of the Ursa Major constellation) as far south as Uluru/Ayers Rock in Australia, but that is not enough to see the northern star. The northern star will generally speaking disappear below the horizon when you are at around the equator."
Ever forwards implies nature, not the temporal essence of each forwarded being within.
Sure implies secure, hence free from danger. Being implies free (life) within danger (inception towards death).
Few suggest inSURance to endanger the choices of many by tempting each to hold onto assured reassurances. And just like that many keep paying into, while few resist paying out...what a danger/daunger - "arrogance, insolence" to withhold that which is assured from those holding onto what they believe to be sure.
As in binding the circle? That tempts one to ignore toros aka the bull/bhel - "to swell" coming through. As long as one chooses circular logic, so long does ba'al continues to swell...consenting to suggested globalism establishes a SPHERE of influence within oneself.
Break the S-bhel apart...instead of allowing others to put a door in front of matter (matar-dor) as to-rero in front of toros; the bull.
Why not? Many educated think this about the universe itself, and it's thought perfectly rational.
Of empty space, maybe, and even then what they actually say is that it's expanding at the speed of light, so it's only functionally infinite.
Infinite Earth still doesn't explain how we observe the sun moving, or how we see the stars moving, or tides, or anything else that would be required if FE was true.
https://genius.com/Moby-we-are-all-made-of-stars-lyrics
It could quite possibly be.
I like the fes site anyhow, and think it has one of the best wikis around on the subject. They do a better job than most, outlining the various views - many of which conflict.
The one promoted view there i get the greatest kick out of is the inversion of the standard, pervasive, gravitational belief. If you think about it, it makes the presumptive view all the more plainly silly, unscientific, and laughable when you consider belief in its inverse/corollary. (basically that gravitation is actually caused by constant and eternal acceleration upwards by all mass in the universe) I think it may be funnier if you enjoy physics.
FES is a trap. Why would you like it? They post half truths and misleading shit that makes anyone taking it seriously turn and run. A pancake planet accelerating upward is literally put there to make people believe that that anyone who questions the globe must believe this stupid shit.
Sorry, but, siding with FES is literally playing with the CIA.
Two reasons. 1: they have one of the better wikis available and 2: the forums are reasonably run/administrated.
That is certainly true. However, in my view - this mathematically sound inversion of the standard view/equations only further makes plain how stupid and unscientific the original presumptive view is. I see it as something done "tongue in cheek" - although that may not be the creators intention.
It is certainly stupid and unscientific to assume there is a limitless energy source causing eternal acceleration of all things upwards - but it is equally stupid and unscientific to assume there is a limitless energy source causing eternal acceleration downwards for the exact same reasons.
Alas, i think it may come with the territory :(
I wouldn't say that i "side" with the fes, but that they - honeypot/limited hangout or not - have a valid resource for interested researchers to peruse. As always, it is up to the student (us!) to rigorously verify any and all claims/facts before accepting them as true.
Within a society...public opposes private. Outside a society...privacy reigns a controlled public.
It doesn't matter what the society is called or from which side one opposes the other...being implies private aka set apart from one another, which joining any society contradicts, hence constricts privacy within.
Forming a society contradicts "flat", since accumulating members establishes an elevation aka a hierarchy (here arch) aka a curvature...
An origin cannot be created. Origin originates beings, which suggest creationism aka creatio ex nihilo (creation out of nothing) as an inversion, thereby tempting each other to ignore perceivable origin.
False vs true implies ones arguing mind, which represents a fictitious conflict called "reason" aka the turning of beings against one another.
Credit implies creed aka ones mind/ment holding onto suggested, while ignoring that perceivable moves through ones perception.
Dis + Move implies the division (life) of motion (inception towards death)...
a) Motion carries matter...rocking matter during motion destabilizes it.
b) Facts become artificial (arti-fact) if a being chooses to hold onto a suggested f-act (fictitious act), thereby ignoring to re-act as matter to the natural act of motion.
c) Real vs fake rocks one free will of choice from one side to the other within an artificial conflict called reason, while desperately wasting ones resistance on the temptation to hold onto a side. That's like water trying to hold onto a riverbank instead of finding level (balancing as choice) in-between sides.
d) The edge implies knowl-EDGE aka the razors edge of being choice within balance aka the narrow path aka the balance act aka the high wire aka the eye of the storm aka the rail way aka the temple of solo-mon in-between Boaz and Jachin etc.
e) As for pumpkin...what happens to the forced liquid which pumps ones kindred if it gets rocked from one side to the other?
a) Nature ups (inception) and downs (death) wardens (life).
b) Tempo implies temporal (matter) within ongoing (motion), hence acceleration and deceleration representing matter taking different measurements of other matter, while ignoring the same motion.
Matter can neither accelerate, nor decelerate motion...only other matter. The process of dying continues no matter if life accelerates or decelerates within it.
TO implies towards aka from all motion towards each one matter...a differentiation, not a similar/simulation. Ignoring this establishes a conflict of reason among matter about lightness (buoyancy) vs heaviness (gravity).
It's ones consent to any suggested simulation, which tempts separated ones simul/semol - "together".
a) Inception sentences life towards point of death. A sentence/sentience cannot perceive a point (end of sentence) while being a sentient being sent forwards, with senses to perceive....YET...suggestion can establish a sent-i-ment aka something send into mind, which in return tricks one to ignore perceivable for suggested.
b) Energy cannot vanish...only internally differentiate position. Another word for vanish is "dis-appear" aka the division of appearances, when energy internally differentiates positions from one another.
That's why appearances can be deceiving...
c) Horizon/horos - "boundary"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/horizon
The trick...seeing the horizon implies as ones free will of choice, while suggesting each other what the horizon is...binds ones free will of choice to the suggested.
The label one uses to describe the horizon implies the "boundary" exploited by others to bind ones free will of choice, and the suggested word horizon/horos - "boundary" was deliberately selected to mock those who use it to "broaden their horizon".
d) Physic/bheue - "to be" implies being (life) forwarded (inception towards death)...hence that which forwards (motion) setting each being within (matter) free (living) within boundary (dying).