Yes, I understand that. This is why I always ask people why they believe in FE or any other "adjacent" thing. It is also why I will watch the various "influencers" to see their arguments. There was a time I would have by default believed in global warming, the holocaust, and that Hitler was a really bad guy. I changed my views on all of these things because people made factual arguments that forced me to change.
I guess what I'm saying is FE and other similar things about the shape of the earth are perpetually in this state of "this is the biggest lie of all but you gotta watch out for all the obvious disinfo trying to make us look stupid." I would be sympathetic to that if I was then directed to the person / people who had the really good arguments. But after years of every big name in this space eventually being turned into a shill, I have to assume that there is no "Stephen McIntyre" or "Germar Rudolf" in this space.
I will also acknowledge that it is possible that NASA lies, even about the moon landing, while the earth is in fact as described in geodesy books. I personally am not big into NASA conspiracies, but those are a lot more believable. For the shape of the earth to be substantially wrong, enormous sectors of society would have to be in on the conspiracy. Military, transportation, various branches of science, cartography, the navigation apps on your phone. It is an extraordinary claim, and at a minimum the people who claim this need to provide a workable map and a rough explanation for basic solar system observations (day, night, moon cycles, seasons, tides, apparent planet paths, etc.).
OK, that is fair. I guess to me, everything insinuating there is some massive conspiracy concealing the true shape of the earth is "flat earth adjacent." This would include things like the radius being substantially larger than the value claimed. I took you saying "FE is a psyop" to mean that the various influencers are a psyop probably to discredit investigators, but that there is something to the theory.
The reason you (and others) have concluded that FE is a psyop is that the arguments are all wrong. At some point we are confronted with considering the conclusion "there is nothing wrong with the claims about the shape of the earth." Even if there were a conspiracy to promote stupid FE claims to discredit anyone seriously examining geodesy / astronomy / NASA, the "real people investigating this" would still be on the internet and easily findable / sharable. There would be a forum somewhere of all the serious scientists actually disputing the shape of the earth.
I'm not just making this up. Look at "climate denial" for example. There are extraordinarily smart people disputing mainstream climate change. You can read them all over the internet. They have managed to get articles published in Nature to be retracted. That means they are real scientists no matter what the progressive dumbasses say.
Not to mention the ultimate success, which was "holocaust denial."
Has anything like that ever happened in FE or any adjacent group disputing the shape of the earth? Is there a single thing anywhere on the internet that I can read disputing mainstream geodesy / astronomy that even approximates the quality of Climate Audit, Watts Up With That, Codoh, The Holocaust Handbooks? People may think I am trolling all the FE people, but this is what I am asking. Show me the Stephen McIntyre or Anthony Watts or Judith Curry for "globe earth skepticism." Show me the Germar Rudolph or David Irving.
If there is not, and year after year after year this theory never presents itself, at some point people should consider "maybe physics is right about the shape of the earth." It is crazy to me that this never seems to happen. Also, it is possible that NASA lies about its missions even though the shape of the earth is as claimed. The modern shape of the earth vastly predates NASA. They had absolutely nothing to do with it, other than photographing it and making the measurements a bit more precise. So "NASA is sketchy" is not something I would even consider here, because when it comes to the globe it is totally irrelevant.
I'm absolutely shocked to see you not answer the question 😅. Usually FEers are so forthright with clear and on topic responses 😅.
Just to be extra sure the issue is you have no answer, and not that you misunderstand, I'll ask one last time. Will a remote controlled helicopter hover on a flying plane or will it slam into the back? If an RC helicopter flies from the front to the back and then the back to the front of a flying plane, are the flight times the same or different? If your answers for this example are different than how you claim real aircraft behave on a supposedly spinning globe, why?
Muh NDT pear.
I was not going to bring this up, but this is another question you never answered (I know, shocking 😅). NDT is not some prophet of science and the earth is not pear shaped because he says stupid shit in popular media interviews. The shape of the earth is determined by measurement, and obviously as the measurements get more precise the earth does not fit some Platonic ideal form. Now, I asked you:
I would love to know what is so confusing about "the earth is roughly a sphere, to a smaller extent the middle bulges out less than 1/100 than the top and bottom, and to an even smaller extent the top is a bit less than 1/100000 times farther than the bottom."
I am just going to say again, this is why pretty much no one takes FE seriously, and why some people, like myself, assume it is mostly people intentionally trolling. These are simple unambiguous questions you can either answer or not. If not, then the result is the issue is largely settled. To just never answer like this is only explainable by me as trolling, because I don't believe you don't understand the questions.
Yeah, fair enough. If there is a high quality video or website I am always willing to check them out. I do agree that it is not reasonable to ask you to actually write out the experiment and expected observation in this forum because it requires diagrams and mathematical arguments. I don't mind physical and mathematical arguments at all. I prefer them and generally I look down on the various FEers because they won't make these arguments. But yes, a Reddit style forum is not the place for them.
Regarding the long distance observations over water, yes I am aware of that and I actually consider this FEs strongest argument. The fault is squarely the various "science ambassadors" who claim (falsely) that when ships sail away we see them disappear bottom up over the horizon. This is a ludicrous claim which people can find demonstrations falsifying all over the place, as you are stating here. In reality, without further information, we have no idea what we will see when we look at a ship 3+ miles away.
The thing is, the appeals to refraction are not really wrong. We have all seen on hot days what aerial refraction does to light rays within 10s - 100s of feet, so it is anyone's guess what can happen in normal weather over scales of miles, especially when your target of study is a 1/4000mi curvature claim. It takes painfully little refraction to render observations of the curvature impossible. If you are interested in details about all this, it is generally findable in books with names like "atmospheric optics."
I would look at someone claiming a sun or moon observation that violates standard astronomy. I generally view astronomical observations as an area that FE has a hard time dealing with, while conventional astronomy has all such observations (certainly within the solar system) down to incredible precision. That does not mean their model is right, of course. Any model can be wrong but get certain predictions correct. But I would love to see a sun / moon observation that violates the Newtonian / heliocentric / globe model.
I assume by "four tides per day" you mean "high - low - high - low" and by saying "if the moon were causing tides, there would be two" you mean "high - low." This is absolutely true if the tidal mechanism is the bullshit you see in pop science videos where they put iron shavings on a table and hover a magnet overhead, causing a bulge that follows under the magnet. However, the globe / Newtonian / gravity explanation of the tides is not a flat earth with a magnetic moon and ferrous water.
The naive / simplified demonstration of tides under Newtonian mechanics predicts four per day. I know you are saying "think about it, it would be two" and I can assure you I have. As a young student this question really bothered me. I obviously got the tide under the moon, but why is there one on the other side? This bothered me for such a long time (I am a little embarrassed about it now, tbh). Anyway, you can read about it if you want, but any text with a name like "celestial mechanics" will demonstrate the 4 tide per day result.
As for why real tides are so irregular, the simplified tidal analysis is just predicting the equilibrium orientation of level surfaces on earth due to lunar influences using a very simplified math model. Oceanic tides are not mediated through a magical substance that just arranges itself according to this level surface. It is mediated by water that must flow according to the mechanical properties of water within a container with a very complicated boundary (the ocean). Why some areas of the earth have nearly no tide while others have 3x or more the naively predicted tidal swing, and some areas have tides at times that would not be expected, is a very complicated area of study. It is not something I have really studied myself, but if you are interested this sort of thing is in books with names like "geophysical fluid dynamics."
I hear this thing about gravity / magnetism / and buoyancy all the time but no one ever develops a rigorous system that we can do anything with. If someone has a detailed explanation for the behavior of falling or planetary motion or the tides, I will check it out, but I never see one. Some physicists also claim that gravity does not exist, or at least is not a force (I guess they will say it exists). I find people who say this pedantic, because they are using the fact that we have a geometrical explanation for gravity to say it is not a force. This sounds silly to me.
Are you saying the Gleason map represents distances correctly? That is an interesting anecdote about driving Australia. I think the globe claims Australia is about 2500 miles wide while the US is about 2800. Are you saying it seemed big like bigger than the US? On a Gleason, Australia is substantially wider than the US, so that would be testable.
I'm surprised you are recommending using remote friends to do astronomical observations. I have long thought the best argument in FE was the great difficulty in unambiguously seeing the curvature, and that fitting astronomical observations was a large difficulty for them.. What observations are you saying will prove the earth is not a globe?
What argument regarding tides, sonar, daylight times in winter / summer, etc. are you referring to?
Instead of looking...
Yes, I have tried researching. As I said here and elsewhere to you, I have given the FE people way more time than they deserve. Despite their poor track record, when I meet a new believer I always ask where they are researching it. You are in effect saying "why don't you research this thing you think is wrong until you convince yourself"? I don't expect FE to be true, but to not be close minded, I always check to see if there is a good argument I have not come across yet.
Add in some critical thought...
That isn't too polite. I have provided answers to everything you asked. They were probably too thorough. I am refraining from any ad hominems, but I will let you know that I find it a bit ironic to be told I need critical thought by someone who unironically thinks that the globe model predicts east and west flight times to be different and helicopters to be unable to hover. In engineering / physics school, that Eric Dubay "proof" would be the equivalent of a "dad joke."
I also asked you once whether you think it is impossible for drones / RC helicopters to hover on a 500 mph airplane or whether flying one to the front of an airplane will take a different time than flying one to the back. Assuming you don't believe this (since we have all been on airplanes before and know the answer), why is flying a model helicopter on a 500 mph airplane different than aircraft above a 700-1000 mph earth? I never received an answer.
I see. Well, they may or may not have been dumping some chemicals in the air these past years, but I don't think they were doing large scale solar reflection. And they certainly weren't so openly talking about it, they were actually denying "chemtrails" like crazy. I'm not saying the shit in the air is good, I doubt it is. I'm just saying that if there are open propositions to do this in the science world, they are likely planning on a serious project, and the consequences of blocking the sun will be absurd. Not to mention the health impact of whatever particulate they end up using.
I'm not sure rejecting the globe is really that obvious. I keep looking for an FEer with a good argument. None of them really have one, and everyone keeps saying everyone else is a shill trying to make the movement look bad. Meanwhile, man has mastered the world so thoroughly we are seriously considering flying around it and dumping shit in the air to blot out the sun. And conspiracy corners have to take this seriously, because we actually do have the technical means to do it.
If you can fly around the world and fill the atmosphere with sun blocking chemical agents, you probably have an accurate map.
They honestly do. Anyone proposing blocking out the sun needs to be exterminated, no questions asked. We don't need them in society or the gene pool.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Even if you think the Artemis mission is all fake, what these psychos are proposing can still be done in principle. In fact, even if you are some sort of globe rejecter, this would still be possible. It is totally conceivable that they could fly jets around the flat earth dumping pollutants into the atmosphere to fill up the firmament dome or whatever, blocking out the sun to "save the world from climate change."
I am the same way. I actually do understand why some people research and read reviews, especially while traveling. If you only have a finite time in a new place, you want to make the most of what you get to try and all. But I personally have always been a "live in the moment" sort of person, and I will just go walking around and pick something that looks interesting to me. Usually, the results are comparable to researching and reading reviews, with the added benefit of feeling like you live in the real world the way people used to.
I guess we never "know" anything. But I seriously doubt the zio jew psychopaths who run this place intended to get their ass kicked so hard. And I doubt they meant to bomb a little girls' school and whatever, if anything for the huge public relations black eye that sort of thing gave them.
But maybe it is all one big conspiracy and they always intended on failing at the Iran war.
Basic suppositions: Flat Earth is a decoy, NASA is fully controlled.
Flat earth is most definitely a decoy. It exists to send rebellious conspiracy minded people down dead ends and also to prevent less rebellious conspiracy minded people from seriously considering other (true) conspiracies. NASA is controlled in the sense that it is a government agency and so is subject to all the bullshit of the political processes.
If Both the official NASA narrative and the controlled FE opposition move to obfuscate reality, what is that reality?
I'm really sorry to report this, but the "official NASA narrative" is not to obfuscate reality. FE is just a psyop. If by "official NASA narrative" you mean "the shape of the earth" then I have to tell you that NASA does not dictate this "official narrative." People have known the shape of the earth and behavior of the solar system for literally centuries. The "millions of light years away and dark matter" and all that is a different question, but that has nothing to do with the shape of the earth and where the moon, sun, and other planets are.
NASA is the main conduit for black budget
It could be I guess, I don't know. But a quick search shows the 2026 NASA budget was about $22.6 billion. Just look up the DoD budget. I don't think the DoD needs to hide secret projects in NASA. The Iran War has already cost more than NASA will all year.
The earth is either just bigger, or, the shape calculations are purposefully flawed..
No, it isn't and they aren't. The shape of the earth is known to incredible precision and has been since before space flight. Those "flawed calculations" you see in FE videos are, well, flawed. They are just wrong and not reflective of geodesy or astronomy or even basic mechanics. A key tell is "debunking" a Neil deGrasse Tyson or Bill Nye interview in popular media. If a FEer wants to be taken seriously, they need to debunk real science, not "pop science for the masses."
but not an expert
I'm shocked to hear this. No seriously, I don't think I have ever seen a FE type say they aren't an expert. That is a really good start. I'll tell you some more, all those FE influencers are not experts either.
to hide it's not oblated at the poles, but somewhere near the equator
I'm not sure what this means. Is this supposed to be saying that the earth does not fit the oblate spheroid model? It can be modeled as an oblate spheroid (with topography of course) to within about 0.3%.
I don't really mind if people believe FE, and I definitely encourage open minded questioning of everything including science. If someone is seriously questioning, I am happy to provide help in understanding what physics really says, because the stuff in "200 Proofs" and whatever is not right. But a lot of FE people just want to believe the earth is flat, so that is fine too I guess, just a different sort of thing.
I am generally against all the guilt and reparations bullshit, but there are two places I am willing to pay. Germany, for the war and fucking up the whole planet of course, and Orania, for having destroyed the once beautiful nation of South Africa.
People say this but judging by how poorly the Iran war went, I'm not sure they are 30 years ahead. Maybe like 5 or so.
You aren't joking and I could not believe it when I saw that. Apparently the OpenAI servers went down one day and these always posting on IG or TikTok types were streaming their reactions. Some went into the grocery store and were unable to decide what to buy.
It was bad enough that some did not know how to make dinner or whatever, that is pretty bad. But it is one thing to not know how to cook or even research how to cook, it is another to not know what you even want. That is an opinion!!! How do you not know what you want for dinner and need ChatGPT to tell you?
Basically, what is happening is that people are outsourcing their thinking to the AI. And this is just the beginning.
Yes, and the beginning is pretty scary so far. I feel like in 10-20 years there will be a group of normal people and a group of people who have been turned into mush.
Thanks, I always am looking to expand the digital library.
You're welcome to laugh. I don't know what is going on in Antarctica, I don't know if there are any secret military projects or whatever. But what I do know is that Antarctica gets 24 hour sun and darkness in identical fashion to the Arctic but at the opposite time of the year. And I know I watched FE videos for a decade claiming that no such phenomenon happened.
IMO, it is believable that the war gamers determined that a war over control of Antarctica would be a failure for everyone.
It is honestly so wild to me that the "global Antarctica conspiracy" is still going strong after The Final Experiment. I watched flat earth videos for upwards of a decade claim that no one could go to Antarctica and that the 24 hour sun did not exist. The transition to "24 hour sun in Antarctica does not prove the globe" was breathtaking, and for some reason I will never understand the "global Antarctica conspiracy" continues unabated in comment sections of the internet.
FWIW, while the Antarctica Treaty may be a bit odd, it is honestly not incomprehensible. If you think through the logistics of military occupation and defense of Antarctica, it is understandable why everyone might just come to the conclusion that it is better to just take it off the table, keep it preserved, and use it for scientific research.
Yeah, there are definitely some concerns with AI. I'm just saying that as of now, it looks like jobs apocalypse is not on the menu. At least in the near term. There may be a larger risk of economic meltdown with some jobs apocalypse triggered by this bubble finally bursting.
100% based. Mosquitos have long lost their right to exist. I don't give a shit about some hippy dippy bullshit about food chains and the inter dependency of life. I am with George Carlin when it comes to species extinction, and that goes especially for mosquitos. Literally everything will be better if we exterminate all of them.
LMAO the top link on the website is for the "products" (i.e. the pharma cocktails)?!
The risk of losing jobs to AI is looking a bit overstated, as we found out that Uber accidentally spent half a billion dollars on tokens by April this year, which was its annual budget, with little productivity gains to show for it.
Much more serious is the fact that these AI companies are still passing the cost of the electricity onto the rest of us. There needs to be a legal change where any user above some threshold has to be separate from the ordinary electric grid and their usage cannot impact ordinary users. AI is cool but we cannot tolerate these companies running these hype products which are already unprofitable and getting the public to pay for a bunch of the electric costs.
Wow, great website. Good to know about.
Also, interesting history of the hypothesis.
So does that mean that the "earth" we are familiar with is flat and the "rounded corners to the other faces" are where Antarctica is? That is actually a bit of a compromise theory I guess.
LOL!!! I'm sure you meant relevant but this was the most unintentionally ironic comment I've seen yet!
No matter how much you pretend otherwise, a helicopter can hover over a ~1000 mph earth for the same reason a toy drone can hover over a ~500 mph plane. And a plane's east and west flight times over a ~1000 mph earth are the same for the same reason the flight times are the same for flying an RC aircraft from front to back or back to front over a ~500 mph aircraft.
I can't believe this is still happening. Again, NDT is a celebrity who makes pop science content for the average idiot. If you are appealing to stupid shit he says in his interviews, you are literally discrediting yourself. No geodesy book would say "the earth is a pear" because that is retarded.
I disagree with NDT's methods, but he said what he said because the average idiot is too stupid to understand what an octopole is. The "pearness" of the earth is about 7/1000000 the average radius. It isn't a pear.