She had two congenital heart defects and, when she finally suffered an event, she didn't even realize it for something like 10 hours.
Not comparable to people in perfect health suddenly dropping dead.
Clear forum sliding:
Comparing them to pedophiles was so over the top that I couldn't believe what I was reading.
Seeing how many supporters for censorship are here was also dismaying.
felt like reddit, remember a story about reddit
As if any action occurs as a result of these forums. This place is 99% entertainment and socializing on conspiracy theories.
Last one is the worst. "Hey goys, you'll never make a difference anyway so don't take anything serious, loljk"
This place and NNN was where I got most of my info re: the Covid conspiracy; which is actively being fought on multiple fronts. This is serious shit with huge implications and we can actually expose and do something about it if we focus. But hey, let's bury it in shitposts and lolcows...
I'm not for censorship, but if people like you want to fuck off, go for it. What not start c/randomshitimadeup? I'd join.
Real question: what is your solution to keep bad actors from flooding the forum with obviously ridiculous nonsense until it dies?
I struggle to give an example, given what we're talking about, but say someone puts forth the theory that "air is actually poisonous to humans and that's what's causing the recent excess deaths"? Then they spam the forum with unsourced, cherry picked examples ("people live longer at high altitudes", "100 yo man holds his breath 8 hours a day" "people live longer since deforestation started" etc). Pretty soon, anyone looking at real conspiracies (finding info and analysing it, which takes much longer than just making it up like I just did) are completely put off and go elsewhere while the forum is filled with low effort, history channel-esque memes.
I don't even mind that kind of stuff, per se, but it's not comparable to actual conspiracies that we have good evidence for but can't prove due to intentional obfuscation (like the Wuhan lab leak).
First off, I in no way support banning flat earth discussion; I think it's an important lesson for all conspiracy theorists in what happens when you lose your grip on reality and most people wouldn't believe it unless they saw it themselves.
That said, is it actually a conspiracy? Technically?
A conspiracy is clandestine, organized action by a small group against the general population.
For FE to be true, everyone would have to be in on it. We're not just talking Nasa or the entire field of astronomy. We're talking pilots, mountain climbers, high rise construction workers, physicists (going back hundreds of years), anyone who relies on anything more than grade 6 math, and anyone who claims to have seen the sun "set".
That's not a conspiracy, that's a troll of epic proportions.
What? Two hours of arguing and no one wants to touch this one, huh? Just want me to explain (again) why your various "refutations" of the globe model are invalid?
Ah well, enough fun for one night. Sleep well you loveable retards.
No...that's the default.
We don't know much about the deep ocean because it's hard to get to.
We know much more about the moon because we can see it with the naked eye.
We don't know hardly anything about the core of the earth, either. That's not a conspiracy; no one's stopping you from jumping into a volcano.
Ah yes, I point out the holes in your argument so I must worship the government, that checks out...
As for the ocean, yes, it curves. You "can't see it" because you are right beside it so it barely registers.
Here's a little experiment to try at home: take a tennis ball and a soccer ball.
Hold the tennis ball so that the top is level with your eye and about meter (3ft) away. Notice the curve?
Now do the same with the soccer ball. Notice the different curve? Does it seem more flat or more round than the smaller sphere?
Now do the same with the earth. It is larger than either ball by a ridiculous amount. Therefore, the curve you observe is more flat by a ridiculous amount. In fact, it appears so flat that some people can't tell the difference between the curve and a flat line.
But it's just matter of perspective. If you hold the soccer ball further away than the tennis ball, they appear to have the same curve. By the exact same token, if you get far enough away from the earth, it will also have the same curve.
Now, I'll admit that it's hard to get far enough away to see the curve of the earth, but that's not really relevant here. What is relevant is that I just offered a completely reasonable explanation of what you observed, using the globe model.
I didn't reference government data, potentially doctored photos, or even some random video. Nothing I said need be taken on faith (unless you want to argue the shape of sports balls). I'm not even (technically) relying on math that would need to be proven. I've given you a simple, falsifiable, experiment whose conclusion can be extended to predict something neither of us has directly observed (unless you've been to space). If you can show that the curve of the tennis ball appears flatter than (or the same as) the soccer ball at the same distance, I'll admit I can't explain your observation.
Otherwise, how about you admit that the globe model adequately explains your observation?
Sorry, not into gay porn, not going to click.
But why would you bother with both added complexity as well as only seeing, at most, one side of the sphere? If you tried to do that you would need two separate maps if you wanted to go more than halfway around the planet.
Drawing the earth as a sphere, even though it is one, is needlessly complex for short distances and doesn't even work for long ones.
So that's your argument? People could needlessly complicate things to make perfect representations, but instead use simplified approximations, ergo: everything they say is a lie?
the sun is brighter when it is close to you (overhead) and less bright when it is far from you. Gradient.
No it isn't. If that were true, you could comfortably look directly at the sun without damage to your eyes as it "faded in" in the morning and "faded out" at night.
Try to google "sun fade out". You will see the gradient of the last bits of ligjt as the sun fades, refracted by elements and particles
Right, all video from nasa, independent researchers, amd everyone who disagrees with you is fake, but google can be trusted... Bit selective, no?
What is really cool is the view when the sun fades away. Like vanishes. It can be seen easily from a high elevation on a clear day, and using a zoom lense.
I work on roofs for a living. No it doesn't.
You will notice the last color to be seen is green, but only for a few seconds. That is because the frequency of that color is higher and thus can pentrate deeper it to the air. And we see that green gadient pass in this fade out.
Why green? Why not a higher frequency like purple? And why would it be red (low frequency) at sunset as it starts to fade? Shouldn't red be the first frequency to be cut off by the "fading"? Or do you see something totally different in that case as well?
Absolutely!
Like, if the sun is always 7000 miles above us, approximately following the equator then, according to basic trig, it should never descend below 15° from anywhere on earth (and much higher in most other places).
Since I can personally see it descend below 15° every single morning and evening, that model is obviously false.
Because tables are flat and it's a pain in the ass to file or mail globes?
Is that seriously your argument? Maps are flat, ergo earth is flat?
Oh, a FE enthusiast posting a sketchy youtube link instead of just explaining what they're talking about! Never seen that before!
I dunno, real conspiracies?
I'll miss 'em.
It's such a great litmus test for other theories. If someone espouses FE, I automatically know that they'll state, with certainty, ideas they don't understand and can't prove.
It's easy to get caught in the trap of wanting to believe something and accepting spurious evidence. It's good to see what that looks like at the extreme so we can recognize it in ourselves.
Does this even make sense with the globe model we are spoon fed?
Does that matter?
Ultimately yes, but the fact is that even if the globe model is wrong (rather than you simply not understanding it), FE is definitively wrong. There is no way the FE is correct based on observable data, basic math, and common sense. We don't use the globe model because we were "spoon fed", we use it because it explains everything we need it to and no other theory does so.
You can go ahead and try to find a new model, but until you find one that explains everything that the globe model does as well as additional observable phenomenon, there's no reason for anyone to take it seriously.
Disagree.
I find it an excellent exercise in proving something with my own knowledge and skills.
One thing the FE crowd gets right is that too many people place their faith in "experts" and systems and don't actually think for themselves (unfortunately, they aren't very self aware).
I enjoy finding new and creative ways in which FE can't possible be true.
How about the North Pole?
If the sun goes in a circular orbit (around something) approximately above the equator, that would mean that an observer at the North Pole would either see the sun travel in a complete circle at the same elevation (about 20°) or not see it at all because "the light isn't bright enough to see that far away".
The only way the sun could rise or set at the north pole is if it's orbit shifted north and south on the same day. Ignoring the obvious problem of how, that north/south shift is how seasons are supposed to work sooo...how do seasons work?
I always argued using the model of the sun rising over the circumference of the earth because even though that's obviously stupid, it's much less stupid than the idea that the sun spins in a constantly changing orbit directly above us and we don't see it at night because it's too small.
Oh wait, how about this?
If I'm at the north pole, and the sun orbits the equator, then the distance is fixed. Either I would always see it, spining in complete circles around the sky at the same angle, or I would never see it because it's too far away.
Here's some napkin math to try on for size.
The distance from pole to pole is approximately 20,000 miles; the diameter of FE, then, is about 40,000 miles.
If the sun is only 7000 miles up, you can make a right angle triangle from where you are standing, to directly below the sun, up to the sun.
For a right angle triangle:
tantheta = (the height of the sun) ÷ (the distance to the point directly below the sun)
Where theta is the angle of the height of the sun versus the ground from where you're standing.
If you're at the outer circumference of the FE, and the sun is over the opposite side of the circumference, theta is 10°. Which is to say, the sun never goes beneath 10°.
But wait, the sun orbits above the equator, so the max distance is 30k (pole to pole, plus half again to the far equator).
So the lowest the sun can go, according to this model, is 15°.
Of course, by this point the sun should have faded due to distance, so the actual minimum angle is necessarily higher.
Therefore, if I observe the sun below 15°, at any time, this FE model is false.
he sun is small and light from the sun is not visible all the way across the earth, even though it is flat
So the argument is that the sun fades in and out everyday?
Why do we not see gradients, then? (edit)
If that's true, the sun should be brightest when it's directly overhead then noticeably fade until it's gone, like car lights in fog. But that's not what happens.
Every single day the sun is completely visible (barring clouds) from the moment it rises above the horizon to the moment it sets. The only effect of the atmosphere on visibility is to shift the visible light towards the red side of the spectrum and to reflect small amounts of light when it's barely hidden. If the sun "fades out", sunset should take hours, not minutes.
Ok, I'll bite: what is the arching path described in the FE model?
Because, first off, any path over a flat Earth would have to have the same sunrise time across the entire planet, which we know doesn't happen.
Second, on any given day, the sun would rise and set in completely opposite directions in NA and Asia, which we know it doesn't.
Third, the "equator" is completely meaningless in FE. If the sun arches "away from you" in New Zealand, to the South, it will also arch "away from you" in Alaska, just further away. Furthermore, it would arch "away from you" to the north if you were in Chile on the same day ie still in the southern hemisphere but on the opposite side of the Earth as the Sun. Which we know doesn't happen.
My hypothesis is that real flat-Earthers (not the trolls or feds) simply can't evaluate evidence. They just don't have the capacity to do so. This is why 39 out of 40 get into it because of videos (and why they always try to share videos and articles instead of ever explaining anything); FE is a religious belief, not a scientific theory. You need to be persuaded, not convinced.
To a certain extent, I sympathize. If you can't determine truth for yourself, what are your options? It's not stupid, in that case, to go along with the crowd, or a trusted authority; they're far more likely to be right than a random guess. But they're fallible and, particularily these days, corrupt and spread misinformation.
So they FE types throw the baby out with the bathwater. If they're lying about one thing, they must be lying about everything, all the way to the shape of the planet and the physical systems that govern it.
And they're not entirely wrong, either. I can't prove who did 9/11, but I have no faith in the official explanation. They basically admitted to JFK and even the moon landing could very well be fabricated; it's just the kind of deceptive theater that they do.
But, at the end of the day, the FE crowd is making wild guesses. That I don't mind. What I mind is that they think they should be taken seriously when they literally don't understand anything they're talking about; they're just out to trip you up with obscure factoids and gotcha questions which, if you can't answer off the top of your head, supposedly prove FE.
Y'know the main thing I learned during Covid?
Studies are bullshit.
Data gathering is sloppy, they usually can't be reproduced, and they can be spun to mean anything.
Show me year over year death rates in active FIFA players, broken out by cause and what they were doing when they died, I can draw my own conclusions.