A Brief History Of The Flat Earth Society


Of all the areas of the liberal arts that need to have the Trivium method applied, this is certainly the one.

I have been fascinated by the willingness of acceptance towards unprovable “facts” used by this group of modern “flat-earther’s.” And so I knew that if I searched a bit I would come to discover the origin of such unscientific thought processes toward the fallaciously standing conclusions put forward therein. And so I’d like to share what I found. This is not meant to be offensive or spark a debate, merely to show the roots of this prima facie (on the face/appearance only) type of belief system and its spread as a subversive culture.

In a nutshell, the origins of the Flat Earth Society come from the Zetetic Society, philosophy, and method. From its modern website we can read:

The ‘Universal Zetetic Society‘ (UZS) was the precursor to the Flat Earth Society. It was founded shortly after the death of Samuel Rowbotham (aka Parallax) by Rowbotham’s adherents. The UZS was active well into the early part of the 20th century, publishing many issues of a magazine titled, The Earth Not a Globe Review?. In 1971, the UZS was renamed The Flat Earth Society when Samuel Shenton became its leader.

Samuel Birley Rowbotham (AKA Parallax) (1816 – 1884), was an English inventor and writer who wrote Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not a Globe, based on his decade-long scientific studies of the earth, published a 16-page pamphlet (1849), which he later expanded into a 430 page book (1881) expounding his views. According to Rowbotham’s scientific method, which he called Zetetic Astronomy, the earth is a flat disk centered at the North Pole? and bounded along its southern edge by a wall of ice, with the sun, moon, planets, and stars only a few thousand miles above the surface of the earth.

Rowbotham and his followers gained notoriety by engaging in raucous public debates with leading scientists of the day. One such clash, involving the prominent naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace, led to several lawsuits for fraud and libel.

After Rowbotham’s death, his thousands of followers established the Universal Zetetic Society, published a magazine entitled The Earth Not a Globe Review? and remained active well into the early part of the 20th century.

‘Zeteticism‘ is a system of scientific inquiry. The word is derived from the Greek verb zeteo, which means “to search or examine; to proceed only by inquiry.

Zeteticism differs from the usual scientific method in that using zeteticism one bases his conclusions on experimentation and observation rather than on an initial theory that is to be proved or disproved. A zetetic forms the question then immediately sets to work making observations and performing experiments to answer that question, rather than speculating on what the answer might be then testing that out.

For example, in questioning the shape of the Earth the zetetic does not make a hypothesis suggesting that the Earth is round or flat and then proceed testing that hypothesis; he skips that step and devises an experiment that will determine the shape of the Earth, and bases his conclusion on the result of that experiment. Many feel this is a more reasonable method than the normal scientific method because it  removes any preconceived notions and biases the formation of a hypothesis might cause, and leaves the conclusion up entirely to what is observed. Samuel Rowbotham was the first to use the term in reference to Flat Earth? research. He devised the Bedford Level Experiment to determine whether the surface of water is convex, reasoning that if the water is not convex the earth cannot be a sphere. This is how he came to the conclusion that the Earth is flat. The method has been a cornerstone of Flat Earth Theory? ever since.

Link–> https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Universal+Zetetic+Society
Link–> https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Samuel+Rowbotham
Link–> https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Zeteticism

–=–

Here we should stop to define a couple of terms, which not ironically have much to do with each other. The Parallax view of convection. Let us use a dictionary from those times:

CONVEX – adjective – [Latin] Rising or swelling on the exterior surface into a spherical or round form; gibbous; opposed to concave, which expresses a round form of the interior surface; as a convex mirror or lens. – noun – A convex body; as heavens convex. (–Webster’s 1828 Dictionary of the English Language)

CONVEXITY – noun – [Latin] The exterior surface of a convex body; a gibbous or globular form; roundness(–Webster’s 1828 Dictionary of the English Language)

PARALLAX – noun – [Gr. to vary, to decline or wander; beyond, and to change.] In astronomy, the change of place in a heavenly body in consequence of being viewed from different points. Diurnal parallax the difference between the place of a celestial body, as seen from the surface, and from the center of the earth, at the same instant. Annual parallax the change of place in a heavenly body, in consequence of being viewed at opposite extremities of the earth’s orbit. (–Webster’s 1828 Dictionary of the English Language)

–=–

This notion of Zetetic methodology of science is not distinct from the blind leading the blind. Information without postulate or goal. While Mr. “Parallax” Rowbotham may have been sincere and attempting to be legitimized in his time, it appears that even up to today his followers are merely bad-mannered, browbeating Zetetics hell bent on “engaging in raucous public debates with leading scientists of the day,” and for that matter anyone that seeks rational debate. A simple perusal through the comments section of any “Flat Earth” video or website is evidence of the fallacious ad hominem and other personal, non-scientific attacks towards anyone that disagrees with their strange breed of “science.”

One begins to see similar patterns of this type of harassment in certain elements of the “truth movement” and its infamous shock jocks, and within groups like We Are Change and the various 9/11 truth movements, of which I was once very much involved. This is certainly not to say that no science backs their (and my) claims about 9/11. It is to say that the approach towards dissemination of this information, which is prima facie evidence at best, is to gather in places and have arguments similar to those of the flat-earther’s, usually ending in statements like “if you can’t see what is happening in this video you must be an idiot.” And I believe this is why such movements are so transient and ineffective, for the confidence of absolute observational correctness becomes an overwhelming force that allows no further debate and ignores all evidence to the contrary.

Now remember, I am referring to myself here, as one of the guys that used to get out in the streets and in parks and other public places in people’s faces without solicitation to spread “9/11 truth.” And honestly, I hate the thought that I might have been so belligerent and unreasonably argumentative that I turned people away from actually examining the evidence I had just by my attitudinal prejudices. And so as one with experience in this gang-up and insult methodology, I know this is a mental trap we must all grow from if we are to have any effect.

One of the most outspoken and somehow respected “flat-earther’s” is Eric Dubay.

In the following video debunking most tenets of this movement, we find that many of Dubay’s sources for flat-earth cosmology is from just where we would expect, the Zetetic Society. I recommend this entire video:

Note too in this video that “Freemasons formed Zetetic Societies to engage in anti-Christian and scientific debate.” In other words, counter-culture.

We can also find much of this sort of fallacious reasoning in Theosophical writings and movements. From the Theosophical.org website we can read some of these esoteric writings that seem to support such Zetetic methodologies and beliefs:

–=–

Earth Mind: Starting where we are in the world of appearances, we see the myriad of forms, from our time and place of seeing, from our point of view and perspective. We are the subject registering objects.

This is my world, my life, my things, my roles. Fear and desire. The mask of persona. The consumer. Habits. The everyday world. The world of natural living. This is the flatworld; the sun revolves around us. This is the data storage mind. Calculating mind. Taking care of business. This is the earth world. The outer world. The subject-object awareness dominates

Esoteric Initiations: In addition to meditation, ancient myths, and near-death research, we have a similar process described in the psychological initiations of consciousness familiar to esoteric groups. There are notable similarities between the process of natural life and death and the ending of an old value system and a rebirth into a new perspective.

Transpersonal psychologists love to look at this process of death and rebirth in consciousness. One of (the) first of these was the Romanian scholar Mircea Eliade, who observed: “Initiatory death provides the clean state on which will be written the successive revelations whose end is the formation of a new man…This new life is conceived as the true human existence, for it is open to the values of spirit” (Eliade, xiii-xiv). The process of initiatory death wipes the slate clean so that a new chapter in the book of life may begin fresh, open, and unprejudiced by old cultural and social values and viewsInitiation breaks down old patterns of behavior. It allows people to begin again and to see with new perception. The new values become the principal values of the new life.

At each initiatory death and rebirth we begin with a new view from a higher elevation. We see more, know more, and can relate to whole systems more readily. Seeing and accepting life as a process of birth/death instead of regarding life as the opposite of death is an initiation into reality

Link–> https://www.theosophical.org/publications/quest-magazine?id=2810
Sources–> Alice Bailey (Theosophy), Madamn H.P. Blavatsky (Theosophy), The Dali Lama, etc…

–=–

With its hand inside and its (formally “Lucifer”) Lucis Publishing company officially recognized and integrated into the United Nations and the Common Core agenda for world education, let us again understand the basics of Theosophy for our purposes:

 
THEOSOPHY – noun – Divine wisdomgodliness. 1. Knowledge of God. (Webs1828)

THEOSOPHIST – noun – One who pretends to divine illuminationone who pretends to derive his knowledge from divine revelation. (Webs1828)

THEOSOPHIST – noun – [Gr. God, and comment; wise.] Pretension to divine illumination; enthusiasm(Webs1828)

SOPHIST – noun – [Latin sophista.] 1. A professor of philosophy; as the sophists of Greece. 2. A captious or fallacious reasoner. (Webs1828)

SOPHISTRY – (repeated) – noun – 1. Fallacious reasoningreasoning sound in appearance only. These men have obscured and confounded the nature of things by their false principles and wretched sophistry2. Exercise in logic(Webs1828)

–=–

Logic without grammar — this is the epitome of the Flat-Earth Society. Perspective-based information without True knowledge.

Let us be clear… I have maintained throughout my research and writings that I simply don’t know the shape of the earth, nor do I fool myself that this type of knowledge is for such mortals as myself. I remain neutral. This is, if anything, a sort of divine wisdom whose vantage point is only with God, if you will. I don’t know. I will continue to answer I don’t know. But so far, the evidence lands almost exclusively in the “globular” earth model. But I still do not know.

The typical flat-earther, however, has already decided, claiming God-like knowledge as divine wisdom without proofs and without actually realizing this cultish disposition. Such confidence is reminiscent to the historical accounts of the church’s resolve in justifying the witch-burnings. Fact built upon fallacious reasoning… or no reasoning or questioning at all! Belief based purely on physical observation and perspective is obviously a very dangerous thing, and is how the masses are controlled in many areas of thought. It is not dissimilar to ignoring the camouflage of many species that allows them to hide in plain site by subterfuge so as to catch its prey unsuspecting.

But what happens when one’s perspective is changed?

What happens to the mountainous ant hill when the ant climbs a tree and observes it from directly above as seemingly flat?

In fairness, we must acknowledge that the world and those who run it is full of controlled oppositional forces. It was Vladimir Lennon who is quoted as suggesting that “the best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.” And so as we find Eric Dubay outing almost all other prominent flat-earth researchers but himself as shills and controlled oppositions, we may also find otherwise legitimate inquiries and scientific researchers seeking the Truth of the matter. And so I leave this short essay with the following link that you may read at your leisure, which discusses the history of the Flat Earth Society, its leaders, and the fact that they may have been controlled opposition to counter any good information from being taken seriously.

Link–> http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/03/flat-earth-society-controlled-op.html

Again, I remind the reader that I remain neutral on the subject, so no need to bully me or attempt to belittle my character in the comments below. I simply ask that you consider the origins of this movement, a movement without really anywhere to move, and that you beware of any belief without supportive data. Use your grammar, logic, and rhetoric, in that order only.

Where does your grammar come from? Is it to teach or to deceive? Is it of the Nature of the Universe or is it sourced in the adverse?

ADVERSARIA – (From Latin adversa, things remarked or ready at hand.) Rough memoranda, common-place books. (Black4)

ADVERSARIA – noun – [Latin from adversus. See Adverse.] Among the ancients, a book of accounts, so named from the placing of debt and credit in opposition to each other. A commonplace book. (Webs1828)

ADVERSE adjective – [Latin adversus, opposite; of ad and versus, turned; from verto, to turn. See Advert. This word was formerly accented, by some authors, on the last syllable; but the accent is now settled on the first.] 1. Opposite; opposing; acting in a contrary direction; conflicting; counteracting; as, adverse winds; an adverse party. 2. Figuratively, opposing desire; contrary to the wishes, or to supposed good; hence, unfortunate; calamitous; afflictive; pernicious, unprosperous; as, adverse fate or circumstances. – verb transitive – advers’. To oppose. [Not used.] (Webs1828)

SATANnoun – [Hebrew. an adversary.] The grand adversary of man; the devil or prince of darkness; the chief of the fallen angels. (Webs1828)

–=–

Are the books (grammar) on your shelf and in your digital browser a gift of the light of knowledge or of the adverse of darkness as form without substance?

The world, be it flat or round, square or artificial, is abound in false dialectic (logic), in adversarial forces intent on counter-cultural confusion. Perhaps it is time to abandon such impossible pursuits and focus on the ever-deteriorating and legally (licensed) anarchistic society we find ourselves in today? No matter what side of this debate you fall on, perhaps it is time to come back to earth and treat it as home, whatever its unknown shape, and to start treating each other as we wish others to treat us. Oh, what a wonderful world (round or flat) that would be.

.

–clint richard-son (realityblogger.wordpress.com)
–Sunday, September 17th, 2017

Advertisements

An Open Letter To “Flat Earthers”


I am not here today in an attempt to debate on the subject of this post, and I’m not here to declare what “shape” the earth is. The most honest answer is invariable always that one which best describes one’s best disposition, which is that I simply don’t know. I cannot know. I have no vantage point to utter such a confident declaration and build a faith-based counter-cultural movement around it. I would never claim to know without seeing for myself, which I cannot.

This is, by the way, a great example of where the Trivium method (grammar, logic, rhetoric) works wonders. The trick with applying the Trivium method is to know when it is applicable and when it is not. The Truth, when told, needs not the Trivium to show it to be Truth. Only the lie, no matter how well-intentioned or ill-conceived it stands, can be defeated by the Trivium. For more on this method of distinction, this bullshit meter, visit:

Link–> http://www.triviumeducation.com

On that note, the group mentality shared between those styling themselves as “flat-earthers” has become wholeheartedly the opposite of honesty, which is to blindly state that the earth must be and therefore is indeed flat, while providing absolutely non-corelative “facts” to prove it. Though the word “flat” is wholly undefined and without any actual primary evidence whatsoever, this model of the flat earth has the same amount of primary photographs as the apparent globe model has, which is absolutely zero. Yet somehow this lack of somehow real photographic evidence (an oxymoron on its surface) only applies to what “flat-earthers” now call insultingly as “round-earthers,” a reference to how foolish everyone must be for not believing in the undefined and totally unproven in every way “flat” planet model. And so immediately and without trying, we utterly crush one of the mainstay arguments for a flat earth, which is that there is no Real picture or image of it — the same reason used to anecdotally disprove a round earth. But we must recognize and respect the maxims of law and science here, which is to say that one cannot prove a negative. In other words, a lack of evidence is not somehow positive evidence of a fact. Within the artistry and either purposeful or accidental irrationality of perfecting the use of logical fallacy, we find here that it is seemingly perfectly logical to utilize a self-damning argument (lack of photo evidence) against that which one wishes to disprove.

But the arrogant demands for real photos of the planet continue from these flat-earthers, who believe that the lack of (negative) photo evidence is positively proof that they are hiding flatness from us all.

When logic comes before or even absent of any grammar, you end up sounding like this guy:

This “flat-earther” will be our study case today.

Now, I don’t wish to talk down to or disparage this man, only to show that the fallaciously ill-conceived and unfounded confidence in what he is stating as “proof” is without anything to back it up. It is not rational, it is not scientific, and it is not reasonable. It is, however, a perfectly logical set of fallacious rhetoric. And so the intention of utilizing this video is purely to show evidence of what happens when logical fallacy becomes so out of control that it approaches the ridiculous, surpassing even religion in its vulgarity to what is self-evident Truth, simply because one’s foundation is unproven or incorrectly perceived. This arrogance of positively, rightously declared ignorance permeates throughout such stylized groups, but more so from “flat-earthers” than any other I’ve ever seen. We must ultimately call it for what it is, a strictly faith-based religious cult.

I will go point by point here, taking each topic mentioned by this self-proclaimed “flat-earther,” whatever that means, and let reason and obvious evidential proofs take their course.

Firstly, and before we even press play on the video, please take notice of the design on his shirt. This is a common model used to show an almost impenetrable, apparently highly guarded ice-wall that surrounds the entirety of the border of the flat earth. Treaties between nations are in place and the continent of Antarctica is thus off limits without international governmental permissions and permits. And this is therefore said to be a secretive conspiracy to hide the flat earth, simply because no one may thus walk to the edge of the earth and… do whatever it is one would do if one were to reach the end of the earth. Take a picture maybe? Throw a stone into space?

On the other side, the side of research and reason, we simply find this notion of an ice wall around the earth comes from the efforts of early global mappers to map a round globe onto a flat piece of paper, which is way harder than one might think. Trying to draw what is round (i.e. 3-dimensional model) onto what is a flat (i.e. 2-dimensional model) in actual simulation (representation) and scale is very difficult, of course, and involves much we need not get into here for this discussion.

Today, we have the fortunate example of computer world and background modeling to show us how such maps might appear as we warp them from round (3D) to flat (2D), though below it is opposite, going from flat (2D) to round (3D). The point is, one can easily see how Antactica would be skewed to appear to stretch around the globe if it were to be drawn on a flat map, when looking at the world from above Antarctica. In other words, what appears to be a wall of ice surrounding the oceans on all sides of the 2D map resets its original form when the map is caused to be shown in its 3D model again. The outside of the 2D map would be folded together and the continent of Antarctica would be clear. The same would be true if it was the North Pole that was the bottom of the model, if the photo was taken from the south pole. And so Antarctica is stretched out to appear as a circle around the entire map, just as illustrated below in this computer model, giving it the appearance of exactly what is pictured on our “flat-earther’s” t-shirt above.

And so this “displacement effect” upon a 2D rendered map is what a “flat-earther” tries to show as “proof” that Antarctica is a ring around our other continents on a flat surface. Again, no photo evidence, just the drawings of old mappers and mariners.

One theory is that because the flag of the “United Nations” has no pictorial image of Antarctica upon its armorial, that therefore the logical conclusion is that it’s laurels must be in actually a wall of ice spreading all around the flat earth from the south pole. But again the simplest answer is usually the correct one… For we must remember or learn the foundational fact that ANTARCTICA IS A CONTINENT and NOT A NATION. There is no independent nation in or around the geographical area known as Antarctica, which is the very reason for the afore mentioned international treaties upon it. It is wholly owned by no nation, and so it is not a party to nor is it represented in the United Nations as a nation. It is not, after all, the “United Continents.” Likewise, if all of the nations in North America dropped out of the United Nations, the flag would likely not include the continent of North America upon it. So would this lack of inclusion of a known continent somehow prove that the world is triangular, and indeed not round or flat?

A simple glance at the United Nations website gives a pretty good reason why we wouldn’t see Antarctica as well… because the very middle of the flag is a vantage point from the North Pole down!

The Design

The original UN logo was created by a team of designers during the United Nations Conference on International Organization in 1945.  The design team was led by Oliver Lincoln Lundquist.

The United Nations Emblem

The design is “a map of the world representing an azimuthal equidistant projection centred on the North Pole, inscribed in a wreath consisting of crossed conventionalized branches of the olive tree, in gold on a field of smoke-blue with all water areas in white. The projection of the map extends to 60 degrees south latitude, and includes five concentric circles” (original description of the emblem).

Link–> http://www.un.org/en/sections/about-un/un-logo-and-flag/index.html

–=–

Gee… I hope I didn’t just create a new flat-earth meme, that because the olive laurels on the UN flag are gold, they must be keeping Antarctica all for them-selves so as to hoard all the gold! Or perhaps this is where all those pesky, greedy leprechauns go with all of their damned elusive pot’s o’ gold, riding the rainbow train to Antarctic happiness…

UN FLAG1

The point here is that even without applying science, mathematics, or any other “proofs” to the equation, we can immediately see that just reasoning, mixed with a tiny bit of due diligence, defeats this entire ridiculous theory of “the ice-wall.” Antarctica is simply not a nation. How simple and funny is that?

But I digress, for I do not know if there is an ice-wall around us. I have no way of knowing and have never been there, if it actually exists. I am only here to disprove what is said to be proofs, and have a bit of sarcastic fun along the way. More to the point though, this should scare you, that people may be lead to believe in such easily defeated nonsense. For all of us non-flat-earthers are essentially heretics worthy of death by little round balls. Ok, that’s an exaggeration, of course. But we are being metaphorically stoned by these styled “flat-earthers” convinced not only that everything is a lie, but that a different set of lies are a convincing model of everything.

As for this freezing ice shelved continent, though several nations have claimed as sovereign certain overlapping sections (sectors) of the continent to conduct scientific research, it is simply not a new or unique nation in and of itself. It has no representation therefore in the United Nations and so one would not expect to see it upon any United Nations map or flag. This is quite reasonable. You can read more about the international Antarctic treaties here:

Link–> https://www.state.gov/t/avc/trty/193967.htm

Oh, and by the way, in case you “flat-earthers” decide to shift your focus to the north pole, let me nip that idea right in the butt. It sits over water, not any legally or internationally recognized land. So it really isn’t by law able to be considered a nation either. I hope I don’t need to remind you here that ice is also water as well, and that even a continent-sized ice cube still cannot technically be a nation either, since water is considered as a moveable in law. Look at the flag above. The North pole is portrayed as water and not continental land.

One down, so many to go…

Let’s go back to the first example video of our rather confident “flat-earther” and his fallacious rhetoric and continue with our analysis.

In the beginning monologue our “flat-earther” states that the biggest argument against “flat-earthers” such as himself is of course the fact that they have no actual evidence to back up their claims, though our flat-earth champion seems here not to apply himself to that generalization, and seeks in this video to rebuke the fact of no facts exist. He then states that this claim of lack of evidence comes from that dismissive majority of “heliocentric enthusiasts” as a title for what I assume is another way of disparaging anyone that believes the earth is round and revolves around the sun.

To be clear, I am not writing this critique as a helio-centrist or under any other religious and/or scientific titles or belief systems. Remember, I clearly stated that “I don’t know” in the beginning of this post, and that my only goal is to disprove what is labeled as “100% proof” of a flat earth, as if there is a such thing as 90% or 17.8% proof? Maybe their proof system is the same as alcohol is based on? I don’t know. One can hold many theories yet hold zero proofs. That’s religion. But the most important facet about this clandestine name-calling is the link made by this “flat-earther” that anyone who does not believe in a flat-earth model must therefore logically believe in a heliocentric model. Why? This is unclear, since the shape of the earth itself does not prove or disprove in any way that the earth revolves around the sun or is stationary. So what about geocentrism? Can I not be a believer in geocentrism and also believe in the general roundness of the planets and of Earth? Again, this is but a fallacious, false connection created to make the flat-earth model more appealing and factual by association or lack thereof, when in fact it makes no difference at all to the shape of the earth.

He goes on to state that the distance of the sun from the earth is a heliocentric model-based factoid, when in fact shape has nothing to do with any heliocentric theory or any other. But how could the shape of the earth be a correlation to the distance of the earth to the sun? Answer: It doesn’t. Whether these measurements are accurate or not, at best, fall under the knowledge category of I DON’T KNOW EXACTLY AND NEVER WILL. And yes, this is the best scientific answer possible! This is just more false-association and fallacious logic without reasonable grammar.

And here we see the immediate development of an us against them, or us against everyone else in the universe mentality, even as his rhetoric takes upon itself an almost religious quality of belief over reason, as if he is one of a new persecuted society of true believers.

The name of this video, by the way, is “The Sun Is The Smoking Gun.”

His first specific argument is that all drawings of the universe are CGI computer models.

Now, I hate to even feel the need to state this, but what the hell else is there? What else could there even be? This statement is one of those beg the question fallacies that implies that there could or should be some other kind of image of the universe showing all the planets to scale that is kept somehow secret from us. Perhaps the aliens faxed it over last century? You know, when faxes were universally cool? But where could such a “real” image come from otherwise? Wouldn’t one need to float way outside of Pluto’s course to possibly obtain such an image of the entire solar system? And would the sun not just appear from that vantage point as merely another bright star in the far distance?

Yes, all the pictures you see of the sun and planets are art or computer images. Duh! And no, they are not nor can they be to scale, because the scale would require 10’s or 100’s of miles of paper to print out. Not to mention, that while portrayed at such a scale the planets would be unseen by the naked eye, making the map pointless for study. So yes, they are drawn in and over-exagurated. Surprise! If you think that is a conspiracy to hide flat earth, I don’t even know what to say to that. How can this possibly be related to anything about flat earth? There is absolutely no correlation of the shape of the earth to the distance of each planet to the sun. This is just another completely unrelated topic used as false proof, as compared to the question: Is the earth flat?

100% dud there…

Now, standing as what has to be the most ridiculous disassociation from known science, physics, and just downright common sense and perception, our “flat-earther” shows a “proof” of something that I honestly have never heard before. At around the 2:20 mark in the video above, he actually points to the suns reflection on the clouds (atmosphere) and calls it a “hot spot.” He is actually looking at the reflection of the sun from the camera’s vantage point and thinking that the bright reflection of the sun’s light is causing a “hot spot” to form over the earth. Now at first I thought for sure this had to be a joke. But he just kept on as if absolutely this was a reasonable conclusion.

He then shows footage of the sun shining in different directions through the clouds, claiming that this means that if you follow the rays of the sun, it is really much closer to earth than is officially stated. Again, this photographic evidence is not proof in any way that the earth is flat, just more rhetoric without proper grammar and logic applied. If he’s right though, the sun would appear to be hovering in this picture to be about 2 or 3 miles above the clouds according to the way the sun rays line up. So it’s really close! Therefore… the earth is flat. LOL!

I’m sorry, but it is very hard to control my sarcasm here, so bear with me.

What he didn’t bother to check with reference to these “crepuscular rays,” which have everything to do with the point of ones linear perspective, are something called anti-crepuscular rays or anti solar rays, which actually do the opposite of these crepuscular rays he shows in his video example. Anti solar rays appear (as an illusion) to converge away from the sun instead of at the sun. Both are illusions, just like a rainbow is an optical illusion (unless you are a leprechaun). And so here again, just a tad bit of due diligence would show our “flat-earthed” theorist that his theories are quite self-debunkable.

New “flat-earther” meme: if the anti solar rays of the sun don’t point to the sun, the sun must therefore not exist. Oh, wait, that’s why they are called ANTI solar. The point is that these rays, called crepuscular rays, are also not coming directly from the sun, but from the atmospheric reproduction of them. And so no, they are not a measurement of where the sun is in the sky.

Logic without grammar…

By all means, simply type in these terms into an image finder and marvel at what comes up — a beautiful and well known phenomenon that we have all witnessed personally at some point in our lives. But to say something is well known does not make it any less of a natural or optical illusion.

And yet amazingly, arrogantly, confident and absolutely sure of himself, he continues in his false proofs as if a prophet of the sun deity…

His next point is the Earth’s supposed distance from the sun, called colloquially as the “Goldilocks” position in reference to the fairy tale of Goldilocks and the Three Bears, where the earth is just right. But of course, it is the atmosphere of the earth that is just right, not the position of it. If we loose our atmosphere by any significant degree for any reason, little Goldilocks will suddenly find herself with a really bad sunburn and won’t be feeling just right. In fact, her little face will either melt off or become a popsicle.

The correct answer to this distance measurement?

I do not know. Nor shall I. Nor am I meant to.

In answer to his irrational question then I would say no, I would not expect anything in space to be ablaze that is outside of the ring of Earth’s positional field because I would also not know its atmospheric capabilities. This mixture of scientific referential and bold-faced sci-fi conjecture is enough to cause a rational man to bleed out of his anus in angst and incurable frustration. Maybe that’s the point. The joke? However, again I would answer that I don’t know, man, because I have no idea what space is or what it’s made of, what the sun is or what it’s made of, nor what the distance is between these things. And neither do you. I cannot reasonably have unwarranted confidence in one unknown only to use that unknown to prove or disprove another unknown entity. But, according to “flat-earthers,” since apparently we cannot believe anything NASA says, why use NASA information while at the same time trying to prove NASA is a fraud?

Seriously, if we get any less rational, we are going to end up disproving the existence of fire by splashing water on it!

For the next one, I’ll just quote this dude to save time and energy…

“So why is it that here, on earth, you see- you look up and you see the sun, and the sun, always has a blue background, but when you see these official images from the trusted scientific community and the good folks over at NASA who are raking in that $52 million dollars a day, you see the sun and it’s always a black background. Why does that– why does that happen, why does it look that way. Ask– Ask these questions to yourself.”

–=–

It is perhaps this last statement that answers the rest. Why would one ask a question to one’s self? Knowing that one’s self does not already know the answer, is it really reasonable to proceed then to asking one’s self for the answer?

Essentially, he is asking why is the sky is blue.

But what about at night, when we look out in space and see 1,000’s of stars that are supposedly suns? Why isn’t space blue at night time? When the sun is behind us, instead of shining directly in our atmosphere, then we see the same darkness he is questioning. There is (apparently) no atmosphere (like ours) around the sun, and therefore there are no rays bouncing through our sky giving off a blue tint. We would need to be looking at the sun from behind an atmosphere to see the color of the atmosphere. Yet he questions why it is black behind, not in front of the sun. This is another laugh out loud moment, being but more priceless logical fallacy.

But by all means, ask your self to make sure your self knows the answer.

Again, this is simply a matter of perspective. The sky is no more blue than a rainbow is the appearance of its colors. Our perception of what we label as the color “blue” is merely the available light allowed (filtered) through our own limited capacity to see.

This children-oriented science museum in Louisiana explains it thusly:

“…One of the main factors in determining a sunset’s color is the Earth’s atmosphere. The atmosphere is made up mostly of gases as well as some other molecules and particles thrown in for good measure. The most common gasses in our atmosphere are nitrogen (78%) and oxygen (21%). The remaining single percent is made up of water vapor and lots of tiny solid particles like dust, soot & ash, pollen, and salt from the oceans. There are also trace gasses like argon present. Also, depending on where you live, you’ll have to factor in that volcanoes can put large amounts of dust particles high into the atmosphere and pollution can add different gases or dust and soot to the air as well.

The atmosphere of the Earth can be thought of like a filter on a camera lens.

Light from a light bulb or the Sun may look white, but it is actually a combination of many colors. When you see light filtered through a prism you’ll see this white light split up into its separate colors, i.e. wavelengths. White light is the colors of the spectrum blended into each other. And a rainbow that you see in the sky is actually a natural prism effect as rain drops split those different colors up.  The colors have different wavelengths, frequencies, and energies. Violet has the shortest wavelength. Red has the longest wavelength. The shorter the wavelength means the more powerful the frequency.”

–=–

In other words, when this guy says to “trust your own eyes,” every scientist in the world reacts in painful spasm, since our own eyes are naturally filtered from seeing most of the spectrum of available light. Our eyes are like a filter (camera lens) for the brain, which is a beautiful gift of Nature, letting us see only what we need to see for our environment and survival in Nature.

Let’s just put it this way… if the atmosphere wasn’t there to protect your sorry ass, you wouldn’t be asking why the sky (atmosphere) is blue in the first place, now would you. Why not wonder at its glory than question its visual and functional reality?

But let us pause here yet again to ask that ever so important and repetitive question: what in the hell does the blue sky have to do with the earth being flat?

Essentially, he answers his own question by stating the fact that in space, when looking at pictures of the sun, the background black, while from earth and within its atmosphere, it is blue.

And that leads us to the logical fallacy of the day: because NASA rakes in 52 million a day it cannot be trusted. NASA draws and creates CGI pictures of what it cannot otherwise take pictures of and fills in colors to see things in its published pictures (and always discloses to us it is doing so), therefore it again cannot be trusted.

By this logic, we cannot trust graphic engineers or structural architects unless their drawings match exactly to what the final constructed building will look like, including the color scheme picked out by the eccentric billionaires that will corporately dwell therein.

Again, let me remind the reader, I am not defending anyone or anything, including NASA. Please don’t shoot the messenger. I am only disposing what is labeled as 100% proof by someone who calls, identifies, and publicly displays himself culturally as a “flat-earther.”

Moving on…

Once again, at about 8:40 into this horrifyingly laughable video, I will need to quote our “flat-earther” just to show the idiocracy of what is being stated with no sign of apology or awareness of any of the sciences.

“If you actually just trust your senses — if you, you can pop on YouTube, or you can, you know, take a look at this video and find additional videos, you’re gonna find that there are time-lapses that people have taken of the sun moving across the sky. And while the sun’s moving across the sky, you’ll notice that the Earth seems to be stationary, like, the Earth isn’t moving; the buildings that you see aren’t moving. You see the sun drifting across the sky. So wha- what does that tell you? We’re told that the Earth is rotating around the sun, yet we feel no movement, we don’t see any motion, we don’t feel any motion out here, but we feel stillness when we go outside. And, in the time-lapse you see the sun moving across the sky, just like that (hand motion). So what does that tell you? I believe that tells you to trust your senses. And what does your senses tell you? Your senses tell you that the sun is the thing that is moving and that the Earth is flat and stationary. But let’s go on…”

–=–

Firstly, I love that he says trust your senses, and in the same sentence tells us to watch YouTube. In other words, trust the CGI. Trust digital technology. Just don’t trust NASA or government or any of them there round-earthers and their usage of YouTube.

So here he actually points to the fact that when we set up a STATIONARY camera pointed at the sky, the Earth for some reason does not seem to move. The buildings stay where they are. LOL! Only the sun seems to move across the sky.

Do I need to even comment on this?

If you don’t understand, then go buy a mountable camera and perhaps jump off a cliff. Afterwords, if you survive, you can marvel at how everything but the tip of your hat seems to move, but not what the camera is mounted upon. The mountains, the buildings, the sky… everything just seems to be flying by in utter chaos! Be careful though, because that large mass of land coming straight for the camera is actually the round earth about to smack the hell out of you.

As to the motion fallacy, I can merely direct the reader of this, and any flat-earther” for that matter, to go and drive your car at 90 miles an hour down the wrong side of the highway. Once you reach that speed, you’ll notice that if you drop a quarter, it falls straight down as if you are standing still. You will also notice that you cannot actually feel the motion of traveling at 90 miles an hour, since you are not accelerating or decelerating any more. But eventually you’ll cause a crash with an oncoming car or truck, and you will definitely feel that motion. May sting a little, but at least you’ll be able to rationalize how it is we don’t feel the turn or motion of the Earth.

Now again, I don’t claim to know anything about this. Are we turning? I don’t know. Are we spinning and darting through space with reckless abandon in a spiral with the sun and other planets like crumbs in the garbage disposal of space? I don’t know.

However, I will point out again that the notion that the earth is stationary or that it is spinning or that it is rocketing through space… has nothing to do with the Earth being flat or round. So please stop equating unreliable concepts together.

Seriously, this has to be a practical joke, right?

Trust your senses. But let me tell you what your senses tell you, because I’m a “flat-earther” and everyone else is round and heliocentric.

My favorite part of this video, starting at about the 10 minutes mark or so, is the ill-conceived story and experiment he tells about calling up his friends in England and in Australia to show that sunlight is in all three places at once, and that this is somehow impossible on a globe model earth. Now, he could have just gone to the time zone websites and pulled up this information himself, to see that when he called his friends internationally they would tell him exactly what would be expected at that moment. But instead, without checking any source or even having the conscious awareness to verify his claim, he arrogantly presents a completely ridiculous “story” of how the fact that his friends can see the sun rising and setting at the same time it is directly over his head in the western state of Washington proves the earth is flat.

So I pulled up what I believe any rational man would pull up, the time zone charts based on the round earth that everyone is familiar with and for which our entire time and travel infrastructure is based on. Now I have data to compare to an anecdotal phone call that presents absolutely no proof of anything except that the sun can be seen in three places at once. To our flat-earthed, this duel phone call is proof-positive that the earth must be flat. I have no idea what this is so, except again to point out the lack of grammar that his dialectic (logic) is built upon, leaving his rhetoric completely in the realm of the absurd.

Here is the data set I found after 5 minutes of reasonable research. I looked at the sunset charts for England and Australia today (August 23, 2017) which can be found and inquired of here:

Link–> (https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/@2175819)

–=–

Australia (Biloela Queensland): Time was 6:17 am and the sun was at 78 degrees — Video shows 6:06 am, and sun is barely rising (not quite yet beginning to rise – to quote: “just coming up”) in that video, just as one would expect from the data set provided.

6:18 am  (78°) 5:43 pm  (282°)

–=–

England (West Yorkshire):  Video shows sun already quote: “over the hill” referring to a sun already set and out of site, and that it was apparently a quote: “nice sunset.” The website shows an equal dataset, predicting the sunset to happen at 8:17 pm, with a 290 degree angle, just as one would expect immediately after sunset at 9:06 pm (time of video).

5:59 am  (69°) 8:17 pm  (290°)

–=–

Note that these degree points are referencing the upward direction as well as either east or west. In other words, the sun that is being seen at sunset in Queensland Australia is also being seen as a sunset in West Yorkshire England, just was recorded on the globe model.

Next we simply plug in where our “flat-earther” happens to be standing while conducting this hilariously this botched experiment while making it sound logically as absolute proof. He is in Tacoma Washington, at what just happens to be the exact middle off the day, or what is officially called the “solar noon.” And we see that the degree of angle shows the sun to be in the middle of the sky, at 180 degrees (the middle point between sunset and sunrise).

1:12 pm (53.9°), heading (180°)

Link–> https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/usa/tacoma

–=–

And so, this means that what England sees as a sunset and Australia sees as a sunrise is actually the middle of the day in the Western most United States (Pacific Time Zone). And this just happens to be exactly what the globe model predicts would happen. And yet this little “story” of our “flat-earther” calling other internationally unorganized “flat-earthers”  states this to be absolute 100% proof (the name of the video) that the earth is flat.

To be clear, when we look at the “globe” model map below, we can see that in order for this to have happened, the sun would be over the State of Washington, to which the eastern shore of Australia would see this solar noon as the eastern rising morning sun, while In Western Europe, specifically in England, we would also see the sun setting in the west. This can only happen on this round earth, for on flat earth maps we see Australia being east of both America and England. So how could Australia be seeing the solar noon in America by looking east at the same time England is looking west?

We know the answer, of course. Do I actually have to say it? That the map connects to the other side of the map…

And so even more hilarious to consider while listening to this “flat-earther” preach, this little experiment actually disproves the validity of any flat earth model, since if the sun was hovering over North America, it would be seen as a westward sunrise in both Europe and Australia, and nothing from the East. In other words, the sun would rise and set only in the west in Australia according to this flat-earth model.

Globe map

So what does this mean?

Between chuckles and outright bursts of uncontrollable laughter, it means that this self-proclaimed “flat-earther” just proved the exact readings one finds on sites such that NASA would run. He literally proved that the “globe” model does exactly what it says it does, and that a flat earth model does not jive with the suns placement in the skies!

But don’t be fooled by my research here… for this is actually, somehow, some way, proof that the Earth is flat, but satirically so, and only in a round sort of way.

Now at this point we must begin to speculate that this whole flat earth thing is just a very widely played joke, or that it is indeed merely just another counter-culture mind game with a goal towards total domination through controlled chaos of a completely irrational idiocracy… kinda like the movie version. Even the majority of comments left in this video ask if it is a joke, while most of the remainder of comments are insults hurled at “round-earthers” and “heliocentric enthusiasts” that offer no substance or proofs, very much like a religious argument should be.

But can we really compare the movie with today’s reality?

.

–=–

Perhaps the greatest and most appealing fallacies is the fact that when we look at the horizon, we see with our own eyes that it is flat. And so we again apply logic without grammar, and conclude that our perception must be correct. But please allow me to attempt to explain why it is that we do not see curvature on the horizons of our Earth, based on the globe model…

But how does one tell in words what would need to be experienced to comprehend? We can only try here to explain the only rational outcome of what it would be like to stand on a perfectly round (3-dimentional) ball or globe.

To start, we must realize that everywhere we look at the horizon, say if no mountains were in our way, that is forward, backward, right, left, and every point in between, would necessarily be at an equal vantage point wherever we may look. In other words, the horizon would be flat in appearance, and the curvature would not be perceptible, since every point on the horizon is at the same height from our perspective.

Remember, this is all about perspective. You’ll need to use your imagination for this one, keeping it bound to reason.

So let us pretend that while we are standing on a perfectly round globe model of anything, and therefore are standing automatically at its highest point, that we are then told to look for curvature on the horizon between the right and left points on opposite sides from one another, and then for the curvature from in back of us to the very front of our position.

Where would the perspective of such curvature begin and end, if everywhere you turned upon a perfect globe and therefore every horizontal point of the surface spread equally out in front of you? Answer: the horizon would appear flat (equidistant) because we are viewing the globe not in 3d but only two-dimensionally (length/hight).

If it started at the front and went left or right in its curvature, then there would be nothing left behind us when we turned around, since the curvature would not allow for that or any other equal point to exist, and this would actually, ironically, and mathematically prove it not to be a perfect globe. It is in fact the 2D perception of flatness that proves the actual 3D roundness. In other words, the horizon would need to curve back up in order to reach the level horizontal point behind us and on each side of us, and for that matter at every point we can see. If we saw a curve in front of us, curving left and right in a downward (fisheye) style, it would have curved in front of us to the point where nothing would be left to see when we turn around. But the point behind us is at the same horizontal plane as that which is in front, left, and right of us. So where could this supposed curve of the globe possibly manifest itself when the plane or horizon of it is equal on all sides (perspectives) from our two-dimensional vantage point? It cannot. It’s like a reverse optical illusion. And we are missing a whole dimension of perspective.

And so again we see here that the very answers to the questions posed by these self-proclaimed “flat-earthers” are actually the same answers as to why the earth is not flat. To apply one or two-dimensional logic to a three-dimensional equation will always cause confusion… and false religion.

I’m not sure what to conclude from this ridiculous collection of 100% proof of flat Earth, except that it is so unbelievable that someone could actually believe it. If anything, this “flat-earther” just proved that quite the opposite to be true. In any case, this whole counter-cultural meme and identity of false-persecution just needs to stop. To all my friends who have presented me with similar, easily refutable “evidence” of a flat Earth, I appeal to you to focus on what is Real and verifiable.

This is not dissimilar to the Mandela Effect hoax, to which I did a similar discourse on. The key to remember is that nothing in Nature, nothing in Reality is changing, only the artifice, entertainments, cartoons, timelines, and fictional histories of men. These are not Reality. And neither is the flat Earth model.

Link–> https://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2016/06/08/a-strong-delusion-the-mandela-effect/

However, I end this by stating again that I don’t know. I have not proven anything here today, only debunked what others are labeling as “truth” and “proof.”

If you would like me to go over other flat earth mysteries, false positive proofs, and fallacies, please let me know. I’ll tackle them one by one in the comments below. And if I don’t know, I will say I don’t know.

To be clear, for those who hurl insults instead of reasonable comments…

I do not love NASA. I do not side with any side, because Truth only has one side, and one either knows or does not know Truth. I do not love government. I despise doctors, scientists, and any other flattering titles bestowed by this syndicalist education, diplomacy, and licensing system. I am not any label, so don’t call me one. I don’t believe in the flat earth or the round earth or the square earth or the triangular earth or the trapezoidal earth. I don’t believe in the heliocentric or the geocentric or the egocentric position of the earth. And I will give no comment space for those who declare that by default I must be any or all of the above. Only rational statements of reason are asked for here. I don’t want to be dared to research anything and I won’t be amazed by what you present. I will only research it primarily and let you know what I find, with the caveat that I do not know.

In closing, it occurs to me that this would make a great script for a video. Please feel free to do so, without need of any permissions. I’d certainly love to hear this dude’s response!

Now, please focus on what is self-evident, self-existent, as that which needs no proof to establish its already clear existence. Smell the flowers and cherish what beauty and Realness is left here for your senses to enjoy, before this scientific community genetically modifies us and our environment into the internet of all things.

.

–Clint > richard-son (realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Thursday, August 24th, 2017