• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Tales Of A Flat Earth

Holly's not having it either.

As I'm new to this subject, one thing they don't ask is WHY governments need to convince us the Earth is round? What do Flat-Earthers say their agenda is?
 
As I'm new to this subject, one thing they don't ask is WHY governments need to convince us the Earth is round? What do Flat-Earthers say their agenda is?
That is a very good question!
 
Someone on here, I think, explained that the mathematical formula they use to explain why an object can be seen from a distance when it shouldn't if the earth was a sphere, is one intended for flat surfaces. Apparently, if they use the correct formula intended for curved surfaces, it indeed shows that the earth is a sphere. I am of course, unqualified to affirm this.
 
Me and Mr Zebra finally got around to watching our new 'Carl Sagan Cosmos' DVD set that we purchased recently. (Hang on, this is relevant, I promise :) ) and in the episode he was explaining how Eratosthenes, a Greek scientist / astronomer, concluded that the Earth was round based on the fact that in one location with the sun directly above at midday, the shadows of an obelisk would have a different length to those of an obelisk located some distance away, when measured at exactly the same time.

So back then, Eratosthenes figured out the Earth is spherical (and also fairly accurately figured out the circumference of the Earth!), yet nowadays there are people who still think it's flat?

I've found a clip of the episode, here: it should be recommended watchingfor all flat-earthers :)



By the way, that Cosmos show is excellent; I've never really watched Carl Sagan before but he's such an engaging presenter, one of those people who really gets you interested in what they're talking about. We've watched two episodes so far, and they really were amazing.
 
The comments by one bloke underneath that is excellent. The surname was Hallam (if I recall correctly). He explains every point using science but still the idiots come back. I still think for most it is an intellectual excersize but the remainder are truly stupid people. It really is exasperating and I think that some really enjoy watching that. It is all rather onanistic.
 
As I'm new to this subject, one thing they don't ask is WHY governments need to convince us the Earth is round? What do Flat-Earthers say their agenda is?

I've often wondered this. The closest I have come to an answer is that there is no agenda - the government aren't covering anything up, they're just ignorant and stick to their theory against all evidence. Which sounds like a rather tongue-in-cheek response supporting the "this is all a joke, surely?" hypothesis, to me.

Judging from the most recent summit, they seem to have taken in the even more insane "there is no such thing as Australia" theory - which must be a wind-up, surely?! - and that the world functions like a Pac-Man level, and crossing over the "edge" at one end will just make you rematerialize at the other, which is why no one has ever fallen off.

If it's all a hoax for everyone involved, it's one with a monumental amount of effort going into it and no easy to ascertain benefit. I've definitely met at least one person who believes all this nonsense in earnest.
 
Last edited:
This new online article on Live Science:

https://www.livescience.com/62506-flat-earth-convention.html

... provides the observations and reflections of a person who attended the recent Flat Earth Convention in Birmingham.

His most general conclusion seems to be that the flat earth mania correlates with:

(a) a growing knee-jerk rejection of mainstream authorities of all types, including scientists; and
(b) a shift toward following whatever one finds on social media or personally prefers (as opposed to what can be defended with facts).
 
(a) a growing knee-jerk rejection of mainstream authorities of all types, including scientists; and
(b) a shift toward following whatever one finds on social media or personally prefers (as opposed to what can be defended with facts).

Both those points ring true with me.

I've been working (less than I should) on my Master's thesis along these lines; looking at the phenomenon of social media "bubbles", "fake news" and the notion of trust and so on.

The crux of my argument is basically that we're seeing a lot of "fringe" theories and conspiracies pick up steam because social media has allowed people a more personalised world-view, a way to live their life without ever being seriously confronted with a contradictory opinion, while at the same time we've seen trust eroded in science, journalism, education and the judiciary, all of which should stand as arbiters of what is "true".

So we've ended up in an epistemological conflict, where people are able to argue points that have no bearing on objective reality, but have them presented as true - and, an offshoot of that, you can end up with the likes of Cambridge Analytica able to effectively weaponise that state of affairs.


It's absolutely about that knee-jerk response to reject authority - Michael Gove's "people are tired of experts". And when you decide that everything science, or any other authority, says is wrong, then what's right? It's the same instinct that drives conspiracy theorists in ever more deluded directions - it's one thing to say that what the mainstream media says is a lie, it's another to assume that because something isn't in the mainstream media it must be the truth.

The irritating thing about pseudoscience - I've been reading a lot of '70s articles and essays refuting Chariots Of The Gods? lately, and see a lot of parallels with Flat Earthers and the like - is that it in one hand rejects science and authority, knowing that in doing so it will draw sympathy from a certain audience, but then they require the trappings of science to justify their argument. They'll draw up vague equations, and present their points in a faux-academic manner, because they want the illusion of credibility, while still wanting the anti-authority label, and the two don't add up.
 
I have no doubt a lot of nuts actually believe this nonsense. Sure, there are plenty of people pretending to buy into all of it just for the attention or the sheer fun of it, but anyone in the US who doubted that we have an abundance of idiots should have had that settled for sure by the 2016 elections.
 
The funny thing from my perspective is that I've been aware of Sean Connors for years as I've been one of the few thousand subscribers to his channel about roleplaying. He was always very earnest and came across as genuinely bright, but I suspect he's probably gone a bit mental in the couple of years since he stopped regularly uploading.

My first reaction was that he must be pranking them, but I can't really find anything more online about his conversion.

Here's some footage from the Flat Earth Conference. This part is where (real) science post-grads and flat-earthers bounce ideas to and fro:


Edit: Good Lord, it's painful--they can't speak the same language.
 
Last edited:
Well here people are, taking the mick out of flat-earthers, and then having the audacity to suggest that the earth is round. :confused:
Planet Earth is of course not round but spherical - an oblate spheroid actually. But some credit to the flatlanders, because large parts of the earth are flat. Australia in particular is a very flat continent - the highest mountain there is only 7,000 feet tall. The earth itself is relatively smoother than a billiard ball, I read somewhere.
It's interesting to try to grasp the model that flat-earthers have in their minds. Do they believe that the earth is disc-shaped? Is Australia on the other side of the disc? I don't remember going round such a sharp corner when I flew there. Wouldn't all the seawater just flow off the edge?
By the way Rynner, didn't you mean "equator" rather than "equinox"?

Bill Robinson
 
A lot of the flat earthers are convinced the Earth is flat because it doesnt say its round in the bible.Some are just bloody minded .
 
Flat Earther vs Aerospace Engineer Major | Victor - Brooklyn, NY | Talk Heathen 02.08

 
While I was scrolling through my Meetup.com feed the other day, I came across a post for the first ever Flat Earth Fashion Show, which was being thrown at a shop in Anaheim, California, called Streetwear Addicts, that bills itself as “a men’s fashion streetwear store [that] has been promoting truth since forever and Flat Earth since conscious of that fact.” There was no way I couldn’t go and at least try to cop a tinfoil snapback.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/xwkwva/i-went-to-a-flat-earth-fashion-show
 
33198794_2153413981336816_5019478401379991552_n.jpg
31045535_442957252851616_5358473158578432097_n.jpg
 
I wonder if part of the Flat-Earther thing was one awkward sod just trying to be provocative, finding loads of other people piling on and agreeing and then being unable to back out gracefully?

It's like if I said (half jokingly and occasioned by the failure of yet another internal combustion device) 'we should get rid of cars and go back to the horse and cart'. And then loads of people agreed, there were actual people selling their cars and buying horses and campaigning for the abolition of cars of all sorts. I'd be unable to go back and say 'err, guys, it was just a joke you know? I got a bit cross and said something daft and now you're all taking it seriously...can we just stop now and buy sensible Skodas and stuff cos none of you know one end of a horse from the other and...'

It would have gained its own momentum by then and there would be societies and all sorts. And I'd be obliged to harness a donkey to an old pram just to get to work.
 
Every time I see this thread pop up on the forum overview I read it as

"Tales of a Fiat Earth".

And then picture some kind of nightmare vision of a world ruled over by rusty old Fiat Unos and aggressive 70s Fiat 128s...
 
Back
Top