Why should i care what category you put whomever into? You're consistently behaving like a stereotypical "mainstreamism-ist" hothead who clearly has never looked at any conspiracist stating or arguing theirviews or ever debated one; your credibility and relevance on this subject is a bit... limited, to put it diplo.clearspira wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 2:52 pm''A known or suspected motive for a conspiracy increases its likelihood, but is not necessary as evidence.''KitWargSpectacle wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 2:34 pmYou're confusing things here: keeping everything completely under wraps, that's a super conspiracy, practicing ultra suppression.clearspira wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 12:48 pmSuppressed evidence?KitWargSpectacle wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 2:34 amPythagoras wasn't some low IQ average joe nobody - most people today wouldn't be able to come up with the maths/methods tha were used in the antiquity to find out the earth was round and what its rough size was.clearspira wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 1:16 amHuh? Wha-?KitWargSpectacle wrote: ↑Sat Jun 20, 2020 11:24 pmThe one with the ice wall model, nah don't think they're religious - more of a conspiracy thing.clearspira wrote: ↑Wed Jun 17, 2020 7:04 pm My opinion is that only 1% of so-called flat earthers actually exist. The other 99% are trolls.
And of that 1%, all of them are religious.
Also i'd like to briefly add to my previous post here, that a lot of "round earthers" are in fact, and many of them aren't quite aware of that, not any smarter than the flat earthers; especially not the smarter ones among them.
So for that reason I appreciate the existence of fringe positions like this - by challenging people's core views concretely rather than theoretically, the one or other individual is pushed to question what and how much he really knows, and how, as opposed to just absorbing the public's views on things.
The Earth being round is such an obvious fact that Pythagoras back in 500 BC worked it out. If anyone thinks they are challenging my core beliefs by having a worse grasp of astronomy than a man who lived 2500 years ago they are greatly mistaken.
The only "obvious" part is the ships disappearing below the water, but challenging claims that this is due to light distortion / it's not sth that's observed consistently and counterexamples are being suppressed isn't too easy.
Another "obvious" thing today is the timezones (but again light distortion) and plain flights - pointing out passenger flights across Antarctica would be the easiest way to disprove at peast that version.
Show how astronaut and sat pictures aren't curve lensed, etc.
If you can do all that and disprove the best of flat earthers, and thus don't need to question yourseof, then you're WAY above average.
Good God, that is so dumb.
Do you have any idea - ANY IDEA - at all just how impossible it would be to keep a conspiracy like this going? NASA, SpaceX, the EU space agency, the Chinese space agency, amateur astronomers, mathematicians, the media. It would cost billions of dollars per week and the silence of hundreds of millions of people over hundreds of years to achieve this feat.
Most conspiracy theories floating around, however, don't claim such a level of secrecy: the lower tier conspiracy that they propose keep things under wraps just enough so most people and esp. most people of status or influence, can remain wilfully ignorant about it: just not happening to run into such information in their everyday life due to lack of curiosity, or dismissing info as probably hogwash or irrelevant, sth to ponder another day, due to biases or low frequency of encountering it.
So guess what the conspiracists claim? They do claim to have maths on their side, as well as mathematicians; government or NASA whistleblowers; scientists who see little exposure due to the establishment being corrupted and biased; amateur astros or sailors who've made contrary observations, that you can find if you look but don't reach most people sufficiently; the media lol.
A known or suspected motive for a conspiracy increases its likelihood, but is not necessary as evidence.Seriously, what is the f-g point? What could anyone possibly get out of a money and time investment of this scale? This is absolute lunacy.
The examples i already mentioned don't go past Occam - you're not paying attention it seems.'The best of the flat earthers'' need to explain away Occams Razor before I dial back my claim that the majority of you are trolls.
Well NDTyson was on Rogan and failed to make a strong case against conspiracy claims - then again I hear Tyson is not the best the academia has to offer, so *shrug* dunno.PS - What is your opinion on the Moon landings?
No! No, no, no, no, no.
I'm not letting you off that easy. Give me a reason for this bullshit. Just one. One reason at all why anyone would try to convince someone that the world is flat and not round.
''The examples i already mentioned don't go past Occam - you're not paying attention it seems.''
Yes they do. Your ''examples'' all link back to the question as to why.
Here's my personal promise to you. If you cannot answer me ''why'' in your very next comment, I will put you up as one of the trolls and give up. i have given you too much of a chance already tbh.
Yes yes yes yes - if there is evidence of something "a out the established model" "not adding up", of questions not addressed by the established science, claims being not published and rejected for invalid ideological reasons etc., then you've already got a case - and making wild claims about "why" the ominous they do if is entirely unnecessary.
However as I said it *does* increase the chances if a plausible motive can be suggested - like money, oil etc. at its most basic;
and of course whenever any party does have a known reason to want to lie or do certain things under false pretenses, they already warrant having a good eye on them - BUT, as long as there's no evidence of them doing it, you can't claim they are; and conversely, if there *is* evidence, you can do so even if they *don't* have a plausible known motivation that would've made them suspect even before encountering that evidence.
And if I just had to explain something as obvious to you, how seriously should I really take you on this topic?
"Yes they do. Your ''examples'' all link back to the question as to why."
No they don't - quote them and show how so.
Speculation why whoever would want to maintain whatever false worldview is secondary at best, and entirely depends on what type of claim we're looking at.
If it's the religious, then they'd obviously say it's an effort to sow distrust in scripture.
And if it's the ice wall thing, well for all one might think of maybe there's sth beyond that wall that those in the know don't want the public to learn about? Sth they use for theirnown advantage or benefit, or sth dangerous etc. - TNG had an episode where an overly careful alien species wanted to kill the crew for finding out about their existence and only agreed not to if al! the memories and records got suppressed.
Do you now wanna talk about lizard monsters living beyond the ice border promising to wipe out humanity if they were ever found out? Or some elixir that the elites found that gives them power?
Why? it's pointless and tertiary at best - deal with the presented evidence on its own merits, if you can.
