Your genuine thoughts on the FTS/Flat-Earthers in general? Please discuss.

[clearspira]

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.

The one with the ice wall model, nah don't think they're religious - more of a conspiracy thing.

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.

Huh? Wha-?

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.

[KitWargSpectacle]

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.

The one with the ice wall model, nah don't think they're religious - more of a conspiracy thing.

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.

Huh? Wha-?

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.

Pythagoras 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.

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.

[clearspira]

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.

The one with the ice wall model, nah don't think they're religious - more of a conspiracy thing.

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.

Huh? Wha-?

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.

Pythagoras 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.

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.

Suppressed evidence?

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.

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 best of the flat earthers'' need to explain away Occams Razor before I dial back my claim that the majority of you are trolls.

PS - What is your opinion on the Moon landings?

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Space Race also.

We threatened each other with nuclear escalation, but that whole space race thing was just where we got the inspiration for American Professional Wrestling.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

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.

The one with the ice wall model, nah don't think they're religious - more of a conspiracy thing.

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.

Huh? Wha-?

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.

Pythagoras 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.

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.

Go ahead and draw a perfect circle around where you are, then draw a perfect circle around that, so on, so on, and I'll wait for you to give me an answer as to why the circles start, not only reducing in size, but probably don't even keep consistent distance with the previous circle eventually do to the oblong shape of the world.

[KitWargSpectacle]

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.

The one with the ice wall model, nah don't think they're religious - more of a conspiracy thing.

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.

Huh? Wha-?

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.

Pythagoras 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.

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.

Go ahead and draw a perfect circle around where you are, then draw a perfect circle around that, so on, so on, and I'll wait for you to give me an answer as to why the circles start, not only reducing in size, but probably don't even keep consistent distance with the previous circle eventually do to the oblong shape of the world.

Most average people have no idea how to measure circles; and unless I'm having a terrible brain malfunction, as far as I know the circles aren't gonna start reducing in size until they've passed the 90° line from where you stand: i.e. if you're at a pole, it'd be the aequator.

[KitWargSpectacle]

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.

The one with the ice wall model, nah don't think they're religious - more of a conspiracy thing.

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.

Huh? Wha-?

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.

Pythagoras 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.

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.

Suppressed evidence?

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.

You're confusing things here: keeping everything completely under wraps, that's a super conspiracy, practicing ultra suppression.

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.

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.

A known or suspected motive for a conspiracy increases its likelihood, but is not necessary as evidence.

'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.

The examples i already mentioned don't go past Occam - you're not paying attention it seems.

PS - What is your opinion on the Moon landings?

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.

[clearspira]

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.

The one with the ice wall model, nah don't think they're religious - more of a conspiracy thing.

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.

Huh? Wha-?

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.

Pythagoras 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.

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.

Suppressed evidence?

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.

You're confusing things here: keeping everything completely under wraps, that's a super conspiracy, practicing ultra suppression.

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.

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.

A known or suspected motive for a conspiracy increases its likelihood, but is not necessary as evidence.

'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.

The examples i already mentioned don't go past Occam - you're not paying attention it seems.

PS - What is your opinion on the Moon landings?

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.

''A known or suspected motive for a conspiracy increases its likelihood, but is not necessary as evidence.''

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.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Most average people have no idea how to measure circles; and unless I'm having a terrible brain malfunction, as far as I know the circles aren't gonna start reducing in size until they've passed the 90° line from where you stand: i.e. if you're at a pole, it'd be the aequator.

Like anybody would randomly find themselves at the NP. Really though, this is basic geometry that I'm sure I could deduce logically before taking geometry. If those flat earthers aren't able to put that together to actually prove their point then I don't know what to say.

[KitWargSpectacle]

Most average people have no idea how to measure circles; and unless I'm having a terrible brain malfunction, as far as I know the circles aren't gonna start reducing in size until they've passed the 90° line from where you stand: i.e. if you're at a pole, it'd be the aequator.

Like anybody would randomly find themselves at the NP. Really though, this is basic geometry that I'm sure I could deduce logically before taking geometry. If those flat earthers aren't able to put that together to actually prove their point then I don't know what to say.

Yeah but how are you gonna just MEASURE it reliably lmfao, so there's no room for foul play?

If it's about flying a plane around the globe to measure various "circles", well it's even easier than that: show that anyone can fly a jet across Antarctica and you've disproven that particular claim.