NASA and Facebook tricked you

FredVB

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
310
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
First, you should notice one thing. Once a month (that is, once a lunar month) during a half moon, there is no curve. The dark portion of the moon is marked by a straight line.

Now as for shadows:

The object which casts a shadow must by definition be blocking, to a greater or lesser degree, the light that would otherwise illuminate the shadowed object. The earth is not translucent, anything that is shadowed by it should be dark, as in the heliocentric model there is only 1 light source to give light on the earth - the sun. The stars give light but only enough to be seen, not to illuminate earth.

Have you ever looked at a half or quarter moon during the day? How is it you can see blue sky in the section that is said to be shadowed by the earth?

I notice elsewhere on this forum you have stated you believe in the whole bible. I get a lot of flack (in general on the net) for not believing Saul/Paul, or for only holding to two gospels (Matthew and John), but many of those who claim to believe the bible show through their statements that on various points, that is a pretense. I'm not saying you are, but this brings me to the following question:

Genesis, 1st chapter:
On the 4th day, how many great lights did God make? 1 or 2?
If the moon is merely a reflector, then God only made 1.

Most flat earthers believe the moon has it's own light. This idea is expressed in various places in the bible also.

This makes you sound like you confuse phases of the moon with lunar eclipses, these things are entirely different. Phases of the moon show from which direction the sun is shining on the moon. The unlit portion is on the side away from the sun. A ball and a lamp for the only light in the room will show how that works. A lunar eclipse occurs with the earth's shadow sweeping across the lit side of the moon where it is in the position for being a full moon from our perspective. That can happen at most twice a year. The blue light of the sky is from scattered sunlight, the blue light is showing from all general directions in the sky. What is darker is not seen through the blue sky. What is brighter can be, such as the portion of the moon still lit.

Being the second great light does not in anyway imply that it cannot be reflective for being that light.

You don't believe the Bible? If you pick just some parts of the Bible to believe, you are not believing the word of God. There is no good basis to dismiss any of the apostles.
 

Stravinsk

Composer and Artist on Flat Earth
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
4,485
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Deist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
This makes you sound like you confuse phases of the moon with lunar eclipses, these things are entirely different. Phases of the moon show from which direction the sun is shining on the moon. The unlit portion is on the side away from the sun. ...(snip)

Thanks for the Free-masonic grade school reminder I learned in my government school. Earth orbits Sun, Sun lights Moon.
Being the second great light does not in anyway imply that it cannot be reflective for being that light.

You don't believe the Bible? If you pick just some parts of the Bible to believe, you are not believing the word of God. There is no good basis to dismiss any of the apostles.

I always have to chuckle when someone says something like you just said about "not believing the whole bible". Clearly it shows they haven't read much of it because if they had, they would know that it clearly says the moon gives it's own light. That's sort of a big contradiction to "the moon is just a reflector of the sun" theory. :)
 

FredVB

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
310
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Thanks for the Free-masonic grade school reminder I learned in my government school. Earth orbits Sun, Sun lights Moon.

I always have to chuckle when someone says something like you just said about "not believing the whole bible". Clearly it shows they haven't read much of it because if they had, they would know that it clearly says the moon gives it's own light. That's sort of a big contradiction to "the moon is just a reflector of the sun" theory. :)

I don't feel need to argue with a dismissive claim to indicate I have not read the Bible much, but why not show the conclusive passages that show I should believe that the moon is its own source of light?

As the information on earth's shape is irrelevant to the important Bible messages, why should it be in the Scriptures that were to be promoted when those they were to be promoted to for most of history were not ready to hear that the earth was as a ball?

There are ways to go out and see evidence for ourselves how it really is.



In the North, stars appear to rotate around Polaris. In the South, they appear to rotate around the South Celestial Pole. How can that possibly work on a flat earth?


What information would be showing how this video is accounted for with a flat earth?
 

Lucian Hodoboc

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 1, 2019
Messages
1,265
Location
Eastern Europe
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Taking some phrases as literal in the bible isn't going to give you a scientific explanation of things! The bible was not written as a science guide at all.
A book doesn't have to be written as a science guide in order to accurately relate reality. Most fictional works that belong to the realist(ic) genre are not written as science guides, but describe beings, objects and actions according to the laws of what is currently know as reality. Otherwise, they are included in the fantasy, science-fiction, absurdist etc. genres.
 

Stravinsk

Composer and Artist on Flat Earth
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
4,485
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Deist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
I don't feel need to argue with a dismissive claim to indicate I have not read the Bible much, but why not show the conclusive passages that show I should believe that the moon is its own source of light?

You do not need the bible to see that the moon gives it's own light. Simply observing it at certain times should show you, such as during that period when the sun has just set and the full moon rises. Or during the day when the sun is high in the sky and the moon is less than full, and perhaps not even on the side where the sun is!

This is a simple bible search. You could have done it yourself:

(KJV)

Isaiah 13:10
Isaiah 30:26
Isaiah 60:19
Jeremiah 31:35
Ezekiel 32:7
Matthew 24:29
Mark 13:24

As the information on earth's shape is irrelevant to the important Bible messages, why should it be in the Scriptures that were to be promoted when those they were to be promoted to for most of history were not ready to hear that the earth was as a ball?

There are ways to go out and see evidence for ourselves how it really is.



In the North, stars appear to rotate around Polaris. In the South, they appear to rotate around the South Celestial Pole. How can that possibly work on a flat earth?


What information would be showing how this video is accounted for with a flat earth?

The flat earth concept doesn't necessarily give an explanation of the sky above us. Because we see a circular motion to the stars, it is easy to assume (given a spinning ball earth bias) that they are fixed and we are moving. Obviously the flat-earther does not deny that something is moving, although he is more likely to point to the obvious of what we see (the sky), as opposed to the indoctrination we have been fed (the earth). Just because one believes the earth is flat does not give one complete knowledge of how "everything works". The peeps over at popsci or space.com may like you to believe they have all the answers, but that is pretense. Even a good deal of their so called "space photography" is provably faked. In other words, they promote lies.
 

FredVB

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
310
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
You do not need the bible to see that the moon gives it's own light. Simply observing it at certain times should show you, such as during that period when the sun has just set and the full moon rises. Or during the day when the sun is high in the sky and the moon is less than full, and perhaps not even on the side where the sun is!

So did you go out for any observations? Have you seen a lunar eclipse? I have. That would not happen from the moon giving its own light. I have seen the curved shadow on the moon too. Have you seen a ship going away, or approaching, on the horizon yet? Have you chatted with anyone in a timezone far apart, to see what the time of day is like for them at the time you chat?

I do see the moon gives us light, nothing said about that would mean that the light from the moon is not reflected light from the sun. The shadow seen on it in the eclipses shows that it is reflected light.

I have seen a Foucault pendulum too and understand how it is working.

The flat earth concept doesn't necessarily give an explanation of the sky above us. Because we see a circular motion to the stars, it is easy to assume (given a spinning ball earth bias) that they are fixed and we are moving. Obviously the flat-earther does not deny that something is moving, although he is more likely to point to the obvious of what we see (the sky), as opposed to the indoctrination we have been fed (the earth). Just because one believes the earth is flat does not give one complete knowledge of how "everything works". The peeps over at popsci or space.com may like you to believe they have all the answers, but that is pretense. Even a good deal of their so called "space photography" is provably faked. In other words, they promote lies.

The video I saw, shown above, is too believable, for me, the sun is seen going around the south pole, but that is not what could happen with flat earth models I have seen. But there are not explanations of the sky we see above us. Photography is all fake, they all promote lies. Don't trust scientists. Okay.
 

Stravinsk

Composer and Artist on Flat Earth
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
4,485
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Deist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
So did you go out for any observations? Have you seen a lunar eclipse? I have. That would not happen from the moon giving its own light. I have seen the curved shadow on the moon too. Have you seen a ship going away, or approaching, on the horizon yet? Have you chatted with anyone in a timezone far apart, to see what the time of day is like for them at the time you chat?

I've seen an eclipse. It doesn't prove anything about the shape the earth.

I've seen ships going away (disappearing) on the horizon...it's too bad several of the videos (including the initial one) were deleted by corporate controlled youtube, or you would see that ships disappear in accordance with your perspective, not an imaginary curve, and can "brought back" ( so to speak ) with zoom lenses (proving they are not traveling over the curve you believe in)

Timezones do not prove the shape of the earth, I have no idea what your argument is here.
I do see the moon gives us light, nothing said about that would mean that the light from the moon is not reflected light from the sun. The shadow seen on it in the eclipses shows that it is reflected light.

I have seen a Foucault pendulum too and understand how it is working.



The video I saw, shown above, is too believable, for me, the sun is seen going around the south pole, but that is not what could happen with flat earth models I have seen. But there are not explanations of the sky we see above us. Photography is all fake, they all promote lies. Don't trust scientists. Okay.

Do you believe the following "picture" of the Nursery Carina Nebula is true? A yes or no will do.

 

FredVB

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
310
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
I've seen an eclipse. It doesn't prove anything about the shape the earth.

I've seen ships going away (disappearing) on the horizon...it's too bad several of the videos (including the initial one) were deleted by corporate controlled youtube, or you would see that ships disappear in accordance with your perspective, not an imaginary curve, and can "brought back" ( so to speak ) with zoom lenses (proving they are not traveling over the curve you believe in)

Timezones do not prove the shape of the earth, I have no idea what your argument is here.

Do you believe the following "picture" of the Nursery Carina Nebula is true? A yes or no will do.


I am glad to hear you really do go and observe these things yourself. I do too.

I mean that if you use social media with many contacts from many places even far away, with chat available, it can be checked that while you see that the sun is up, in another place in the world the sun is down and is night there, or, vice versa when it is night for you the sun is up there. If there is just no explanation from the sky we see for it, I guess that can be ignored. But I am not in that place of thinking that. If I know the sun is up somewhere else in the world while it is nighttime where I am, and when I see the sun is up during the day, it is nighttime somewhere else, the flat earth I see depicted has no explanation for that and it wouldn't work. But then I see the images from the south pole with the sun circling around it, too, and that is convincing to me.

I have not seen the image you show for the Nursery Carina Nebula to my knowledge before, I have no basis to say I believe the image is true, or not. But the points I have discussed are of things we can go see for ourselves. I can look at such to my satisfaction, and I can suggest that is a good approach.
 

Andrew

Matt 18:15
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
6,645
Age
39
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
You cant predict eclipses on the flat earth model but you can on a round earth, this forecasting is based on science which refutes any other theory unless you can prove it wrong using a flat earth model... flat earthers lack the forecasting principle that science is based on
 

Stravinsk

Composer and Artist on Flat Earth
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
4,485
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Deist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
You cant predict eclipses on the flat earth model but you can on a round earth, this forecasting is based on science which refutes any other theory unless you can prove it wrong using a flat earth model... flat earthers lack the forecasting principle that science is based on

Incorrect. Eclipses have been predicted long before ball earth/heliocentricism came into vogue.

Many people think that modern astronomy’s ability to accurately predict lunar and solar eclipses is a result and proof positive of the heliocentric theory of the universe. The fact of the matter however is that eclipses have been accurately predicted by cultures worldwide for thousands of years before the “heliocentric ball-Earth” was even a glimmer in Copernicus’ imagination. Ptolemy in the 1st century A.D. accurately predicted eclipses for six hundred years on the basis of a flat, stationary Earth with equal precision as anyone living today. All the way back in 600 B.C. Thales accurately predicted an eclipse which ended the war between the Medes and Lydians. Eclipses happen regularly with precision in 18 year cycles, so regardless of geocentric or heliocentric, flat or globe Earth cosmologies, eclipses can be accurately calculated independent of such factors.

Taken from: Total Eclipse of the Mind
 

Andrew

Matt 18:15
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
6,645
Age
39
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Incorrect. Eclipses have been predicted long before ball earth/heliocentricism came into vogue.

Many people think that modern astronomy’s ability to accurately predict lunar and solar eclipses is a result and proof positive of the heliocentric theory of the universe. The fact of the matter however is that eclipses have been accurately predicted by cultures worldwide for thousands of years before the “heliocentric ball-Earth” was even a glimmer in Copernicus’ imagination. Ptolemy in the 1st century A.D. accurately predicted eclipses for six hundred years on the basis of a flat, stationary Earth with equal precision as anyone living today. All the way back in 600 B.C. Thales accurately predicted an eclipse which ended the war between the Medes and Lydians. Eclipses happen regularly with precision in 18 year cycles, so regardless of geocentric or heliocentric, flat or globe Earth cosmologies, eclipses can be accurately calculated independent of such factors.

Taken from: Total Eclipse of the Mind
The sumerians knew the earth was round, why would anyone believe that Ptolemy subscribed to a flat earth model?
 

Stravinsk

Composer and Artist on Flat Earth
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
4,485
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Deist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
The sumerians knew the earth was round, why would anyone believe that Ptolemy subscribed to a flat earth model?

Ptolemy taught that the earth was stationary and the heavenly bodies move around us. Flat earthers agree with this. He may have believed in a globular earth, but this is irrelevant to the point being made: Eclipses have been predicted long before the "science" of heliocentricism, simply on observation.
 

JRT

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 30, 2016
Messages
780
Age
80
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
No
Incorrect. Eclipses have been predicted long before ball earth/heliocentricism came into vogue.

Many people think that modern astronomy’s ability to accurately predict lunar and solar eclipses is a result and proof positive of the heliocentric theory of the universe. The fact of the matter however is that eclipses have been accurately predicted by cultures worldwide for thousands of years before the “heliocentric ball-Earth” was even a glimmer in Copernicus’ imagination. Ptolemy in the 1st century A.D. accurately predicted eclipses for six hundred years on the basis of a flat, stationary Earth with equal precision as anyone living today. All the way back in 600 B.C. Thales accurately predicted an eclipse which ended the war between the Medes and Lydians. Eclipses happen regularly with precision in 18 year cycles, so regardless of geocentric or heliocentric, flat or globe Earth cosmologies, eclipses can be accurately calculated independent of such factors.

Taken from: Total Eclipse of the Mind

Ptolemy used a heliocentric model of the solar system not a flat earth. When you make such an absurd claim in a post it forces the reader to wonder what else you got wrong.
 

Stravinsk

Composer and Artist on Flat Earth
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
4,485
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Deist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
Ptolemy used a heliocentric model of the solar system not a flat earth. When you make such an absurd claim in a post it forces the reader to wonder what else you got wrong.

Ptolemy did not use a heliocentric model, however, he may have believed in a globular earth. He operated under a geocentric belief, as was common before Copernicus.

Ptolemaic system | Definition & Facts

Edit: Flat earthers are generally also geocentrists, that is...we believe the earth to be the center of the universe. Geocentrists may be globularists (globe believers) or flat earthers. The statement I quoted from the Atlantean Conspiracy may be in error insofar as Ptolemy being a flat earther (or it may not), but the point is, neither heliocentricism or globe earth is necessary to predict eclipses. They come in regular cycles and this has been observed for thousands of years. Therefore it is false to assume "modern science" has provided this information.
 
Last edited:

Andrew

Matt 18:15
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
6,645
Age
39
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Outer space is hydrophobic by default because there is no mass for any water to possibly absorb into, space is the absence of mass, thus any mass of water no matter it's size, if isolated, can maintain an almost absolute spherical form, only loosing its form and becoming chaotic when its environment is disturbed by a mass or turbulence created by a nearby mass.

To me that's gravity, when something drops down it's because we know something is under it..

If I were to jump out of an airplane just as the earth below vanished into thin air, I would no longer be falling but rather I would be suspended in space.

If the earth were to spontaneously gain momentum disproportionate to the moon's pace and into it's very path then the moon would "fall" and land on earth.

If I could toss a basketball up so high that the Earth passes before the ball had time to fall back down to Earth it would become a satellite in space circling the Earth in a state of perpetual falling.

We know this all to well, we can see our own satellites in space with the naked eye, we can see a round bead of water on a lotus leaf, we can see how water can vibrate violently and lose form by a distant impact force, we can see how debris in water will gravitate and cling on to each other to form a greater mass of debris.

I think it was Da Vinci who said something about a running man is always in a falling position.

So why is it so difficult to believe that the Earth is an oblong spherical water world in which land later emerged, then life etc?

A flat earth model along with the world wide flood in the day of Noah could not work, Antarctica would have to be so enormous and elevated that anyone south of the equator would be able to see the continent with the naked eye.
The "heart" of the Earth where Jesus descended into, on a flat model would be the North pole and not the inner center of the Earth.
 

Stravinsk

Composer and Artist on Flat Earth
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
4,485
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Deist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
Outer space is hydrophobic by default because there is no mass for any water to possibly absorb into, space is the absence of mass, thus any mass of water no matter it's size, if isolated, can maintain an almost absolute spherical form, only loosing its form and becoming chaotic when its environment is disturbed by a mass or turbulence created by a nearby mass.

To me that's gravity, when something drops down it's because we know something is under it..

If I were to jump out of an airplane just as the earth below vanished into thin air, I would no longer be falling but rather I would be suspended in space.

If the earth were to spontaneously gain momentum disproportionate to the moon's pace and into it's very path then the moon would "fall" and land on earth.

Don't know if you missed it, but flat earthers do not believe in either "gravity" or "space".

Not gravity because it is a theory that is better explained by density/buoyancy relative to a medium.

Not space because we have too much evidence of them faking it. The earth with it's changing continents on NASA "photos" from year to year is but one example of many.

Your last statement seems to be musing on an "upward motion" of the earth to account for "gravity", which comes from the Flat Earth Society. No real flat earther believes this nonsense. And the Flat Earth Society was created in order to falsely represent FE beliefs and "poison the well" so to speak. They mix in some truth with bs.
A flat earth model along with the world wide flood in the day of Noah could not work, Antarctica would have to be so enormous and elevated that anyone south of the equator would be able to see the continent with the naked eye.
The "heart" of the Earth where Jesus descended into, on a flat model would be the North pole and not the inner center of the Earth.

Also in case you missed it (you and at least one other who keeps referring to *the* "flat earth model"), I don't believe in the popular FE model. I know it doesn't work for daylight times as well as sun direction. I've mentioned this numerous times, however, probably not in this thread, as I used to subscribe to the popular FE model but do not any longer.

Propping up a straw man and then knocking it down seems to be what you are doing here.
 

Stravinsk

Composer and Artist on Flat Earth
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
4,485
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Deist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
If I could toss a basketball up so high that the Earth passes before the ball had time to fall back down to Earth it would become a satellite in space circling the Earth in a state of perpetual falling.

We know this all to well, we can see our own satellites in space with the naked eye, we can see a round bead of water on a lotus leaf, we can see how water can vibrate violently and lose form by a distant impact force, we can see how debris in water will gravitate and cling on to each other to form a greater mass of debris.

No, you can't.

In entertainment form:
 

Andrew

Matt 18:15
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
6,645
Age
39
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
What are the chances that the Earth really is round and NASA is actually conspiring to promote and stimulate flat earth interest with "obvious fakery" in order to prevent evil from spreading to other worlds?

All they had to do was make Antarctica a no fly zone and present cgi photos and fake videos.
 

FredVB

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
310
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
One thing I really do not get is the position there is no gravity and no upward acceleration, for accounting for the observable acceleration of any falling objects, manifest in any physics class in any school for any students, always 9.8 m/sec/sec.

"Flat-Earthers seem to have a very low standard of evidence for what they want to believe but an impossibly high standard of evidence for what they don’t want to believe." --Lee McIntyre, Boston University
U1L5b3.gif
 

FredVB

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
310
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
I copied, edited, and paste these things. Such points can be found by any looking to any sites relating to this topic.

The belief that the Earth is flat has been described as the ultimate conspiracy theory. According to the Flat Earth Society's leadership, its ranks have grown by 200 people (mostly Americans and Britons) per year since 2009.

While writing off buckets of concrete evidence that Earth is spherical, they readily accept a laundry list of propositions that some would call ludicrous. The leading flat-earther theory holds that Earth is a disc with the Arctic Circle in the center and Antarctica, a 150-foot-tall wall of ice, around the rim. NASA employees, they say, guard this ice wall to prevent people from climbing over to the edge of the disc. (In keeping with their skepticism of NASA, known flat-earther conspiracy theorist Nathan Thompson recently approached a man he said was a NASA employee in a Starbucks in mid-May 2017. In a YouTube video of the exchange, Thompson, founder of the Official Flat Earth and Globe Discussion page, shouted that he had proof the Earth is flat — apparently saying an astronaut drowning was that proof — and that NASA is "lying.")

Earth's day and night cycle is explained by positing that the sun and moon are spheres measuring 32 miles (51 kilometers) that move in circles 3,000 miles (4,828 km) above the plane of the Earth. (Stars, they say, move in a plane 3,100 miles up.) Like spotlights, these celestial spheres illuminate different portions of the planet in a 24-hour cycle. Flat-earthers believe there must also be an invisible "antimoon" that obscures the moon during lunar eclipses.

Furthermore, Earth's gravity is an illusion, they say. Objects do not accelerate downward; instead, the disc of Earth accelerates upward at 32 feet per second squared (9.8 meters per second squared), driven up by a mysterious force called dark energy. Currently, there is disagreement among flat-Earthers about whether or not Einstein's theory of relativity permits Earth to accelerate upward indefinitely without the planet eventually surpassing the speed of light. (Einstein's laws apparently still hold in this alternate version of reality.)

As for what lies underneath the disc of Earth, this is unknown, but most flat-earthers believe it is composed of "rocks."

Then, there's the conspiracy theory: Flat-earthers believe photos of the globe are photoshopped; GPS devices are rigged to make airplane pilots think they are flying in straight lines around a sphere when they are actually flying in circles above a disc. The motive for world governments' concealment of the true shape of the Earth has not been ascertained, but flat-earthers believe it is probably financial. "In a nutshell, it would logically cost much less to fake a space program than to actually have one, so those in on the Conspiracy profit from the funding NASA and other space agencies receive from the government," the flat-earther website explains.

Some believers have gotten creative in their quest to prove a flat planet: Conspiracy theorist D. Marble posted on YouTube that he brought a spirit level aboard a flight from Charlotte, North Carolina to Seattle, Washington, to see whether the plane's nose would dip to "compensate for curvature" of the Earth, he said. On the video, he said: "I recorded a 23 minute and 45 second time-lapse, which by those measurements means the plane travelled a little over 203 miles. According to Spherical Trigonometry given to explain the Heliocentric model, this should have resulted in the compensation of 5 miles of curvature. As you'll see there was no measurable compensation for curvature." (The air bubble in his level remained centered, which he said proves the Earth is flat.)

The theory follows from a mode of thought called the "Zetetic Method," an alternative to the scientific method, developed by a 19th-century flat-earther, in which sensory observations reign supreme. "Broadly, the method places a lot of emphasis on reconciling empiricism and rationalism, and making logical deductions based on empirical data," Flat Earth Society vice president Michael Wilmore, an Irishman, told Life's Little Mysteries. In Zetetic astronomy, the perception that Earth is flat leads to the deduction that it must actually be flat; the antimoon, NASA conspiracy and all the rest of it are just rationalizations for how that might work in practice.

Karen Douglas, a psychologist at the University of Kent in the United Kingdom who studies the psychology of conspiracy theories, says flat-earthers' beliefs cohere with those of other conspiracy theorists she has studied.

Douglas said all conspiracy theories share a basic thrust: They present an alternative theory about an important issue or event, and construct an often vague explanation for why someone is covering up that "true" version of events. "One of the major points of appeal is that they explain a big event but often without going into details," she said. "A lot of the power lies in the fact that they are vague."

The self-assured way in which conspiracy theorists stick to their story imbues that story with special appeal. After all, flat-earthers are more adamant that the Earth is flat than most people are that the Earth is round (probably because the rest of us feel we have nothing to prove). "If you're faced with a minority viewpoint that is put forth in an intelligent, seemingly well-informed way, and when the proponents don't deviate from these strong opinions they have, they can be very influential. We call that minority influence," Douglas said.

In a study published online March 5, 2014, in the American Journal of Political Science, Eric Oliver and Tom Wood, political scientists at the University of Chicago, found that about half of Americans endorse at least one conspiracy theory, from the notion that 9/11 was an inside job to the JFK conspiracy. "Many people are willing to believe many ideas that are directly in contradiction to a dominant cultural narrative," Oliver said. He says conspiratorial belief stems from a human tendency to perceive unseen forces at work, known as magical thinking.
 
Top Bottom