What globe? Flat Earth and Flat-Earthers

[RobertB]

Re: Is the Earth an enclosed technologically created world, and NOT a globe?

One easily observed phenomena that would negate the flat Earth hypothesis is the shape of the shadow of Earth upon the Moon during a Lunar Eclipse. We just saw one tonight. Both the Sun and Moon are visibly round, as is any Planet observable in a telescope. The Crescent phases of Venus is another example of Planetary roundness.
None of which says that, just because the Earth behaves as if it is round, means an illusion is not being generated. The scale of an illusion of that nature would require great power, if it were so. If the heavens are truly a veil that can one day be peeled back, it would be the greatest ruse of all time as to it being so.
Knowledge is protection.

 

[meta-agnostic]

Just wanted to "bump" this as it is now getting joked about ubiquitously on social media thanks to BoB's comments here: http://www.sott.net/article/310977-Word-to-my-Flat-Earthers-Hip-hop-star-BoB-insists-the-planet-is-flat (never heard of him before this) and whatever other psyops may be contributing to it. It would be great if there was a way to point to where all this is coming from in order to counter it as there is already that all-encompassing conspiracy theorist association with the word "truther" getting used. There was already an episode of the Opie and Jim Norton show a few weeks ago well before the BoB comments (_http://www.siriusxm.com/opieradio ; never listen to it but was made aware by an anti-conspiracy theorist friend) where a featured guest was a 9/11 truther (no planes etc. type nutjob) and was revealed later in the interview to also be a flat-earther.

 

[Buddy]

Just wanted to "bump" this as it is now getting joked about ubiquitously on social media thanks to BoB's comments here: http://www.sott.net/article/310977-Word-to-my-Flat-Earthers-Hip-hop-star-BoB-insists-the-planet-is-flat (never heard of him before this) and whatever other psyops may be contributing to it. It would be great if there was a way to point to where all this is coming from in order to counter it as there is already that all-encompassing conspiracy theorist association with the word "truther" getting used. There was already an episode of the Opie and Jim Norton show a few weeks ago well before the BoB comments (_http://www.siriusxm.com/opieradio ; never listen to it but was made aware by an anti-conspiracy theorist friend) where a featured guest was a 9/11 truther (no planes etc. type nutjob) and was revealed later in the interview to also be a flat-earther.

I've been mulling over this since you posted it. If a source for "where all this is coming from" is not forthcoming via the internet through "leaks" or whatnot, then I see no way to find it other than getting in the trenches and talking to the people involved, asking them questions and assessing the verity of answers by checking stuff.

IMO, BoB is in no way personally connected to a need to publicly settle the question 'flat Earth or round Earth' because his money-making interests are more pinned to his ability to attract attention from fans and potential signers for his services.

As far as countering that stuff in order to decouple "truthers" from flat-Earth 'conspirators' in the public mind, I also see no way. Seems more likely that the most appropriate timing for that is before it becomes public so that others can run with it like the way runners pass a baton on the running track.

As a personal aside, if I wanted to find the core of a belief in flat-Earth if it exists, I'd probably only get the info I need from a flat-Earther by pretending to want him or her to convince me. At the zero point of consciousness where the flat-Earther can go no deeper in the effort to "prove" it, he or she will most likely end it with, "well, you just don't want to believe", and that just might be the crux of the issue.

 

[meta-agnostic]

I've been mulling over this since you posted it. If a source for "where all this is coming from" is not forthcoming via the internet through "leaks" or whatnot, then I see no way to find it other than getting in the trenches and talking to the people involved, asking them questions and assessing the verity of answers by checking stuff.

IMO, BoB is in no way personally connected to a need to publicly settle the question 'flat Earth or round Earth' because his money-making interests are more pinned to his ability to attract attention from fans and potential signers for his services.

As far as countering that stuff in order to decouple "truthers" from flat-Earth 'conspirators' in the public mind, I also see no way. Seems more likely that the most appropriate timing for that is before it becomes public so that others can run with it like the way runners pass a baton on the running track.

As a personal aside, if I wanted to find the core of a belief in flat-Earth if it exists, I'd probably only get the info I need from a flat-Earther by pretending to want him or her to convince me. At the zero point of consciousness where the flat-Earther can go no deeper in the effort to "prove" it, he or she will most likely end it with, "well, you just don't want to believe", and that just might be the crux of the issue.

Thanks for the response, Buddy. I may not have worded my post in the best possible way. I've been going into more depth with the material posted here (probably wasting time that could be better spent on other things) and my main hope was to try to find some type of solid COINTELPRO connection, the elusive "smoking gun" if you will, to point to Flat Earth theory being deliberately propagated to make all conspiracy theorists look crazy by association. I don't see much point in engaging with people who actually believe in a flat earth due to their limited perception unless they could possibly help expose this connection. When confronted with the inevitable "so, you think 9/11 was fake [or insert whatever conspiracy here], you must also think the earth is flat" it would seem much more effective to counter with "that's an absurd conspiracy theory being deliberately spread to discredit others and it [originated here or was propagated by this group]" rather than "well, those people are just crazy" or "they think more like animals because they don't have as highly evolved souls".

It's something that bugs me when I take it upon myself to debate these things with people willing to debate them, but it probably doesn't make that much difference in this case. Flat Earth had its moment building up and now it may have peaked; it was funny to joke about when it became an actual thing in the "actual" news but it would need more high-profile spokespeople than some obscure hip-hop artist to have real staying power. OSIT. If we start seeing a lot more of it and people on "our side" seeming to argue for it seriously then we may have something to worry about.

 

[Buddy]

Thanks for the response, Buddy. I may not have worded my post in the best possible way. I've been going into more depth with the material posted here (probably wasting time that could be better spent on other things) and my main hope was to try to find some type of solid COINTELPRO connection, the elusive "smoking gun" if you will, to point to Flat Earth theory being deliberately propagated to make all conspiracy theorists look crazy by association. I don't see much point in engaging with people who actually believe in a flat earth due to their limited perception unless they could possibly help expose this connection. When confronted with the inevitable "so, you think 9/11 was fake [or insert whatever conspiracy here], you must also think the earth is flat" it would seem much more effective to counter with "that's an absurd conspiracy theory being deliberately spread to discredit others and it [originated here or was propagated by this group]" rather than "well, those people are just crazy" or "they think more like animals because they don't have as highly evolved souls".

It's something that bugs me when I take it upon myself to debate these things with people willing to debate them, but it probably doesn't make that much difference in this case. Flat Earth had its moment building up and now it may have peaked; it was funny to joke about when it became an actual thing in the "actual" news but it would need more high-profile spokespeople than some obscure hip-hop artist to have real staying power. OSIT. If we start seeing a lot more of it and people on "our side" seeming to argue for it seriously then we may have something to worry about.

I've been looking for this smoking gun, or something similar, myself for a long time and also haven't found it. I also wonder, if I find it, would it even be recognized as such even where obvious to us and, if so, would it make a difference. The general problem may be more profoundly complex and traceable to the roots of the human perceptive or cognitive system itself.

I've been thinking there must be a hidden but bizarrely paradoxical twist in the mind somewhere and attributable to the passing down of existentialist influence. The idea that there is no such thing as reality and therefore no way to be certain of anything, so anything goes and we should trust the authorities. Or something like that.

I've also been contemplating another interesting concept. I recently finished reading Guy Claxton's book Hare Brain - Tortoise Mind. Guy reminds us of the "Judas Eye" and how it seems to be a good way to describe what people do when the theoretical pre-attentive awareness pre-screens incoming information. It's like the threshold of the unconscious, or "undermind" is raised in response to the pre-attentive awareness (Judas eye) raising an alarm. It's like the unconscious says, "no, no, no, he don't need to see that or understand its meaning, it'll destroy him!" Or something like that.

Then, there's the possibility that the band of acceptable information per individual is simply narrowed, thus limited due to their habitual thought processes and those associated poor, tired neurons with their deep wells of habitually traveled signal paths. With this idea, in order to seriously entertain any horrible possibilities, the person would have to be shaken out of that repetitive, mundane existence that functions as a warm, cozy blanket in which their emotional center can sleep.

So, there's that...and, I'm still thinking on all this.

 

[mkrnhr]

I think this flat-earth business serves as mind trap for whoever tries to look for alternative science without preparation (without strengthening critical thinking). It works the same with "conspiracy theory", drop some crazy theories out there and by association all those who talk about real conspiracies look like crazy madmen. There is a war for our minds, and the main weapon is trickery. I'm not sure if it was in Schopenhauer's art of being right all the time book or somewhere else, but one trick used to cheat in a debate is to point out an exaggerated or ridiculous consequence of the opponent's argument to discredit the whole thesis. Another trick is using association. For instance, a couple of years ago a team of Global Warming fanatic sociologists published a paper where a survey tended according to them to associate those who know the science of Global Warming is a fraud with (according to them) crazy people who believe in aliens and that 911 was an inside job. I'm not sure about the details but the general idea was more or less that. So for the uninformed people who are still afraid of thinking by themselves, criticizing the Global Warming becomes a no-no territory in fear of being viewed by society as fringe conspiracy lunatics. Cointelpro is a nasty weapon of mass lobotomization.

 

[Laura]

I think this flat-earth business serves as mind trap for whoever tries to look for alternative science without preparation (without strengthening critical thinking). It works the same with "conspiracy theory", drop some crazy theories out there and by association all those who talk about real conspiracies look like crazy madmen. There is a war for our minds, and the main weapon is trickery. <snip>
Cointelpro is a nasty weapon of mass lobotomization.

Exactly so. It's so easy to co-opt the mind of someone who has no information, no ability to think critically.

I was thinking last night that one thing that is wrong with our civilization is that we have stopped teaching classics and good history, geography, science. People grow up with essentially empty brains - you can practically hear the wind whistling through their ears.

 

[Buddy]

When confronted with the inevitable "so, you think 9/11 was fake [or insert whatever conspiracy here], you must also think the earth is flat" it would seem much more effective to counter with "that's an absurd conspiracy theory being deliberately spread to discredit others and it [originated here or was propagated by this group]" rather than "well, those people are just crazy" or "they think more like animals because they don't have as highly evolved souls".

Are you primarily engaged in text-based interaction or IRL conversations? If I have any suggestions, they would differ depending on context.

While I agree you might be dealing with a Cointelpro-lobotomized individual, effective responses might still need to be created on the spot, drawn when needed from your knowledge base of information and techniques for dealing with the issues. Your goal doesn't have to be to convince anyone, necessarily, you may just wish to avoid the pain of conscience from feeling like you are compromising an inner belief by being silent or ineffective in verbal response. No violation of their freewill is necessary.

Look again at the COINTELPRO section, especially this thread. I advise to read the whole thread if you haven't, but what I have in mind starts with Laura's response to a forum member:

Yes, we have learned a LOT about these thing - and we learned it the hard way.

The best thing to do in the beginning, until you are strong and well-trained, is to just simply have your own website where you publish what you like, and there is no possibility of anyone else posting COINTELPRO backed responses. Until you are seasoned, you must pick your battles carefully and, if possible, pick the venue. Only after you have attracted others who think like you do, who can back you up and support you, can you begin to expand.

...and then read the replies that follow. On that one thread you'll see the serious side of interacting with Cointelpro and the funny side for when the use of humor as a tool to defuse a tense situation IRL might be appropriate.

You'll notice the focus seems to be on text-based interactions, right? You may need to modify something to fit it into a conversation IRL and that brings me to the next point.

IRL, I don't seek out conversations like this as the main focus of an interaction with someone. I stay busy with some kind of activity and when I'm around others, it's usually because something needs to be done. If I'm working with someone and they want to make BS comments about 9/11 and flat-earthers (for example) my responses would be almost totally different than they would be in writing. To understand how different, and why, I might need to say something else first:

There are probably a bazillion logical fallacies out there. It's not possible to memorize them all or to necessarily recognize each one that's being employed at a specific time even if you did memorize them. But it seems that all the most common fallacies in use today fall into two general categories: irrelevance and ambiguity.

Usually any statement a person can make will either be confirmed factual or it will have a question of relevance or lack of clarity associated with it. By the same token, good responses also fall into two general categories: "So what?" and "Specify/Explain..."

Example:

Q) someone says, "Y'know I heard on the news that so-and-so thinks 9/11 was a government conspiracy and they also believe in that flat-Earth crap."

A) So what? (can use various tones and inflections, no need to sound rude)

Q) "Well...you were talking the other day about 9/11 and explosives. You prolly also believe the Earth is flat...hahaha"

A) Specify/Explain what the shape of the Earth has to do with the Twin Towers Disaster! (note: short, sweet, puts the focus back on him)

So, my advice on this subject is the same as what I do when I'm engaged with it: Use my own creative variations; just remember K.I.S.S. and keep turning the spotlight back on the bullsh*tter.

 

[meta-agnostic]

I'll try to respond to Buddy's post without getting too far afield from flat earth.

I've done my share of both text-based and IRL/phone conversations but I've toned down my engagement in them quite a bit in recent times.

Text-wise there was a forum for Stephen Colbert's old show, no longer active, that I engaged in before I found this forum. It was started sometime in 2006 and near the launch it was inundated with posts from 9/11 truthers calling on Stephen to address the issue. I wasn't one of those (although I didn't believe the official story), I was just a fan of the show, but in response to this the administrators created a sub-forum titled "Conspiracy Theories" where all of this stuff got dumped. It at times could be a productive forum to be able to discuss these subjects with a humorous bent, but the thought police/COINTELPRO who were present there would inevitably end up accusing anyone who posted anything conspiratorial of hating Jews and/or believing in lizard people. Of course there were people who posted things to that effect but it was by no means everyone there. It started out that things would get moved from the politics section to conspiracy if they were conspiratorial, which was fine with me, but it quickly turned into any post in the conspiracy section getting lambasted by trolls, including moderators. These days I don't really seek out venues like this to engage in but at the time I think the overall discussion had some potential to have an effect on the bigger picture, and it could have been better had I and others had better skills at pointing out logical fallacies, etc.

The IRL example I'll give is my friend I mentioned above who alerted me to the (poor) discussion of 9/11 on Opie and Jim. Maybe 6 or so years ago we were talking and 9/11 came up and I made the some insinuation about the official story being b.s. He immediately went into a tirade about "you're not one of those people who thinks George Bush did it, are you?" I said something like of course "Bush did it" is not a coherent way of describing it, it has to be a lot more complicated than that, and focusing on inconsistencies in the official story before pointing fingers at potential culprits is the way to go about raising awareness. In so many words, eventually, after several future conversations. I sort of regretted ever having brought it up at times as it might be a violation of his freewill, but we talk often enough and sometimes about deep subjects that it was bound to come up eventually. He remained pretty derisive toward me whenever it came up until a couple years ago when I "tricked" him into watching a couple short videos (9/11 in under 5 minutes and the cognitive dissonance one) by sending him the links without a description after he had done the same to me with something unrelated. Despite a few insults, I did manage to get him to dig deep enough that he claims he has looked into it and found "no smoking gun" but rather than exchange insults when it comes up now we mostly agree to disagree and change the subject. When it does come up though he will still come back with "Do you think everything is a Conspiracy?" and pepper me with examples of events from recent history and further back that he thinks somehow need to be definitively explained as conspiracy or not. He has at least conceded that something was fishy about JFK's death but that's about it, apart from lefty political stuff like "Wall Street is evil", etc.

My main convictions when engaging people who seem to want to engage are that I won't lie about what I believe and I won't apologize for it, but I usually don't have a problem just keeping quiet if that's what the situation calls for. If someone is presenting a lie that's asking for the truth then I may attempt to offer my interpretation of it even if it means making people uncomfortable rather than just letting it go, depending on the circumstances.

I suppose this only really relates to Flat Earth in the hypothetical situation where someone tried to directly associate belief in a flat earth with belief in something that might be more important to the bigger picture. For a minute it was looking like this might become a thing but all of that seems to have dropped off for the moment and it would probably need a really well publicized push in order to gain more ground in the collective consciousness (Kim Kardashian? Taylor Swift?). I'll post the link to the Opie and Jim show to bring it back around in case anyone feels like picking it apart. There are logical fallacies galore on all sides:
_https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whNn-Nkg3bU
WARNING: this is not a style of comedy I find very appealing and some of it may be offensive. The in-sudio guest who co-hosts a podcast with the crazy conspiracy guy starts at about minute 20, the crazy guy starts on the phone around minute 35 and the flat earth discussion is from about 58-1:04. He seems to be really big on crisis actors and saying false flag events = hoaxes where no one died, not surprisingly.

 

[Mal7]

I think this flat-earth business serves as mind trap for whoever tries to look for alternative science without preparation (without strengthening critical thinking). It works the same with "conspiracy theory", drop some crazy theories out there and by association all those who talk about real conspiracies look like crazy madmen. There is a war for our minds, and the main weapon is trickery. <snip>
Cointelpro is a nasty weapon of mass lobotomization.

Exactly so. It's so easy to co-opt the mind of someone who has no information, no ability to think critically.

I was thinking last night that one thing that is wrong with our civilization is that we have stopped teaching classics and good history, geography, science. People grow up with essentially empty brains - you can practically hear the wind whistling through their ears.

In Chapter Six of Charles Fort's book New Lands, Fort queries whether astronomers have proved the earth is round, and gives some examples of alternative theories that have been put forth. Chapters Seven and Eight question the Copernican idea that the Earth goes around the Sun, rather than vice-versa. Fort also thinks perhaps the planets may be much closer than astronomers say they are, and even has doubts about whether there is a solar system.

About whether the Copernican view was a rational step forward from the Ptolemaic view, Fort paraphrases a Prof. Young who reckoned that at the time of Copernicus, there was no rational reason to favour the Copernican view over the Ptolemaic:

Prof. Young, for instance, in his Manual of Astronomy says that there are no common, obvious proofs that the earth moves around the sun, but that there are three abstrusities, all of modern determination . . .

These three abstrusities are the "aberration of light, the annual parallax of the stars; and, the regular, annual shift of the lines of the stellar spectra". Fort questions all of these three in Chapter Seven.

Fort seems to be radically skeptical about the idea of scientific progress, and characterizes the development over time of science as a shift from old delusions to new delusions.

Fort is I think probably too skeptical as far as the science of astronomy goes, but at the same time, without this tendency to "question everything", maybe Fort wouldn't have come up with some of his other ideas. Perhaps it is not such a bad thing having people willing to question everything, rather than having people learn in school what they ought to believe (I imagine that in practice, attempts to enhance the school curriculum would end up teaching that vaccines are good, a lone gunman killed Kennedy, and humans are melting the icecaps.)

Along with "question everything", it might be useful to have a motto like "the truth is out there", meaning you can't just believe anything you like, just because it is wacky or fun to believe it.

 

[number six]

We interrupt this program to bring you this important announcement..........


The controllers of this place have asked if you can please come up with a collective agreement as to whether it is flat or round. They want you to know that they can no longer provide you with the luxurious control you have come to love and expect unless they know where it is 'you' perceive 'yourself' to be.

The new science wants to be about consensuses agreement now, and not that we want to sway your thinking, but what if you were to indeed put it up to vote?!!

Yes, by taking a vote, like a true democracy, then you can be proud you helped "shape" the new and improved world from the ground up! You were there!! By not only helping us to reveal 'your' location and providing uncompromisable confusion, you will know that you are helping humanity to be provided with even better and more elaborate stuff in its collective future! It also insures that you will always have a place to be for the next millennium or longer if you need it!!

Your attention to this matter is of the utmost importance, but time is of the essence if you would like us to keep providing more of the same bs you have come to love, expect and enjoy.

So whats it gonna be, flat or round? A vote it is!! Be there or be square!!!


.................and now back to our regularly scheduled programing :)

 

[Cosmos]

http://<iframe width="560" height="...Hw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Mike]

I think this flat-earth business serves as mind trap for whoever tries to look for alternative science without preparation (without strengthening critical thinking). It works the same with "conspiracy theory", drop some crazy theories out there and by association all those who talk about real conspiracies look like crazy madmen. There is a war for our minds, and the main weapon is trickery. I'm not sure if it was in Schopenhauer's art of being right all the time book or somewhere else, but one trick used to cheat in a debate is to point out an exaggerated or ridiculous consequence of the opponent's argument to discredit the whole thesis. Another trick is using association. For instance, a couple of years ago a team of Global Warming fanatic sociologists published a paper where a survey tended according to them to associate those who know the science of Global Warming is a fraud with (according to them) crazy people who believe in aliens and that 911 was an inside job. I'm not sure about the details but the general idea was more or less that. So for the uninformed people who are still afraid of thinking by themselves, criticizing the Global Warming becomes a no-no territory in fear of being viewed by society as fringe conspiracy lunatics. Cointelpro is a nasty weapon of mass lobotomization.

I had a thought come to me while listening to this webcast with Clif High where they discuss this flat earth nonsense being Cointelpro and the spread being tracked online, etc. The discussion of it starts at around 47:23 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrL42vtc_bY

My thought about this, besides being Cointelpro, is as the transition to 4D starts to take shape and hold people would perceive reality in a total different way. As the C's describe (paraphrasing from memory) there would be no right or left or something along those lines. Maybe this could be construed as seeing reality in some way as flat or the flat earth disinfo program is meant to be used to discredit people when they start reporting 4D reality (as it shifts in and out?). Perhaps the Cointel program has a duel purpose. The first is, as mkrnhr explains, a way to discredit various things. A second might be in some way related to how people will perceive reality in a 4D shift. Like some kind of groundwork is being laid now to discredit people who will be seeing reality in a totally new way - perhaps in short stints before full transition.

 

[mkrnhr]

My thought about this, besides being Cointelpro, is as the transition to 4D starts to take shape and hold people would perceive reality in a total different way. As the C's describe (paraphrasing from memory) there would be no right or left or something along those lines. Maybe this could be construed as seeing reality in some way as flat or the flat earth disinfo program is meant to be used to discredit people when they start reporting 4D reality (as it shifts in and out?). Perhaps the Cointel program has a duel purpose. The first is, as mkrnhr explains, a way to discredit various things. A second might be in some way related to how people will perceive reality in a 4D shift. Like some kind of groundwork is being laid now to discredit people who will be seeing reality in a totally new way - perhaps in short stints before full transition.

It's possible, but we don't know exactly how 4D perception would evolve. However, I would suspect more the recent push for legalizing marijuana as a convenient way to discredit any possible observation of the thinning, or even breaching, of the veil it it happend to be reported by people.

 

[Divide by Zero]

My thought about this, besides being Cointelpro, is as the transition to 4D starts to take shape and hold people would perceive reality in a total different way. As the C's describe (paraphrasing from memory) there would be no right or left or something along those lines. Maybe this could be construed as seeing reality in some way as flat or the flat earth disinfo program is meant to be used to discredit people when they start reporting 4D reality (as it shifts in and out?). Perhaps the Cointel program has a duel purpose. The first is, as mkrnhr explains, a way to discredit various things. A second might be in some way related to how people will perceive reality in a 4D shift. Like some kind of groundwork is being laid now to discredit people who will be seeing reality in a totally new way - perhaps in short stints before full transition.

It's possible, but we don't know exactly how 4D perception would evolve. However, I would suspect more the recent push for legalizing marijuana as a convenient way to discredit any possible observation of the thinning, or even breaching, of the veil it it happend to be reported by people.

Interesting point! I think the legalization of marijuana while demonizing tobacco has another reason. Marijuana, like alcohol is a depressant. It helps people numb their emotions, good or bad. Without those emotions, people are more pliable by the authorities. On the higher level of soul, ignoring the subconscious buried emotions also would keep people tied into the lies and illusions.

I feel that the third eye is not a spiritual but symbolic of magnetic center/ higher emotional center "seeing". That's another COINTELPRO, where Eastern mysticism has been watered down to sound cool for the relatively "docile" west.