Forum menu
The video was her explaining why the Artemis launch wasnt real and they weren't going to the moon as the rocket didn't take off and go straight up in the sky all the way until it exited the atmosphere. Instead, because it launched then it's flight path was an arc, it was flying out of sight so no one could see that it didn't actually go into space.
There's a YouTube channel called SciManDan where he covers basic science stuff but also spends a lot of time debunking general science conspiracies. Flat Earth is definitely his favourite, he's already posted a video of two prominent Flat Earthers who live-streamed the launch commenting on it the whole way about how this looked fake, that can't be real, why was this happening, I can't believe what I'm seeing so it must be fake. The main take was basically "we don't understand space, rockets or physics therefore none of it can be true".
They were even counting the different camera angles used during the launch claiming that the cuts between the shots were proof it was all staged. It must have taken real effort to actually believe the insanity they were coming out with as opposed to actual rocket science.
The thing with flat earthers is they are so pleased with themselves for knowing "the truth". But what does that "truth" give them access to besides a misplaced sense of smugness? It makes no difference to me what shape the earth is. I will still go to bed tonight then wake up tomorrow, have a cup of tea and go to work. If someone proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the planet is flat it wouldn't change my life at all.
Flat earthers are just a distraction from the real conspiracy, Greater Earth. It goes something like, beyond the ice wall that surrounds us are other continents and civilisations and we’re effectively slaves used to mine gold and resources, or in some weird social experiment, or in a zoo, or something. I’m not sure why they don’t just sail over to said ice wall and take a few pictures and prove themselves right.
My conspiracy theory is that all these mad conspiracies are spread on purpose by governments to discredit people who try to expose real ones. “What you think the government is doing mind control experiments on it’s own people, bet you believe the earth is flat too you nutter”
I was reading the local Facebook page yesterday. Apparently there are going to be lockdowns due to fuel shortages. Though you guys will already be aware of this because it is already happening in the UK and Australia!
If someone proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the planet is flat it wouldn't change my life at all.
But it would prove that they are lying to us. If they are lying about this, what else have they lied about?
I don't believe Trump's ear was hit, or if it was it was a tiny glancing blow - there would've been no better publicity than to show pics of it damaged as he soldiers on bravely, rather than a pristine dressing.
Since I CBA to do my own research, whatever happened with/to the shooter ?
I can't believe that anyone is that bad of a shot that they'd miss the giant orange head......
Secret Service "Counter Sniper Team" took him out apparently.
Thing is though..... where is his (Hitler) body then eh? eh? eh?
Well part of it at least is in the Albert Hall, according to the song I heard anyway.
Though you guys will already be aware of this because it is already happening in the UK and Australia
Yes, it's a key part of the Sharia Law we all live under here in the UK
If they are lying about this, what else have they lied about?
That your phone isn't listening to you...
There's a YouTube channel called SciManDan where he covers basic science stuff but also spends a lot of time debunking general science conspiracies.
I follow SciManDan (though his editing style of cutting the video every six words gets right on my tits, I'd rather he just said "erm"). There's a couple of others too, Creaky Blinder and Dave Mcsomething, McKerral?
Of course, you get the usual grifters like the dinosaur land creationist berk who's been schmoozing money from the gullible since the Internet was in black and white, but there's some proper headbangers on there. Mikey Smith, the guy who phones up observatories and National Geographic to grief their Receptionists, is plainly... shall we be kind and go with "heavily medicated"? CC with the improbable hair (who films in his truck presumably because his partner is tired of his shit) has anger management issues, mark my words he's an aneurism away from going postal with automatic weaponry. Flat Earth's poster boy Mark Sargent made an appearance a few days ago, aside from a few cameos on This Morning I haven't seen him since he spectacularly failed to get laid on Netflix's Behind The Curve documentary.
Speaking of which, if you're in any way interested in this stuff and haven't seen Behind The Curve, I highly recommend it. It's a real insight into how people like Sargent build their lives around lunacy like Flat Earth. It's like a religion, they can't actually stop believing because if they're wrong then they've got nothing left. It'd be pretty tragic but for, well, y'know, grifters.
But what does that "truth" give them access to besides a misplaced sense of smugness?
A community.
people like Sargent build their lives around lunacy like Flat Earth. It's like a religion,
Why are flat earther and religious followers treated differently? Why is one group regarded as nutjobs believing something with no evidence to back iit up, and the other not regarded as such, even though the belief is equally strange? Is it just a numbers thing? The DSM specifically exudes religion as a mental illness, despite it meeting all the criteria to be classed as one, simply because it so common.
But what does that "truth" give them access to besides a misplaced sense of smugness?
A community
See also: religion
If the Earth was flat someone would have built a theme park to look over the edge.
There’d be cats all along the edge pushing things off!
15 minute cities is the one I just can't get my head around.
I can just about understand the superficial appeal of some of the other conspiracy theories. "Going to the moon seems really hard we must have faked it". "Gee, Billy Bob, Kansas sure is flat, I bet the Earth is" etc.
But how do you go from more corner shops to we are all going to be imprisoned in "15 minute zones"
All is revealed…
https://bbc.com/audio/play/p0h24kbq
Though you guys will already be aware of this because it is already happening in the UK and Australia
Yes, it's a key part of the Sharia Law we all live under here in the UK
I run a monthly event with a couple of guys who I like, but wouldn’t say we’re politically aligned. Recently one of them mentioned that the UK is now extremely unsafe - women are being randomly attacked in the streets etc etc. I actually just nodded and said “wow I hope my mum and sister ok, they haven’t mentioned anything yet.” I don’t bother to ask where they heard this from… I guess it’s the modern equivalent to “I read it in the Sun” or from “a bloke down the pub.”
The DSM specifically exudes religion as a mental illness, despite it meeting all the criteria to be classed as one, simply because it so common.
I think that the DSM actually excludes delusional beliefs on their own as a marker of mental illness. It’s normal to believe things that are wrong.
Why are flat earther and religious followers treated differently? Why is one group regarded as nutjobs believing something with no evidence to back iit up, and the other not regarded as such, even though the belief is equally strange? Is it just a numbers thing?
WERE A CRISTIAN CUNNTRY!!1! Y DO U H8 CHEESES?
It probably is a numbers game, truth be told. These sorts of conversations quickly start using words like "normal." What exactly is the "typical" in neurotypical? It just means there's more of them. If they were the minority, we'd have support groups for them.
Christianity in the UK is dying, fast. And it's being supplanted not by a Muslim invasion as the shitrags would have us believe, but by Atheists.
Why are flat earther and religious followers treated differently? Why is one group regarded as nutjobs believing something with no evidence to back iit up, and the other not regarded as such, even though the belief is equally strange?
Because it's very easy to disprove Flat Earth with even a basic grasp of physics. To actually believe it, you either have to be unbelievably thick or you're actually grifting.
Religion is much more nuanced and while there are absolutely grifters and charlatans operating under the guise of religion, it's kind of difficult to prove / disprove anything plus there's a strong cultural element to it.
In among the bad things, religion has also given us a lot of good things. In no way am I condoning the crusades, inquisition, systemic child abuse, etc., or even equating them but without religion there's no St Pauls, no Blue Mosque, no Sagrada Familia.
The day the flat earthers build something to rival Durham Cathedral in homage to their belief, that's when I might start to be a bit more tolerant towards them.
Because it's very easy to disprove Flat Earth with even a basic grasp of physics. To actually believe it, you either have to be unbelievably thick or you're actually grifting.
Religion is much more nuanced and while there are absolutely grifters and charlatans operating under the guise of religion, it's kind of difficult to prove / disprove anything plus there's a strong cultural element to it.
Given your specific examples I'm not seeing much of a difference here. Basic Physics dismisses both of these standpoints and strong culture embraces them.
Proof is easier to argue. Disproof, less so.
without religion there's no St Pauls, no Blue Mosque, no Sagrada Familia.
Is that the case for the defence? A few buildings (impressive buildings, granted)? I can see the judge reaching for his black cap now! As none of those examples were built in the last century or 3, or millennium even, perhaps it's time to consign the whole shabang to historical curiosity and tourist attractions? 😉
Charles Rennie MacKintosh wasn't religious and he gave us plenty, as were Monet, Picasso, Bacon. Then you've got Debussy, Rimsky-Korsakov, Saint-Saens, Verdi, etc.
Plenty of exquisite art has been produced without religion getting involved.
Oh jeez, this is a thread about conspiracy theories, don't take everything seriously! I'm not saying all art has to be religious or that religious art is 'better' in any way, but show me a building as impressive as Durham Cathedral that wasn't inspired by religion
(and I'm not accepting massive hotel type skyscrapers because they're all inspired by capitalism, the god of money. Sports stadia - akin to religion.
And anyway
As none of those examples were built in the last century or 3, or millennium even
Sagrada Familia's not even finished yet, proving what a vital force for good the Catholic church remains even now 😉
without religion there's no St Pauls, no Blue Mosque, no Sagrada Familia.
Everytime I see these sort of things I think of all the peasants living in poverty that paid for these ego driven white elephants. Just think what good could have been done with that money
It provided employment for most of them, and a sense of purpose. Rone would love it, building stuff without worrying about the bill!
but without religion there's no...
We've done this before; take your pick of; secularism, political plurality, empiricism, the universities, Kelper, Bacon, Newton, Boyle, Mendel...There's much to criticise, but pretty much anything you want to point at has roots in organised religion, especially pre-Renaissance. If only because at some points in history, they're the only educated people.
Just think what good could have been done with that money
[Before the reformation] the monasteries were the primary source of 'relief' for the poor, and it's not until the early secular states get involved, that you start to get punitive laws/actions to criminalise them
Nickc - all the effort that went into building those things could have been used to improve conditions for the poor. How many houses could be built for one cathedral?
Just because they got given a few crumbs does not alter the fact that a huge amount of wealth was used to build those structures. Wealth that could have been used to better the lot of the masses. wealth that was removed from the economy to build these huge structures
As for education amongst the religious. thats because they deliberately gatekept knowledge usaing languages that the peasants could not understand. We still have the remnants of that today in the pig latin and greek used in medicine.
How many houses could be built for one cathedral?
Medieval cathedral building didn't stop house building, most the town and cities that sprung up around cathedrals - often otherwise built in the middle of nowhere were built at the same time, and housed the people (often generationally) that built the catherdrals. And of course post-reformation, houses were in fact built from their ruins
thats because they deliberately gatekept knowledge
Apart from obviously; the universities. See also the guild system which also (checks notes) deliberately gatekept knowledge - including the knowledge of stone masonry that helped build the cathedrals that were both major local employers and the poor relief...
Plus also - the medieval world, including the poor wouldn't have understood the concept of wealth redistribution. To them, both poor and rich are part of God's plan, and you are where God intended you to be - The poor are (in this world) the 'better off' - at least spiritually, and it's the very wealthy that have to work hard at good deeds- (which they're very much doing BTW - if their immortal souls are to be redeemed) in order to get over the very deep suspicion and moral and spiritual hazard that wealth bought.
Oh god, this all went a bit serious.
What about Elvis, is he really dead?
no, I thought he's driving bus on the moon? At least that's what that newspaper claimed that time...
I thought Elvis worked down the chip shop?
I mean, there’s a song about it and everything
Medieval cathedral building didn't stop house building, most the town and cities that sprung up around cathedrals - often otherwise built in the middle of nowhere were built at the same time
Do you mean monasteries since the Cathedrals were generally built in existing urban centres. As indeed were many monasteries depending on the order in question. Its just the out of town ones tended to survive better since you only need so many farm houses.
The primary problem with going "roots in organised religion" is very chicken and egg in western Europe. For various reasons the church was tightly tied into the political power structures early on with the traditional aristocratic pattern being for the spares to be married of or put into the church in a political position.
Those functions were needed and so some mechanism would have been created to support it if not the church. Whether, as in some parts of the world, that was a civil service far earlier than our ones.
Apart from obviously; the universities.
Not a great example in the UK considering how Oxford and Cambridge were tightly tied for most of their history to the church and did their best to prevent any other university from existing (fun fact when the Northampton polytechnic wanted to become a university they had to go to the privy council to have a royal decree by Henry III which had closed down the first university there revoked)
If only because at some points in history, they're the only educated people.
Is that actually true? I thought the notion that the peasants were largely illiterate was a myth.
If only because at some points in history, they're the only educated people.
Is that actually true? I thought the notion that the peasants were largely illiterate was a myth.
There's a very good episode of the "You're Dead to me" podcast that covers early printing, and yes, even after the arrival of printing, literacy was rare as books were expensive.
Has this thread drifted?
“They” have clearly deployed bots to derail the thread as it was getting too close to the truth.
I thought Elvis worked down the chip shop?
I mean, there’s a song about it and everything
As is clearly documented, "there's a guy works down the chip shop SWEARS he's Elvis". But as is then clearly laid out, he's a liar, or as the song was from the 80's and we're far more aware now, possibly schizophrenic or delusional and deserves empathy rather than ridicule.
But anyway - it demonstrates well how a statement can be twisted and the less detail orientated then pick up on it, multiply it through the socials and a true statement metamorphoses into a different untrue statement but which gets accepted 'as truth' unless unchallenged.
So I'm calling you out. Elvis never worked down Kirsty MacColl's chippy, and everything that you say hence or previously should be duly marked as from an unreliable source 😉