The Flat Earth Psyop

There is a growing conspiracy theory that claims the earth is flat, and it usually goes like this: Aliens or some other higher beings created the earth, which is a flat non-spinning disk, and which is covered by a dome. The north pole is at the center, and Antarctica rings the entire disk. The dome is a screen several thousand miles high on which all objects in space are displayed. Gravity does not exist. The earth is between a few thousand and a few million years old. All photos and evidence to the contrary are fake. Only 500 human insiders are part of the conspiracy.

Now, a scientifically minded person should be willing to consider any new evidence, and many conspiracy theories do turn out to be true, and we do know that governments and powerful people lie about … well … everything. However, after watching a few hours of video, any person of at least average mental abilities should be able to determine that the flat earth theory is both a weak argument and is simply not falsifiable because all evidence to the contrary is simply declared fake. Therefore, no rational person would believe it. Nor would anyone who cared about his reputation make such an extraordinary claim based on such weak evidence. A more scientifically informed person would also be aware that flat earthers do not address most of the evidence that contradicts their theory.

There is some excellent material that refutes the flat earthers, and which is easy to find, so this movement cannot last long.

It would thus be obvious to flat earthers that making such a poor argument for such an extreme position would permanently destroy their credibility on … well … everything, and that they would have little time left to profit from it, so they would do so only if they were getting a pretty large short term reward or a long term promise of some kind from a secret benefactor.

Perhaps the lowest level flat earthers get enough emotional benefit from believing to make it seem worth the cost – like from a religion or other addiction; however, the most prominent flat earthers, who exhibit substantial savvy, are even more likely to know it’s fake, and have even more to lose, and yet are not getting a sufficiently large short term reward …

The only possibility for the most prominent flat earthers is that they have a long term expectation of reward from a secret benefactor. Therefore, they are part of a psyop intended primarily to tarnish real conspiracies while providing the fringe benefits of dividing conspiracy researchers and wasting their time. The psyop even causes people to self-identify as candidates for future eugenics programs.

The most prominent flat earthers also promote real conspiracies, so it is as if they are smearing poo all over their work on real conspiracies. This has been explained to them countless times, and yet, they keep doing it.

One of my favorite aspects of the flat earth psyop is its unintended indictment of government schools. Government has a monopoly on schools and sets the standards for all schools. The money provided to government schools has exploded in recent decades with no improvement in thinking skills. Their increasing budgets to teach kids to sit down, shut up, and believe what they’re told … seem to have produced no results at all – until now … We now see that the result of all that increased spending is a population more suceptible to believing the earth is flat – based on very weak arguments.

I am able to think, not because of my government school teachers, I am able to think … in spite of my teachers.

An ability to think is all one needs to dismiss the flat earth arguments I have found thus far. For example, one needs no special knowledge to see the weakness of the inductive argument that claims the earth is flat because no one made a sequel to the movie Apollo 13. Likewise, one needs no special knowledge to see that, unlike other conspiracies, a flat earth would require at least 10,000 humans to be in on it. Also, anyone should be able to see that, even if the moon landings were faked, which is pretty unlikely, then a flat earth would still be just as improbable.

The lighthouse claim requires a little more thought than usual, but anyone should be able to see through it if only they had the confidence to try. The claim is based on an article from the 1800’s describing a 300 foot tall lighthouse that was so impressive that sailors could see it from over 60 miles away. Flat earthers claim this would be impossible unless the lighthouse were several thousand feet tall. First, one should be immediatley very skeptical because the claim is based on a single article from the 1800’s, but the the real smoking gun is how flat earthers imply that sailors could see the lighthouse itself from that distance. Think about what sailors would see at the furthest point out where the lighthouse would be useful. We can deduce that they see a fuzzy blinking light on the horizon. It would appear each time the light passed in the direction of the ship and it might have a slight sweeping motion to it. Now consider that the light travels horizontally over the water and not straight up, thus giving it a further reach over a curved ocean surface. Then we can note that flat earthers try to lead us away from such thoughts. So, again we see that no special knowledge is necessary to defeat such claims.

Additionally, many of us do have special knowledge. By the time I got out of high school, I already knew (from independent study) about the following evidence that contradicts the flat earthers: the tides, gravity, redshifts, spectrometry, refraction, reflection, relativity, galaxies, nebulae, telescopes, super novae, evolution, radioactive dating, fossils, Foucault pendulums, water circling a drain, earth’s magnetic field from a spinning iron core, the tilt of the earth’s axis, the coriolis effect, phases of the moon, the earth’s shadow on the moon, round planets having round moons, pictures and video of earth from space, circumnavigation of the globe, hundreds of kinds of satellites and space probes. The diameter of the earth was measured a couple thousand years ago by Archimedes. Since before Columbus, sailors knew the earth was round because ships would appear and disappear over the horizon a few inches at a time because the surface of the ocean is round. Rockets departing at the equator are already moving faster than from points further from the equator. I also learned enough to do the math to disprove some specific claims by flat earthers, such as the claim that it should be impossible to see Chicago across the great lakes.

Nevertheless, a scientific mind is always open to new evidence from sources that have not already proven themselves to be untrustworthy, and thus if a new source has new evidence, then I will hear it.


Click Here to Leave a Comment Below 20 comments
david exo - January 29, 2016

The only ‘proof’ you have, Jim, of the truth of the Flat Earth Hypothesis is from looking out of your window. You have no experiential evidence beyond that. None. Everything else has been fed to you by external agencies with all sorts of agendas—and you’ve taken it onboard as truth. The fact that you dismiss the evidence of your own eyes—and those of everyone else, from today right back to the beginning of time, catastrophically undermines your argument.

Your uncertainty about the veracity of the so-called Moon landings disqualifies you from this discussion.

More research needed, Jim. Much more. 2/10.

Jim - January 30, 2016

David gives us another opportunity to show how no special knowledge is needed to defeat flat earther logic.

1) David says the only experiential evidence I have is looking out my window (with my own eyes, at the shadow of the earth on the moon for example), but then he says that I dismiss the evidence of my own eyes. Well, he can't have it both ways.

2) Then he says I deny the evidence from everyone, both around me today and throughout the ages, which is self contradictory in two ways. There was never a time when everyone believed the same thing, and now almost everyone agrees with me that the earth is round, so I could never have been denying everyone, and I agree with almost everyone today.

3) Flat earthers like David believe the moon landings were fake, and yet he then says that my willingness to consider evidence that they were fake eliminates all of my credibility with those who think they were fake.

That's a lot of self contradiction in such a short comment. Thanks, David.

Anonymous - May 10, 2016

Hey dipshit Jim .. . . they and you don't KNOW that's the shadow of earth you are seeing . WoW are you a spin doctor .. . yeah , the way you throw the thing about earth's shadow in your reply . None . .. NONE of what you listed proves earth is spinning ball , you moon . Tides don't prove earth must be spinning ball , fossils don't , gravity has NEVER been proven and even it were to be proven it would NOT prove earth must be a spinning ball , we don't know earth has spinning iron core (Lmao ha ha ha ha ha …you'll just believe anything science tells you , obviously you area science worshipper and Einstein and the others are all your gods and high priests ) . Circunavigation does not prove earth is a spinning ball . If you had actually done the research you claim to have done , you would've already seen the flat earth map , which clearly proves you can go in a circle and get back where you started from with earth being flat . Oh but they taught you as a very impressionable little kid that there was no other way you could go in a circle and get back where you started from on earth if earth was flat and because you CAN circumnavigate earth it must be a ball . Lol . Other planets being or better stated APPEARING to be spherical does not mean they actually are spherical or that earth must be a sphere . Earth is a very very very very very very very very very very different place , so why should it look like all the others , disphit ? " The tilt of earth's axis ? Lmao ha ha ha ha ha . . .you must be kidding . They don't know for sure that earth is tilted on an axis . If it were on a n axis , then why does every fake Nasa photo show earth totally straight ? Lol . Ask yourself that one , you dumb bitch . Yeah their math is so damn perfect that they send their probe out so perfectly that is catches earth straight up with no tilt . Lol .

    Galahad - March 30, 2017

    The fact that we have sun rises due east at the equinoxes disproves the flat earth

Jim - May 11, 2016

See what I mean?

Darren Semotiuk - May 19, 2016

Jim, forget lighthouses in long ago anecdotal stories. Ignore the other FE topics, and the anger and other emotional and immature stuff out there.

Let's focus just on sphere math ok?

What is the circumference of the ball earth? Approximately 25000 miles right? Meaning a one-quarter arc is 6250 miles?

And a mile has 5280 feet in it, right?

So what is the formula to determine the "drop" in feet for every mile of distance?

Obviously, it is not linear, the round shape means it will be exponential, trigonometric — and at 6250 miles you would drop to the full 6250 miles (33 Million feet).

The FE folks all seem to say the # of feet dropped should be ~0.67 feet * (miles squared) . I calculated a bit more (~0.85 feet). What have you heard or calculated?

Reply to this video if you have an answer…

…and then look around for video and photo of long-distance scenarios. What do you see?

Darren Semotiuk - May 20, 2016

I visited that link.

It is true that Harley showed quite correctly that the earth curves approximately 8 inches in one mile.

However, it turns out that while the earth does curve 8 inches in one mile, it does not take 9 miles to curve 72 inches.

A rule-of-thumb for line of sight problems such as this, where the distance is small in comparison to the size of the earth is

C = (2/3) times X[squared], where X is distance in miles and C is curvature in feet.

So are you saying you accept that formula as valid? Does it have any conditions (i.e. does it change as the distance "x" grows past a certain size?

For example, a known measured 50 mile distance from shoreline to a city — would that mean (2/3) times 50[squared] = (2/3) times 2500 = 1666.67 feet of curvature, correct?

Because it takes very little work to search online and find TONS of photos and videos (and time-lapse videos of a full 24 hour day) showing recognizable skylines across a lake or across flat land (from a 30 to 50 mile distance) — in a variety of weather conditions — where the buildings are zoomable-visible. No curvature-requiring drop of the expected 1666.67 feet (or even 600 feet, for the 30 mile distance). <– Have you done your own research to confirm or disprove this?

Jim - May 21, 2016

Darren, you are the one claiming that 7 billion people and thousands of years of science are wrong, so you must provide some new and compelling evidence, but you provided no evidence at all. (The only example I easily found was Chicago being visible from 60 miles across lake Michigan on a particular day.) Demonstrating that under uncommon atmospheric conditions a particular city over the horizon is visible on that particular day is not new. It has been known at least since the Vikings. Can you demonstrate that several cities are visible over the horizon across both lakes and ocean and in different parts of the world on EVERY clear day.

I have heard other FE claims that Chicago is visible on every clear day across the lake from 16 miles away and that it should not be, but a little math shows that if your eyes are 43 feet above the water, then only the bottom 43 feet of Chicago would be hidden from 16 miles away, and I didn't even add the usual small increase in the distance to the visible horizon caused by refraction.

Darren Semotiuk - May 23, 2016

You state that I "must provide some new and compelling evidence". Understandable for sure, if I am making an extraordinary claim.

Please excuse me if you got the wrong impression — I would like to actually not make any "claim" at all, other than asking you for confirmation about a mathematical formula.

As a reminder, your most recent reply is in response to me asking asking YOU the following simple question (after you posted just a LINK to a math page)…

{ [C curvature in feet] = (2/3) times [distance X in miles, squared] to get the # of feet dropped due to globe curvature }

So are you saying you accept that formula as valid? Does it have any conditions (i.e. does it change as the distance "X" grows past a certain size?

Unfortunately, you responded to the "because…" part of my post, but ignored the part leading up to that. Essentially, I offered a possible consequence/result of a possible premise, but you did not judge the premise: My post was basically "IF … THEN", so — for now — can you please delay responding to the "THEN" part, and instead right now focus on the "IF" part?

Can you simply state whether or not you personally accept that curvature formula as valid? (including any particular conditions where that mathematical rule applies or stops being applicable).

If you do NOT accept it, then please share what you believe is the correct formula. Only if you DO accept it, can we the examine any possible related real world situations that might be compared to this formula.

Hope that sounds reasonable. Not all participants of discussions on your blog feel the need to irrationally name-call or dismiss prima facie different points of view. I trust the same is true for you.

Jim - May 24, 2016

Anyone can verify for oneself using the Pythagorean formula that the horizon would be 147.1065 miles distance when viewed from the height of Mt Rainier (14,411 ft). The shortcut approach yields a distance of 147.0255 miles. The difference is insignificant in this context. Both approaches were explained in the link I provided.

Darren Semotiuk - May 27, 2016

>>> Can you simply state whether or not you personally accept that curvature formula as valid? (including any particular conditions where that mathematical rule applies or stops being applicable).

I am not sure how to interpret your response, I asked nothing about horizon or tall mountains etc.

Can I take your response as a "yes, but…"? If so, what are the "but" conditions? If not, what is the formula that you accept for vertical drop due to globe curvature from "X" miles away? (Presuming at a height difference of ~0, i.e. eyes on the ground looking into the distance. So forget heights of mountains etc.)

Jim - May 28, 2016

Look at what your saying, and remember, the context is whether the earth is flat:

1.You said you are not making any claim, which is obviously not true, and which, if true, would make your comments irrelevant.
2.You keep asking for my opinion after I have already given it.
3.You keep asking me for my opinion on what is a straightforward mathematical issue, for which my opinion is thus irrelevant.
4.You are distinguishing between seeing a tall object from the horizon and seeing the horizon from a tall object when there is no relevant difference in this context.
5.You keep asking me about the vertical drop, which is irrelevant in this context.
6.The geometry is obviously accurate only in the absence of other variables, and we know that there are other variables, such as weather and other atmospheric effects, which have not been observed to cause a LARGE AND SUSTAINED AND GLOBAL deviation from the purely geometrical calculations, which thus makes other variables irrelevant in this context. For example, a doubling of the distance one can see that occurs when a certain weather pattern happens in a certain location, and which occurs about one day per year, is indeed a large deviation, but it is not a sustained deviation unless a similar effect is observed on every clear day under day and under other conditions, and of course, it would still have only been one location and not a global deviation.
7.You keep asking me to explain all the other variables when that science and math are neither simple nor complete, and thus you are asking for an impossible amount of knowledge from me about a matter that has not been observed to cause LARGE AND SUSTAINED AND GLOBAL effects in this context, and thus such an ask is unreasonable and irrelevant.

Just for fun, lets look at why the vertical drop, which is perpendicular to one's line of site, is irrelevant in this context. If the earth were a perfect sphere, and if it were possible for one's eye to be looking exactly horizontally from the surface of the sphere, and if one's eye were a geometric point (which has no size instead of being the height of the lense), then the furthest distance at which one could see another geometric point on the surface would be ZERO. If a tall structure existed at another geometric point whose distance were one eighth of the circumference, then if that structure were tall enough, one could see it, and this would be true all the way to one quarter of the circumference because at one quarter, the structure could be infinitely tall and it would never rise above the horizon from your eye's perspective. There is in fact a vertical drop from one's line of sight that touches the point at one quarter circumference though, and it is the same length as the radius. Of course, a structure built from that point to your line of site would be built horizontally and not vertically from it's base point, which is thus irrelevant because nothing is built that way and nothing CAN be built that way because it would collapse from gravity. If we follow one's line of site further than that, then a vertical drop would never intersect the sphere at any point. It would be dropping past the side of the sphere. Obviously, in a relevant context, only vertical structures (which includes all structures because of gravity) are relevant; whereas, when considering a vertical drop all structures would be horizontal, which is irrelevant.

All of this irrelevance is a waste of time, and as everyone may recall, wasting of time is a rather obvious purpose of The Flat Earth Psyop.

ElizabethEva Young - July 8, 2016

are you paid to make people go for the NASA BALL Globe Earth, it is their Lucifarian God worship, because it does not show the – firm amen t – you see, and the word Flat is wrong, because the SHEEP forget there are mountains miles high, and would you say ALL buildings in all countries a built on a flat surface foundation, and because the landmass of earth is beyond any humans 3D,4D or 5D perception, you cannot possibly perceive the size of earth, has CERN GOT TO YOU THEN ???

ElizabethEva Young - July 8, 2016

just like a FULFORD blogger thought it would be a good thing to use people's avatar for his babe, so she and he stalk FB and post comments on what they read, and after 3 years of their LIES, she quoted to him re FB comment she alleged to have made, it's what NARCISSISTS do, have many avatars,

" Listen closely as an Israeli rabbi tells his audience that "jews" are not from this planet and are here to conquer the Earth. The teachings of this rabbi would seem to indicate that the jews are an alien race (he comes right out and says this) created for the express purpose of destroying the real Creator's order and imposing onto the Earth the order of their luciferian god. "

http://birthofanewearth.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/rabbi-teaches-that-jews-are-alien-race.html – and why they love Christian childrens blood, to keep them so they don't show their reptilian form.

Jim - July 8, 2016

Dear ElizabethEva Young, I recommend that you throw out everything you believe and start over. I did that about 25 years ago – best thing I ever did.

I don't say this because of your feigned lack of knowledge or critical thinking skills, but because you are obviously a zio-stooge provocateur hoping to incite others to self identify by spouting similar BS.

ElizabethEva Young - July 8, 2016

Jim, could you please, in your own words, explain how you make waterballs from water as you make snowballs from snow, water is liquid and cannot shaped or formed into a ball as snow can, and why NASA said, if the SHEEP think the earth is a ball, we shall let them think it is.


ElizabethEva Young - July 8, 2016

as Harry Potter would say “Obscurata obscuratorum”

There is an odd mix of comments here:

Some are from broad minded open minded seekers of truth

And some are manipulative in the extreme.

The film is a botch potch of ideas.

It’s a trojan horse.

It’s slips dangerous pieces of dangerous right-wing (highly commercial) bile in with a palatable delicious organic soup of ideas.

Thrive has in common with the “Heartland” ‘Institute’ that the makers do not believe that humankind’s consumption of fossil fuels is causing Earth’s atmosphere any problems atall.

They think it’s fine to go on burning fossil fuel and that climate change is a conspiracy theory by the new world order. Well maybe, but wouldn’t that be convenient for a global economy whose lifeblood is oil.

Noone is saying the film doesn’t contain some good bits.
The many good people who were duped into appearing in it for example.

But overall it’s simply a clever piece of subtle trickery, that attempts to connect some dangerous myths that will trap us, to some powerful memes that will set us free.

Good luck spotting the difference.

    Eratosthenes - April 8, 2017

    Heard of me? Or trigonometry? Yeah, a sundial works because the earth is (roughly) spherical.

John - April 18, 2017

The PsyOp is working very well. Just looking at most of the comments here is proof. In my opinion, this PsyOp is being used to get “Conspiracy Theorists” to buy into it and therefore all the other theories can be labeled as fake news. Everything in the universe is round. Why would the Earth be different? I do agree that most if not all the moon landings were fake and there’s ample evidence for that.


Leave a Reply: