Not gonna lie, I completely thought FE was some outdated joke of ignorance, but now I have 0 confidence in GE because their biggest proof was the pictures and now none of the pictures are real. So basically there's no proof at all for GE! Yet there's more evidence for FE!
I first started to think about the subject based on some posts by the "Flat Earth Trads" folks here on CI. I initially didn't think much of it, but figured that I'd give it a shot. I've never been one to dismiss anything out of hand for purely emotional reasons. After all, we've been lied about nearly EVERYTHING ... history, science, politics. I experienced a major paradigm shift when it became obvious to me that 9/11 was an inside job. I must say I owe some debt of gratitude to Alex Jones -- even if he is controlled opposition. I got to the point where if someone from the government said to me, "Good Morning," I'd suspect that it was night time.
In any case, I watched a few videos and I was somewhat shocked. I wasn't shocked that the government / media / establishment would lie about it, just shocked by the thought that the world might be completely different than I had thought (and been programmed with) my entire life and also was shocked that there was some pretty darn good evidence for it. I had initially expected that it would just be so much nonsense and pure speculation.
By way of analogy, some time ago, after FE, I looked into the question of whether nuclear bombs really even exist. Again, by this time, it wouldn't have surprised me that it was all lie. So I looked at some of the evidence and concluded that there was no hard evidence whatsoever, just a narrative woven around a bunch of circuмstantial stuff. Indeed, some of the alleged footage of nuke tests did look fake, and could have been faked. But that just wasn't evidence. Consequently, I have no strong opinion on the matter. I wouldn't rule it out, but I also don't have any reason to believe it either. So I don't simply accept conspiracy theories either without evidence. Another one was the notion that jet planes don't require any fuel. I don't believe that to be true, but I also agreed with some of the video evidence presented that the amount of fuel they required is MUCH LESS than we've been told. So on that one, I'm in between.
So, getting back to FE, as I watched more and more evidence build up, I became more and more convinced. When asked at that time, I would respond that I "lean" FE. Then I got to a point where I was 90% convinced, and now I'm 99% convinced.
I watched dozens and dozens (probably over 100) experiments where people showed how they could "see too far" vs. the commonly accepted globe math. I haven't done the math myself, but it's not disputed even by globe proponents and I've seen it worked out. 8" per mile squared is actually a slight shorthand for a more complex formula, but someone worked it out that it's incredibly close, to the point of being a couple feet off over 100 miles.
So what's the explanation for "see too far"? Globers have only one argument. And it's not really an argument. It's a concept, a word, that they use as a
deus ex machina to explain away these findings. They've never demonstrated it to be true. And refraction is a very hit-or-miss thing, and nearly always results in distortion of the image. But the consistency with which the FEs found the same results with experiment after experiment made me conclude that it was incredibly implausible, and the images were crystal clear. And then, if there were refraction, what happened to the earth bulge that should have been in between the object viewed and the observer? Did it get refracted out of existence? And why was the horizon line BEHIND the objects that were too far away? So the horizon line, which should have been refracted away from in front of the object was magically reconstituted behind the object? And the images were very clear. But then Dr. John D performed some TWO-WAY see-too-far laser experiments which put the final nail into the coffin of "refraction". To have light refract exactly around the curvature of the earth, based on how refraction works, you'd need a progressively-increasing density gradient. But, then, the laser coming back from the other direction (just a few feet away and at the same elevation) would have to, at the same time, encounter a progressively DEcreasing density gradient, and would have been refracted upward. Finally, Dr. John D also took some great video of wind turbines, about 6 of them between 8 and 11 miles away. They line up PERFECTLY as they would if they were shrinking in size due to straight perspective. For that to happen, refraction would have to be exactly the same between each one, from 11 to 10, from 10-9 ... without variation, exactly the same degree of refraction for 11 miles, while removing the water bulge that should have been in between and then again reconstituting the horizon behind it. Suuuuuuure. Only people who cling to refraction are those who for emotional reasons refuse to rationally consider the issue, apply it as "proof" (dishonestly -- without doing any numbers and measurements) out of confirmation bias, and the cling to it with white knuckles as a matter of psychological life or death.
Other key evidence:
--from amateur balloons going to about 120,000 feet up, without wide-angle or fish-eye lenses, the horizon appears to be at eye level and does not drop one tiny bit, when it should have on a ball.
--impossibility of having a pressurized atmosphere without a cotainer and for it to remain intact adjacent to a nearly-infinite vacuum
--serious issues for aviation, especially landing planes in a north-south angle of approach
I could go on for pages. That's how MUCH serious evidence there is behind FE.
On the other side, their "strongest" proof consists almost entirely of alleged pictures and videos from NASA. But NASA has been exposed for one lie and fraud after another, including faking pictures, and simply cannot be trusted and must be discounted as a source of real evidence.
As I try to do with every issue, I perform a "thought experiment". I pretend that I'm an ardent believer that the earth is a globe and that I'm debating a Flat Earther. What are my arguments? NASA? Proven fraudsters. Rebuttal? Well, they have lied, but this time they're telling the truth. "Refraction"? That's not an argument, just a concept which I can't convincingly apply to "see too far". I honestly can't think of ANYTHING that's compelling.
But this is what Globers do in general. They rarely present actual evidence. They come up with narratives, entirely unproven, without any empirical support whatsoever, to merely explain away the evidence presented by FEs. That is not honest and shows confirmation bias. They've already made up their minds that the earth is a Globe and so are in the defensive posture of explaining away all the very real and very serious problems with the globe earth model.
Topic: % Confidence in Earth's Shape (Read 67449 times)