Oddbean

Its good that you are on alert against psyops, but what's the most obvious target for a psyop? Its the people looking for psyops. They got you. Both possible outcomes are acceptable to them : either you relegate yourself to non-credibility, or lots of people actually believe the psyop and then they have greater flexibility in their actions.

With all due respect man, you still believe we live on a spinning ball when we can and have objectively debunked those claims repeatedly. The physics supporting the model were lied about and obfuscated. Physicists are too scared to get on a large platform and debate the topic with those who are armed to do so. I know it's a huge amount of dissonance to overcome, but the evidence is undeniable and that's why the topic will never be addressed by these so called experts; they simply blow it off. With regards to nukes, I haven't seen any good evidence to believe they are real, nor do I really care about the topic. Big bombs exists and we can't do much to mitigate them. I don't worry about 'nuclear fallout', not even a little.

I watched the video you linked about the earth being flat. It's not that no one can debate that guy - it's just too much work. If we have to return to the most basic premises, then that's a philosophical debate. If the strategy of a debater is to outlast his opponent by making extravagant demands and more assertions than can be handled by one person, then the result will be that no one wants to engage in debate. That doesn't make him the victor - it makes him dishonest. And frankly, flat earth is just lazy. There are very good alternative ways to explain the earth, which would be philosophically consistent with observation while not being materialist. I can and do regularly offer alternative explanations. That's not because I believe the alternative explanation, but rather because being fully sovereign requires the ability to invent my own language of metaphysic. There is an easy way you can spot falsehood - just see if you can develop the model further. Reality is continuous ; communication, and thus models, are discreet. A perfectly accurate model would allow infinite detail - that's not possible, but you can apply the concept in the other direction. If a model has a cut off point, where further building is impossible, then its wrong. Flat earth is rationally wrong (rationally flat, lol) in probably an infinite number of ways, and failure to find any of these ways is proof of laziness.

Flat earth is a catch all term for the topic. Most honest flerfs will state we don't know what the exact shape is, but it appears flat based on long distance observations, or more specifically, it isn't curving. It can be many other things, but a curved ball it cannot be. Similarly, the second claim is there is no measured movement. Objectively, movement has never been measured. The best evidence presented for it is foucaults pendulum, and the issues are too much to get into with text alone. Just one simple thing though, it needs to be manually started and the rate of procession would vary depending on latitude (not demonstrated). The basic tenets of a debate are logical fallacies. Keep on top of those and you're 90% of the way there. I've watched dozens, maybe hundreds of debates on the topic. The dishonesty almost entirely comes from the mainstream side, ever shifting the goalposts as their points are knocked down one after the other. That was one of the things that opened my eyes, since anyone who ever first stumbles onto the topic will always do so with skepticism or trying to debunk it. I do enjoy how people tend to push this to pilosophy as the ground is removed from their shaky positions. The key points to our position are primarily that the claim of the globe is repeatedly debunked and that motion has never been proven. Anything else further than that is speculation. The default position is we are standing still, and the onus is on the party making the claim of motion. Unfalsifiable claims don't count, and that's largely what that position is based off of.

The blue dot is admitted to being a composite image by the guy who made it himself. It's not a real photo, none of them are. Flat earth pilots exist, if there were none I would be more skeptical. I have hours of interviews, but I can seem to locate them online now. Here's an exceprt from the longer interview. https://video.nostr.build/ac44427ff6d826c6589411a770eb7c9e965bc9c9cbbdb473f58794c51f5295df.mp4 I think a good question would be what would you consider credible evidence that the earth isn't a curved ball flying through space?

The idea that there is an edge as a presumption though. No one makes that claim. The photos we have from 'space' or high altitudes show a level surface. See how the misrepresent things? Why do this? The claim: https://image.nostr.build/375544c73aa400119a81403f60fced6d13f0925194e79599ea0d6615e75caa84.jpg Reality: https://image.nostr.build/ec5171ec79b461eb7a8f6660e2d43eaacccd36f937d733145e8d9b763756a462.jpg

NASA is fake and gay. I know they faked the moon landings, which means their credibility is totally shot. Only a handful of people have ever claimed to leave LEO. I think it's a cool story. As real as a Hollywood production.

Its just a bunch of pictures. You can just as easily get similar pictures from another space agency. Don't you think China would love to point out that NASA is fake? But instead they have their own agency doing the same things.

All the countries have unilaterally agreed to the Antarctica treaty despite claims they are mortal enemies. If that's feasible, it's feasible they have other arrangements to. These things are proof of anything. The fact is curvature is repeatedly debunked with long distance observations and radio waves. Indisputably so, that's why the topic always shifts to "but what about .... explain that." Once you get into the physics then it really starts to go downhill. Did you know there were pages that emerged which were removed from the end of Newton's Principia? Want to guess what was in them? Why would they hide those?

Most treaties are only signed because the states signing them aren't affected by the treaty. Antarctica is not relevant to anyone, so its easy to get a treaty for it. On the other hand, the US refuses to sign the treaty that limits ocean borders, despite most of the world signing, and despite China clearly violating it. It would be an easy win, but the cost of being restricted is too high. Likewise, the nuclear non proliferation treaty was mostly signed by states that lacked nukes, and exception was given to states that already had nukes - the treaty is fluff, completely inconsequential, just political theater.

As are space agencies; a wonderful way to psyphon off money from the public while providing no value in return. Goes hand in hand with the trillions the pentagon can't account for. We can argue about the semantics of politics, doesn't matter when we have the other proofs for which there is no other explanation.

Exactly, so what would exempt NASA from being another corrupted institution just like the rest of them? Just the hopes and dreams they sell us, because that's their job in order to maintain funding.

To restate my position; it appears flat because we can't find the claimed curvature. It could be anything else other than curving, because various types of measurements falsify the claim of curvature. Similarly, there is no evidence the earth is in motion. There is an equivalence in the models, in that one proposes we are moving while the other proposes that the bodies are moving around us. Both are equally valid from a kinematic and dynamic perspective in physics. I've come to the conclusion that the physics which supports heliocentrism is wrong. It's reached a dead end and it has problems, like dark matter, which geonentrism doesn't need to account for because we have an aether. That's why I believe one of the main keys to breaking this apart entirely is zero point energy, which is only possible with an infinite energy source, or the aether.

Above the water at very low altitude... In northern Iraq? What water is in northern Iraq? Also he seems too old to have flown a fighter in Iraq. Where's the evidence that thus guy is actually a pilot? If I was a con man, I would make sure to mention family, and a daughter is the perfect person to mention for gaining confidence. Perception is reality, as they say in the Air Force. They say it too much for it not to he suspicious. There's good reason to have people chasing nonsense - an adversary who's world is false is much less dangerous than one who's world is accurate. War is the final arbiter. If one side believes nonsense, they die. Or they render their product up to their superior. If our military believed the earth was flat, and was wrong, we would lose. If you believe something false, you are not only at a disadvantage, but you will be easier to rob, or lead into other falsehoods before robbing you. There are many reasons to disbelieve this guy, and few to none to believe him.

Look at a map, there are lakes in Iraq. You're attacking his credibility in your entire response. You doubt he's a pilot because of what his position, rather than addressing the points being made. You would think this guy would be proven a fraud 3 or 4 years since this video was made, no? Think about who has more to gain from this lie? I found the full interview, here: https://youtu.be/fGjcTypR1GI From the same perspective, who has more to gain, lying antivaxxers or the corporations making them? Risk/benefit doesn't add up there, nor here. There is little to nothing to gain from lying about this, nor is there anything to gain from being a geocentrist; at least not from a monetary perspective. Many credible pilots make the same claims, I can't find all of the videos online. Here's another compilation I found while searching: https://x.com/RobotPolisher/status/1682219372503347201 Ironically, to your point about the military, that's what happened in WW2. Germans used a system targeting system the Brits claimed couldn't work on a curved earth, and the Germans bombed factories in England using that targeting system. LOL Line of sight radar debunks the curvature rate, seeing as these tests have been conducted over hundreds or thousands of miles. I've heard all the cope presented as a rebuttal. https://youtu.be/n2r6hFMBaKE

Completely agree, that word is used somewhat colloquially, similar to how flat earth is the catch all term for globe skeptics. I'm open to any theories that are plausible with evidence. I simply don't buy the idea of a ball in motion based on the evidence I've seen. It's contradictory and illogical, and if it was true, then they wouldn't need to fake things or lies about space. Far too many holes in the official story for it to be the truth, that I am most sure of.