Just read this again. The third or fourth time. Strikes me as one of the most important take-downs of the FE Dark PsyOp out there. Can't thank you enough. Peace. Clarence
As in Neil Tyson De Grasse? I suppose that just as one can rightly say that the earth isn't perfectly spherical, one could stretch the truth that there is a lump at one pole, and claim that is technically a pear shape. Not that I take anything seriously anything he says. He was just persuaded by Elon Musk that odds are 50/50 that we are in a simulation.
To be perfectly clear, there is very little that De Grasse says that I agree with. Some people try to escape the spherical earth on technicalities such as a) it isn't perfectly smooth (continents), and b) that the oceans bulge at the equator due to centrifugal force (which is further distorted by lunar tides).
I respect his opinion because he is a professional and highly educated. I am not sure what he meant when he said it was pear-shaped. But I don’t think he was referring to continents and mountains etc. That leaves little bumps and crevices in the earth.
When he says "below" the equator, he of course means south of the equator, not below sea level at the equator. His imprecise language exposes his northern hemispheric bias.
Very interesting and detailed piece which I am going to chew on and attempt to get my head around. I have been open minded about both possibilities and am not a scientifically minded person(!) but you seem to me to be someone arguing in good faith.
However, you may want to revise your Bible chapter/verse. Your quote is from Isaiah 40:22 and as far as I can discern was written in Hebrew as per the oldest version existent from the Dead Sea Scrolls which is highly concordant with the Masoretic text which was the basis for the King James Bible translation.
Chapter 40 : Verse 22
He is the one who dwells above the disk of the earth, whose inhabitants are like grasshoppers. He is the one who stretches the skies like a curtain and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in,
Translation: Professor Peter Flint (Trinity Western University, Canada) and Professor Eugene Ulrich (University of Notre Dame)
I heard of the Q posts from the beginning and ignored it for a year thinking it's just the usual nonsense. But it didn't go away so I decided to look into it and put it to rest myself. But I saw the long sequences of coincidences. Anyone with a basic sense of probability couldn't deny that it's impossible.
It’s was the best troll so far., and a useful ‘poison in the well’ of information which encouraged the waste of countless hours, days and weeks of those caught up in it’s swirl. Q served to distract and seduce those using the internet to ‘investigate’ conspiracy during one of the most devisive (politically and culturally) challenging times in the US.
There are layers of counter psyops, such as the recycled Operation Trust. Originally it was a Soviet sting to identify Russian loyalists. The same is being done today.
I love this post, JS. You even touched on what kept popping through my mind as I read through this extensive and thorough thrashing of the flat earth debate: ‘This is all such a colossal waste of one’s time’.
Sometimes in the past when I’d half heartedly participate in these debates I would offer up the existence of Foucault’s Pendulum at various latitudinal locations for a repeatable experiment to provide data for evidence of a spinning sphere... but you really went the distance. Cheers!
Thank you for laying this out so eloquently. This psyop needs to be destroyed and buried --- using logic and reason of course --- before it does any more damage.
I can only assume that you are psyoping. Pretending this is an honest, logical take that confirms the globe theory is just an insult to the reader's intelligence. I suppose you'll follow up with a joke about cats knocking things off the edge.
Only a totally stupid person can assume, invent, and project so much in one sentence. Or it is you who is the victim of a PSYOP. Get Starlink, take it out to the desert, and comment back here while out there. That will settle the matter so easily.
You are assuming that satellites only exist in the globe theory and constitute a proof of the globe. That simply is not the case. Satellite communications and other sky based operations and technology clearly exist. They are not necessarily in endless freefall around a gravity well centered in a massive spheroid as you believe. That's a fallacy and a false representation of the Flat Earth argument. It doesn't settle the matter at all. Starlink could easily be a massive deployment of balloon based routers similar to the now famous "Chinese spy balloon". Your personal opinions about what the flat Earth means, why people might believe it and whether it's reasonable or ridiculous are proof of nothing but your own bias. Your concern about religious motivation goes both ways. It may be you who cling to the globe concept out of a religious devotion to the mythology about our beginnings and ultimate nature that you have become accustomed to.
Yes, but logic and reason point to a globe. Explain an eclipse. Explain how all our coms are done using sataloons alone. How do they spin around a central node on a flat earth? What forces are at work there? Why don't they just fly off on a tangent?
All our coms are on fiber on the ground. Obviously they can have propulsion. Requiring no energy for lift and having limited drag would make them pretty efficient and fast. Logic and reason do not point to the globe. Thousands of hours of globe reinforcing media and academia point to the globe. It has as many or more contradiction issues as the flat model. The total absence of surface curvature being only the most obvious and damning. Eclipses could be additional dark disks or a power down state perhaps. We don't lack options, we lack information that space programs could supply but people on the ground can't.
So you don't think there are any satellites in orbit or that a satellite launching industry exists or that independent engineers and scientists are able to confirm this?
"Thousands of hours of globe reinforcing media and academia point to the globe."
I can agree with that! We have been indoctrinated with many established ideas and dogma that way. That's why this presents an opportunity for many of us to start investigating for ourselves. Unfortunately, it's not that easy for the layperson to carry out the required experiments. But I've seen some of the independent balloon with a camera shots and it's looking a little curved over a certain height.
I believe the typical measurement for curvature used by flat earthers is wrong.
The simplest explanation for an eclipse is that the moon passes between the sun and the earth etc.
Yes. Space programs could launch a simple probe moving away from the earth with normal lens cameras attached. Satellites could be launched with the same. The space station could have a similar camera lens but they are all wide angle or fish eye lenses which obviously curves the view unnaturally. I don't think they will do this any time soon but I think one day we'll have definitive proof that isn't just math based.
I believe there are satellites, but I doubt they are in "orbit". I think lighter than air craft, aka balloons or dirigibles are in use. Possibly "anti-gravity" technology. The curvature formula is actually pretty accurate. I've confirmed some results using trigonometry. I've seen the math on how it's derived. It checks out. Globe images are easy to produce with fisheyes or computer graphics..
Firmament: What does it mean? The language and context does not support the notion that the firmament is a dome structure.
When there are exclusive senses of a word, we cannot cherry pick one sense (a vaulted ceiling, dome, that supports and IS the pinnical of the structure) when the other usage makes more sense in the context.
1 (flat) expanse (as if of ice, compare כְּעֵין הַקֶּרַח), as base, support
2 the vault of heaven, or 'firmament,' regarded by Hebrews as solid, and supporting 'waters' above it.
Genesis 1:14,20
And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years.
Therefore the 'firmament' is the atmosphere, which supports the clouds (waters above).
Therefore 'solid expanse' refers to solid (3D) geometry (volume) and not a surface.
The firmament as an expanse extends beyond the atmosphere as it is the 'vault' of the heavens (the stars and planets that 'divides day from night' (the rotation of the earth) and the seasons (planets and constellations). The ultimate meaning of 'expanse' is the infinite expanse of outer space, the universe.
Zero gravity experiment above the firmament
https://www.instagram.com/reel/C5-f4bOuh-H/?igsh=MW9uOGpnYzZmbjNwNw==
Just read this again. The third or fourth time. Strikes me as one of the most important take-downs of the FE Dark PsyOp out there. Can't thank you enough. Peace. Clarence
Tyson claims earth is pear shaped.
As in Neil Tyson De Grasse? I suppose that just as one can rightly say that the earth isn't perfectly spherical, one could stretch the truth that there is a lump at one pole, and claim that is technically a pear shape. Not that I take anything seriously anything he says. He was just persuaded by Elon Musk that odds are 50/50 that we are in a simulation.
When I look at photos of the earth they are spherical. ⭕️ I’m not sure what you or De Grasse is seeing? 🤔
To be perfectly clear, there is very little that De Grasse says that I agree with. Some people try to escape the spherical earth on technicalities such as a) it isn't perfectly smooth (continents), and b) that the oceans bulge at the equator due to centrifugal force (which is further distorted by lunar tides).
I respect his opinion because he is a professional and highly educated. I am not sure what he meant when he said it was pear-shaped. But I don’t think he was referring to continents and mountains etc. That leaves little bumps and crevices in the earth.
When he says "below" the equator, he of course means south of the equator, not below sea level at the equator. His imprecise language exposes his northern hemispheric bias.
https://youtu.be/SoCKapivHGM?si=R6NG2IJ_rRi66p2C
The promulgator of the Flat Earth NONSENSE was a confused, schizophrenic, charlatan.
youtu.be/8yfyWSs3wRI
Very interesting and detailed piece which I am going to chew on and attempt to get my head around. I have been open minded about both possibilities and am not a scientifically minded person(!) but you seem to me to be someone arguing in good faith.
However, you may want to revise your Bible chapter/verse. Your quote is from Isaiah 40:22 and as far as I can discern was written in Hebrew as per the oldest version existent from the Dead Sea Scrolls which is highly concordant with the Masoretic text which was the basis for the King James Bible translation.
Chapter 40 : Verse 22
He is the one who dwells above the disk of the earth, whose inhabitants are like grasshoppers. He is the one who stretches the skies like a curtain and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in,
Translation: Professor Peter Flint (Trinity Western University, Canada) and Professor Eugene Ulrich (University of Notre Dame)
http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/isaiah#40:22
Yes, I am aware. As a linguist I have a responsibility for the accurate interpretation of the cultural intent of the original language.
Yes I daresay you do, having had a quick look at your background summary! That is some skill set you've got... 🫡
The mor relevant debate is whether flat earth is a psyop, a troll or a blend of both?
An even more amusing thought experiment puts ‘Q’ through the same process..
I heard of the Q posts from the beginning and ignored it for a year thinking it's just the usual nonsense. But it didn't go away so I decided to look into it and put it to rest myself. But I saw the long sequences of coincidences. Anyone with a basic sense of probability couldn't deny that it's impossible.
It’s was the best troll so far., and a useful ‘poison in the well’ of information which encouraged the waste of countless hours, days and weeks of those caught up in it’s swirl. Q served to distract and seduce those using the internet to ‘investigate’ conspiracy during one of the most devisive (politically and culturally) challenging times in the US.
There are layers of counter psyops, such as the recycled Operation Trust. Originally it was a Soviet sting to identify Russian loyalists. The same is being done today.
I love this post, JS. You even touched on what kept popping through my mind as I read through this extensive and thorough thrashing of the flat earth debate: ‘This is all such a colossal waste of one’s time’.
Sometimes in the past when I’d half heartedly participate in these debates I would offer up the existence of Foucault’s Pendulum at various latitudinal locations for a repeatable experiment to provide data for evidence of a spinning sphere... but you really went the distance. Cheers!
Seeing the invisible, knowing the unknown
https://godparticle.substack.com/p/synthetic-aperture-perception-ec3
A confused, schizophrenic, charlatan
https://youtu.be/8yfyWSs3wRI?si=XDMYVceVgN9oS1-B
https://www.instagram.com/reel/CyDvO3eoc6k/
Thank you for laying this out so eloquently. This psyop needs to be destroyed and buried --- using logic and reason of course --- before it does any more damage.
https://godparticle.substack.com/p/conversation-about-flat-earthism?sd=pf
Flat earthers take note:
https://www.instagram.com/reel/CrUKXbwuSBl/
https://ohdevolvealready.substack.com/p/a-flat-pathway-to-spherical-thinking?r=74z9x
Hey Joseph, thanks for reaching out! I have added you to my 'stack. 😊
I can only assume that you are psyoping. Pretending this is an honest, logical take that confirms the globe theory is just an insult to the reader's intelligence. I suppose you'll follow up with a joke about cats knocking things off the edge.
Only a totally stupid person can assume, invent, and project so much in one sentence. Or it is you who is the victim of a PSYOP. Get Starlink, take it out to the desert, and comment back here while out there. That will settle the matter so easily.
You are assuming that satellites only exist in the globe theory and constitute a proof of the globe. That simply is not the case. Satellite communications and other sky based operations and technology clearly exist. They are not necessarily in endless freefall around a gravity well centered in a massive spheroid as you believe. That's a fallacy and a false representation of the Flat Earth argument. It doesn't settle the matter at all. Starlink could easily be a massive deployment of balloon based routers similar to the now famous "Chinese spy balloon". Your personal opinions about what the flat Earth means, why people might believe it and whether it's reasonable or ridiculous are proof of nothing but your own bias. Your concern about religious motivation goes both ways. It may be you who cling to the globe concept out of a religious devotion to the mythology about our beginnings and ultimate nature that you have become accustomed to.
Yes, but logic and reason point to a globe. Explain an eclipse. Explain how all our coms are done using sataloons alone. How do they spin around a central node on a flat earth? What forces are at work there? Why don't they just fly off on a tangent?
All our coms are on fiber on the ground. Obviously they can have propulsion. Requiring no energy for lift and having limited drag would make them pretty efficient and fast. Logic and reason do not point to the globe. Thousands of hours of globe reinforcing media and academia point to the globe. It has as many or more contradiction issues as the flat model. The total absence of surface curvature being only the most obvious and damning. Eclipses could be additional dark disks or a power down state perhaps. We don't lack options, we lack information that space programs could supply but people on the ground can't.
Obviously you haven't been in the Navy. 'Nuff said.
Obviously you don't understand the argument, so why engage it?
"All our coms are on fiber on the ground."
So you don't think there are any satellites in orbit or that a satellite launching industry exists or that independent engineers and scientists are able to confirm this?
"Thousands of hours of globe reinforcing media and academia point to the globe."
I can agree with that! We have been indoctrinated with many established ideas and dogma that way. That's why this presents an opportunity for many of us to start investigating for ourselves. Unfortunately, it's not that easy for the layperson to carry out the required experiments. But I've seen some of the independent balloon with a camera shots and it's looking a little curved over a certain height.
I believe the typical measurement for curvature used by flat earthers is wrong.
The simplest explanation for an eclipse is that the moon passes between the sun and the earth etc.
Yes. Space programs could launch a simple probe moving away from the earth with normal lens cameras attached. Satellites could be launched with the same. The space station could have a similar camera lens but they are all wide angle or fish eye lenses which obviously curves the view unnaturally. I don't think they will do this any time soon but I think one day we'll have definitive proof that isn't just math based.
I believe there are satellites, but I doubt they are in "orbit". I think lighter than air craft, aka balloons or dirigibles are in use. Possibly "anti-gravity" technology. The curvature formula is actually pretty accurate. I've confirmed some results using trigonometry. I've seen the math on how it's derived. It checks out. Globe images are easy to produce with fisheyes or computer graphics..
It's a waste of time to argue with an ignoramus.
and yet I humor you anyway.
Firmament: What does it mean? The language and context does not support the notion that the firmament is a dome structure.
When there are exclusive senses of a word, we cannot cherry pick one sense (a vaulted ceiling, dome, that supports and IS the pinnical of the structure) when the other usage makes more sense in the context.
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/7549.htm
raqia: an extended surface, expanse
1 (flat) expanse (as if of ice, compare כְּעֵין הַקֶּרַח), as base, support
2 the vault of heaven, or 'firmament,' regarded by Hebrews as solid, and supporting 'waters' above it.
Genesis 1:14,20
And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years.
"waters above"
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/1-6.htm
'water' is literal and not a figurative 'ocean' (e.g. the vast ocean of space)
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/mayim_4325.htm
The waters above are the water-bearing clouds.
Therefore the 'firmament' is the atmosphere, which supports the clouds (waters above).
Therefore 'solid expanse' refers to solid (3D) geometry (volume) and not a surface.
The firmament as an expanse extends beyond the atmosphere as it is the 'vault' of the heavens (the stars and planets that 'divides day from night' (the rotation of the earth) and the seasons (planets and constellations). The ultimate meaning of 'expanse' is the infinite expanse of outer space, the universe.