I used to be brainwashed like you heliocentrics before i saw the evidence of experiments pointing massively towards a geocentric earth. So don't worry i've been in your position. I saw through the bull pity you can't If the almighty told you himself you'd still believe the helio myth :

What framework do YOU employ? I mean, I quite openly state that I'm not in a position to make reliable judgements on issues such as Paris. Do those in this thread who confidently claim nothing suspicious took place in Paris know significantly more than I do? Are their opinions formulated in accordance with the "scientific model"? Do you even understand the scientific model? I'm not entirely sure that you do given that you are attempting to wrap it around just one of many fields of study which it is badly suited to.

It's ironic you should post this after I mentioned Mae Brussell because not only did she provide a conceptual framework for analysing conspiratorial events (complete with a volume of references and appendices no newspaper or television channel would dream of bothering with) - she also fulfilled another requirement of the scientific model - the provision of TESTABLE HYPOTHESIS and a PREDICTIVE MODEL. Do YOUR sources tick such boxes? I suspect not.

We've already seen criticisms that so-called "conspiracists" think [i"hundreds of thousands of scientists are all wrong[/i". And yet it wasn't a conspiracy theorist which dictated that scientific theories can only be disproven.

Scientists simply love getting all misty eyed about "Scientific Truth". I've lost count of the number of eminent scientists who seriously think that science can somehow be divorced from human motivations. I never cease to be amazed by the elaborate forms of self-deception and ethical gymnastics which allow that hefty chunk of scientists engaged in the business of killing people to somehow claim that they were only ever motivated by the pursuit of "pure science" and never base human emotions such as greed, jealousy, vanity etc.

I mean, maybe you are satisfied by that empty maxim that [i"science is neither good nor evil"[/i. I'm not because it neatly avoids the uses that science HAS been put to throughout history. Perhaps the most celebrated period of scientific progress in centuries, The Manhattan Project, was entirely devoted to annihilating not just human life - but all life. Now, the likes of Edward Teller (as rabid an individual as you could ever hope to meet who showed very little value for human life throughout his career), Hans Bethe, Otto Hahn, Enrico Fermi, John Von Neumann, William Penny and company could claim they were only ever pursuing "pure science" solely for it's own sake - but that's just having your cake and eating it. The truth is they did what they did for myriad reasons - many of which were nowhere near as lofty as their ostensible idealism.

In my post I was referring to Flat-earthers rather than the other conspiracy topics contained in this thread and thought it reasonable that when dealing with a subject such as the shape of the earth and planets, scientific methods are the only real methods of forming conclusions on this topic. How else can you prove otherwise regardless of your view?

You're quite right that it's the fallible human element in any system that can break it down, science included. Look at the scientists for hire to say whatever you want about Climate Change, for example. The difference is, facts are facts, and once shown to be correct it doesn't matter how many voices say otherwise. Facts can be added to and changed to reflect the gain of knowledge over a subject over time. It doesn't mean the original fact was wrong, just that understanding improves. The theory of relativity for example has been added to, and the Theory of evolution grown since Darwin first penned it to the point of it being one of the strongest theories in Science.

I'm not putting Science on a pedestal, because there's areas of science that poke hornets nests. But it is still the most reliable way for humanity to understand and make sense of reality.

My post has little bearing on other, ground and earth-based conspiracies such as JFK or false flag discussion. That wasn't my point. Flat earth ideas can only be confirmed or thrown-out with science.

I'm not a bloody night-club bouncer. And if I had to ban every troll which has visited this site I'd probably require surgery for RSI.

The oxygen for every troll is vanity. Is it fair or particularly smart to penalise one and reward the other? It's not that I'm advocating trolling. I just think saving people from their own stupidity isn't always the right option. And I've not even begun to talk about that subset of this discussion which knows perfectly well what Flat Stanley's game is and yet continues to debate the earth's flatness (Jesus Wept!) as though it were a matter of importance. I'd say there's a belting Ph.D. thesis on human psychology tackling what's taking place [ithere[/i...



I've never required anyone's shield in the past and I'm unlikely to start now.

Scoence has proved a geocentric earth which i'll prove in my next post.there's over 20 experiments. Like you've just said Butcher facts are facts doesn't matter who refutes them I'll provide them its problem solved then according to your way of thinking.

Hmmm i think i do. What are you suggesting ?

I believe in a Geocentric plane. I hate the term FE, it isn't completely flat as in pancake flat due to elevations of earth. Plane fits perfectly. As in level of existence

I see your point. But using science as a pin to burst the arguments of someone who is being less than honest about his own faith in those arguments is about as futile as using the Ouja Board or tea leaves.

As a famous fictional supercomputer once said"Strange game. The only winning move is not to play...[/i

I believe that you believe it.

Care to elaborate ?

i'm on to it numnuts, its a long post.