“What’s all this debunking you keep talking about?”
“That? You’re asking me that?”
“Yeah. Why not?”
“Cos...it’s embarrassing.”
“What’s embarrassing about it?”
“Oh, I dunno. Maybe I feel people will associate me with the
actual beliefs. Or maybe ‘cos it’s a colossal waste of time. Or kind of geeky
or...no, it’s probably about the time. And the subject matter.”
“Explain?”
“Well, I’ll tell you how it started: it started with buying
that bloody Jon Ronson book last spring - ‘Them: Adventures With Extremists’,
just on a whim; a bloody whim - and reading his chapter about David Icke, and
thinking there was something fishy about it. So I watched the Icke interview on
Wogan - there was something fishy about it: Ronson totally re-arranged the
timeline, misrepresented both Icke and the audience reaction - which is all
completely ironic, given his recent book about people who got caught in
literary dishonesties (but that’s another subject - and...where was I? Oh yeah:
next thing I know I’m clicking on ‘flat earth videos’ - ah, to go back to that
moment, when I didn’t even know such a batshit crazy belief existed! - and I
guess it all started there.”
“What happened? Why didn’t you just laugh and brush it off?”
“Well, you know, all them psychedelics and years hanging
around with New Age people - years, let’s face it, BEING a New Age person - I
guess there’s still a little crack in my brain that, when presented with mad
but persuasively-conveyed information goes like, holy shit, what if that’s
true? Happens all the time. Being open-minded and all that. Plus, I was
ignorant.
“Anyway, I figured I’d better research it, and see why they
were wrong - it didn’t take long: it was weirdly easy to debunk their claims -
and, from there, it was just a wee step to thinking, oh well, what I should do
is give them this information too, and then they can stop being wrong and stop
believing silly things that probably aren’t good for them: that’ll be helpful.
“Well, I got sucked in. I got really into investigating all
the claims - the physics, the geometry, the astronomy, the science of it -
and...I’ll tell you what: it was COOL actually. I learned a ton. I used a part
of my brain I probably hadn’t used since I was a kid. You well know how much I
enjoy a good equation. And all that stuff about stars and space travel and
photography and gravity - it was great. I became, like, an expert. I understood
the theory, and I understood exactly how to disprove every little part of it.
And the psychology of it, too - wow! Trying to be rational with humans
completely irrational. Trying to understand what was going on in their brains.
Seeing how, for many of them, they were simply too far gone. The conspiracy
theorist’s mindset. The fear. The desire for certainty in an uncertain world.
Dunning-Kruger. Yeah: I learned a ton.
“At a certain point I joined a website called ‘metabunk’ -
basically it’s a place that looks at the evidence that conspiracy theorists put
forward to support their claims, and tries to get down to the truth of what’s
going on. Man, there are some smart people on there! And they’re polite and
reasonable and have a really adherence to just figuring out what’s factual,
what can be known. What a treat to find somewhere like that on the internet,
after the despair-inspiring mess that is youtube and facebook comments: a place
where you really can’t get away with any bullshit.
“At first I was mainly just asking questions, trying to get
a few final things straight - grokking how ‘Great Circle Routes’ work was a
tough one - but then I started making my own threads, posting disproofs, coming
up with experiments that flat earthers could do in their own back gardens,
without having to rely on photos or videos from others, or trust in ‘evil NASA’
(as they see it). I came up with some pretty good ones. I’m proud of them, to
be honest.”
“Like what? What did you come up with?”
“Well, the ‘North Star Test’ is one of my favourite, ‘cos
you can do all the measurements yourself, and prove the shape of the earth. I
guess it’s similar to Eratosthenes’ original experiment to figure out the
circumference of the earth. You...would you like a link?”
“Yes please.”
“Okay. Hold on.”
“I’m holding.”
“Okay. Click here: metabunk.org/posts/189974. That has the whole thing laid
out. It’s pretty fool proof. Only problem is, it’s too good - every flat
earther I ever presented it to just ran away.”
“What other ones did you come up with?”
“Probably the ‘Mountain Ranges Test’ is the best one: and,
as far as I know, a totally unique one, anywhere online. Again, the point is to
be able to do the whole thing oneself, without having to rely on high
technology, scientists, government agencies, etc, since conspiracy theorists
can generally brush all that away with the wave of a hand - unless it suits
them not to. This one all you need to know are the elevations of mountains and
the distances to them. And, again, it’s pretty fool proof and totally unambiguous.
“Click here if you want to check that out: metabunk.org/posts/207142. It’s a bit more involved and
involves some fairly complex trigonometry - you should see the equation I use!
it’s like three lines long! - but, you know, I don’t think it’s too difficult
to get one’s head around.
“I’m also pretty proud of the ones that were pure research
into working out where some of these crazy flat earth beliefs come from. The
guy who seems to have started all this, about three years ago, is this far-out
lunatic yoga teacher fella called Eric Dubay. He basically read a load of
misleading flat earth books written by Victorian ‘Biblical Literalists’ and
presented them to the modern world as fact. Gullible space deniers, conspiracy
theorists, and religious extremists gulped them up. But he never double-checked
on these sources. He never realised they were all based on false assumptions
and intellectual dishonesty. Or, probably more likely, he didn’t care, given
that they supported what he wanted to be true.
“Anyways, others had debunked pretty much everything he’d
done - the video that started it all off was his wonderfull-titled ‘200 Proofs
the Earth is not a Spinning Ball’ - but a few of them eluded them. And me with
my wonderful research skills cracked the nuts.”
“Like?”
“Like there was this one to do with places in Spain ,
but he got the names and measurements wrong, so it was difficult to figure out
what he was on about. That’s here: metabunk.org/posts/187657. And then this other one which
claimed - if you can believe this: a lot of flat earthers don’t seem to be able
to tell the difference between ‘south’ and ‘down’ - that the Mississippi would
have to flow ‘uphill’ if we were actually on a ‘spinning ball’. The interesting
thing about that one, that I had no idea about, is that it’s sort of right, the
Mississippi does actually flow ‘up’ - if you strictly define ‘up’ as being ‘in
the direction away from the centre of gravity (i.e., the centre of the earth’ -
but there’s still nothing weird or unusual about it: it’s all to do with
centrifugal force and the fact that the earth isn’t a perfect sphere - hey
Garret! - but rather an oblate spheroid. But that’s probably a discussion for
another day, if you’re interested; it’s all pretty fascinating stuff, and, like
much of this debunking research, led me to learn all kinds of things I had no
idea about, but which are super interesting. The link to that is here: metabunk.org/posts/186556.”
“So then what happened?”
“So then I embarked on my fruitless mission to try and fix
some strangers’ brains. Went through a whole process of intrigue and
fascination; frustration and annoyance; enlightenment and acceptance;
enjoyment; compulsion; disbelief; education. It’s been remarkable. We’re
talking about a set of people who seem impervious to logic. They’re not even
necessarily ‘stupid’ or incapable. And, believe me, I actually developed quite
a fondness for some of them. Psychologically, it’s been a fascinating journey -
and, despite the magnificence of space and mathematics, psychology is really
where it’s at for me. But this is a difficult one to get one’s head around, and
I don’t think anyone’s really quite succeeded in cracking these nuts. When a
person’s whole identity is wrapped up in a belief - when their rational
capabilities are malfunctioning to the extent that they are unable to accept ‘2+2’
- when you factor in paranoia, psychosis, enormous issues with trust and
authority, and an inability to separate ‘fact’ from ‘fantasy’...well, let’s put
it this way: despite how incredibly easy it is to show the fallacy of the
belief, I know of less than a handful of flat earthers who have managed to sort
themselves out. I guess when someone is so far gone they believe the entire
space program, involving tens of thousands of people, has been faked, and that
filming takes place on Hollywood sound stages
and in swimming pools..then maybe they’re what’s politely known as ‘too far
gone’ to come back.”
“Still, there must be something that can be done. Have you
no advice for prospective flat earthers, or those not quite ‘too far down the
rabbit hole’.”
“Well, first of all, I hope you’re using the term ‘rabbit
hole’ in its original sense - ‘an entry into the disorienting and
mentally-deranging’ - rather than the conspiracy theorist’s notion that it’s
somewhat analogous to Neo’s choosing ‘the red pill’ - i.e., a journey into
truth. They love that shit: all that ‘wake up, sheeple!’ nonsense. And then...
“I dunno, actually. Like I say, I’ve been through this whole
journey with it, and seen how fruitless it is to try and ‘convert’ somebody.
They want to believe this thing. They’ve got their confirmation bias to protect
them from anything that threatens it - ultimately, you’re just a ‘shill’
(secret government agent) if your arguments get too good - and, you know, it
gives them a lot too: a sense of community; a feeling of specialness; they’ve
got the secret and the truth; there’s a whole world to discover. I can see the
appeal in it: they’re the children who believe in Father Christmas and get all
the fun and the presents, and we debunkers are the grinches just trying to ruin
their party with all our talk of ‘facts’ and ‘science’ and ‘rationality’. It’s
a lot more fun believing in cuckoo ideas than it is facing the reality of a
world which is pretty much as it appears to be.
“So, no, not really, I don’t have much advice. All the
information is out there for those who want it - but wanting it, and having the
ability to think logically is the precursor, and that may not be possible for
some. I think really I’ve reached the stage where I’m about done with trying to
convince others - and why should I, anyway? That’s probably a fallacy of my own
- and, let’s face it, it’s not like I run round the streets sorting out
everyone’s wrong beliefs - and surely everyone has some (including me, of
course) - that would be madness: so why should it be any different because it’s
online? That’s the key question, eh? I mean, it’s not like I’ve even
encountered an actual flat earther in real life - I only ever meet
chemtrailers, really, and maybe a few 9/11 doubters - so really I ought to just
ignore them. Though on the one hand I’m grateful for the fascinating journey it’s
led me on, and the things I’ve learned...I’m not sure how useful it will be, or
how I can apply it, to my actual real life. It’s just a hobby, really. But one
that maybe takes up a bit too much time, when there are other things I should
maybe be doing.”
“And that advice...?”
“Oh. Yeah. Sorry. Well...
“Actually, just this morning I thought: forget all that
hi-falutin’ stuff that’s probably over all their heads; forget about intricate
arguments, and even tests so they can figure it out for themselves; just start
with the basics. Flat Earth 101 is the mantra: ‘The horizon is always at eye
level’. It’s maybe the first thing they learn. It’s number two in Eric Dubay’s
infamously shoddy ‘200 Proofs’. It’s parroted in memes and discussions groups
everywhere. And it’s demonstrably false, and very easy to prove that for
oneself. It’s insane that flat earthers don’t even try to figure out if it’s
true: all they do - seriously - is look at photos, or look at the horizon, and
go, like, ‘yeah, looks about eye level to me’. But what they don’t seem to
understand is that the human eye isn’t able to detect things like whether it’s
looking down at 0.2° or whatever: for that you need some sort of device - and,
luckily, those devices are readily available.
“Number one, you can use an instrument called a theodolite,
which will measure the angle to the horizon. Get up to a decent enough
elevation, and the angle is clear. You can even download a theodolite app for
your phone, as I once did: metabunk.org/attachments/img_1505-1-jpg.20653.
“Number two, you can use actual eyes, by going up somewhere
high with a good view of the horizon, setting up the camera level with your eye
level, and snapping a photo: metabunk.org/posts/207592.
“Number three, you can make your own ‘water level’ - which
will show ‘eye level’ when correctly aligned - and do the same sort of thing: metabunk.org/attachments/horizon-level-liquid-test-jpg.27615.
“Number four, you can use parallel lines to determine where
the vanishing point is - and therefore ‘eye level’ - and again show that it’s
some distance above the horizon: metabunk.org/attachments/wtc-lines-jpg.28259.
“Number five...I can’t think of a number five. I wish I
could, ‘cos it seems like it would sound better if there was a number five. I
mean, there are plenty of ways to measure this, but in the category of ones
that are easy to prove for oneself...no, it’s gone.”
“I’m sure you’ll let me know if you remember it.”
“I will. And, of course, there are tons of other ways to
demonstrate the shape of the earth, but this is just dealing with that basic
flat earth claim, and showing how it’s wrong. So that’s what I’d say to a flat
earther - or someone on the fence - or someone who’s watched a video and
allowed themselves to become temporarily hypnotised by the music and the
persuasive voice and the - much like that movie ‘Zeitgeist’ did to a few people
I know, several years back - just check this out. Test the basic claim. After
all, the reason they say it is because the horizon remaining at eye level is:
a) what you’d expect on a flat plane earth (more or less); and b) completely
impossible on a sphere. So if they see that’s wrong...well, either they’ll
question the whole notion, and hopefully see sense, or dispute what I’ve just
presented above, in which case they’re already demonstrating a lack of
intellectual honesty and ability, in which case they’re maybe already ‘too far
gone’ and/or ‘not worth the time’.”
“I get the sense you’ve reached peace with this.”
“Yeah, I think I have. It’s been an interesting journey. It’s
still fun working out the experiments and the debunks. But as far as ‘saving’
others...I just don’t think it’s possible; all I can do is point them in the
right direction - like to this beautiful space video, for example: youtube.com/watch?v=_YzeGRFDIms&t=9m34s. If they can
watch that and still think ‘space is fake’, there’s just no talking to them.”
“And what about other conspiracy theories? Did you ever get
into them? You hinted at chemtrails.”
“Yeah, I did a little, but mostly just reading, learning,
coming to a place where I felt I knew why there was nothing in them, and could
know enough to explain to believers why, at a basic level. But, I dunno, flat
earth just grabbed me. There was something so impossibly wonderful about it.
Imagine believing the earth is flat! And what that actually involves, as far as
denying everything science and space travel and the exploration of our own
planet has taught us. It’s been called ‘the grand daddy of conspiracy theories’,
it’s so far out there. And, when I started on it, there were still a lot of
areas for the debunkers to grow into, a lot that wasn’t known. Now it is. And
still the movement is growing. I guess that’s just the way it is, and
especially in this current climate of ‘fake news’ and every single major
incident being immediately labelled a ‘false flag’, with videos scrutinised for
just the tiniest scrap of ‘evidence’ that there’s something fishy about the ‘official
story’, about what ‘the mainstream media’ are telling us.
“Nutters! But whatcha gonna do? And I must remind myself:
they make up a tiny minority of the planet, despite what my brain might think
after a few hours getting muddy in the weird parts of youtube.”
“Are any conspiracy theories real?”
“Not as far as I can see. I mean, you might say Watergate,
Operation Northwoods, the Gulf
of Tonkin US
mass shootings; not shape-shifting reptilian space lizards; not the Illuminati
or Bilderberg Group; nothing. I haven’t seen a shred of evidence supporting any
of these that stands up to scrutiny, that isn’t easily explained with a bit of
logic and proper research and honesty. It’s a shame in a lot of ways - maybe
the world would be a more interesting place if there were space lizards and we
were actually under a giant dome - but, alas, it just isn’t so. Though I’m
obviously happy to debate and discuss this assertion with anyone who feels
otherwise (wink).”
“Anything else?”
“I don’t think so; that’s probably long enough. A couple of
people might have switched off by now. But probably it’s done me good, to get
it all ‘out my system’.”
“That’s a thing for you, eh? Getting things out of your
system?”
“It is. It’s becoming something of an addiction, this
debunking false ideas, and especially my membership of metabunk. ‘Time
consuming’ is a bit of an understatement: there are probably other things I
should be doing, like my writing ideas. But every time I switch on my word
processor - which also happens to have a built-in connection to the world wide
web - I get sucked in, since there’s always someone to debate, some new piece
of information that needs to be shared. Lately, I was working on the weird idea
from the Charlottesville
car attack of a couple of months back, that the girl who died wasn’t actually
hit by the car. Maybe that one was useful - the information wasn’t out there;
there was evidence to uncover; and it’s kind of a sick one, and close to my
heart, given my Charlottesville ties - but, you know, it takes a lot of time.
It’s becoming an obsession. I need to do it less.”
“Another in those long line of addictions, eh?”
“Indeed. But I guess they get a little less unhealthy each
time I tick one off the list.”
“I wonder what’ll be next?”
“Me too. It’d be nice to be addicted to writing books,
rather than just writing things like this. That’s fun - and, if nothing else,
it’d get the monkey off my back.”
“That’s what it’s all about for you, eh? Ticking things off
the list. Clearing the system. Having ideas, and fulfilling them.”
“I guess it is.”
“Have you looked into that? Thought deeply about it.”
“Probably not as much as I should - or will.”
“I think you’d find it interesting, if you got to the root
of that.”
“I think I’d probably dissolve.”
No comments:
Post a Comment