If the boot were on the other foot, certain parties would be saying 'get over it!'
Speculation to NO end, apart from an academic interest.
A waste of time ....

A considered response ... class!

No. And what would YOU or the rest be able to do about it if you did know 'the truth'? It'd just be a hollow moral victory for time wasted apparently 'educating' yourselves for something which, in the grand scheme of things, means absolutely bugger all.

Odd thread. It should probably be pointed out that the idea that people until recently believed the earth was flat is one of those daft factoids that's virtually got the status of an urban myth.

And here is the contradiction. I mean, it's completely irrational to waste endless bandwidth arguing about THE shape of the earth when you know it's indefinable (and this is just using Euclidean geometry). It doesn't matter how "close" something is to spherical - it's not. If someone paid you in monopoly money I doubt you would let them off because "it's closer to real money than rocks".





If you are really serious about embarking upon research but you are struggling to find a reliable mode of inquiry then you could do worse than take a peek at the work of possibly the finest analyst I've seen - the late but indomitable Mae Brussell.

Mae is bonafide proof that a regular person with no special sources of information can not only lift the veil of secrecy - but predict future events with a startling degree of accuracy.

Before the age of 40 she was a Beverly Hills housewife with nary a political thought in her head. But Kennedy's murder shook her and when the Warren Commission whitewashed the case she embarked on a NINE YEAR odyssey of cross-filing and indexing the entire 26 volumes of the report.

At the end she concluded it was an obvious conspiracy. But it was her revolutionary approach to research (concentrating not on the specifics such as bullet trajectories or autopsy reports but rather the locations of individuals in time and space as well as the connections which bound them together) which forged her reputation. It was this toolset which allowed her to know EXACTLY what happened in the Watergate hotel a WHOLE YEAR before Woodward & Bernstein touched the story. Moreover, she did what this celebrated pair never did - "follow the money" uncovering a rats nest of plots and counterplots.

Brussell tracked the movements and activities of all those involved in the Kennedy case and it didn't come as any kind of surprise when she found those names linked time and again to suspicious events.

In 1972 she took to the air and broadcast pretty much non-stop until her death in 1988.

During that time she blew the lid on CIA's link-up with the former Nazi apparatus functioning in Europe under Rheinhard Ghelen, Otto Skorzeny & Otto von Bolshwing - as well as the activities of the SS in South America who the Americans were using to intimidate local governments as well as setting up multiple cocaine pipelines under the control of Klaus Barbie.

She identified the key players involved in the collapse of the Vatican Bank and the subsequent murder of Roberto Calvi in London.

She predicted an assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan ONE WEEK before he was shot by Hinkley AND named the plotters.

She predicted the murder of Robert Kennedy and passed a note to his wife imploring her husband to take extra care in his visit to California.

She predicted that congressman Larry McDonald was in fatal jeopardy over an impending lawsuit relating to his company, Western Goals, which had been compiling an illegal database on California activists - two weeks later his plane plunged into the ocean off the coast of Russia.

She was one of only a handful of people I know of who realised that the Pentagon's head of planning FOR THIRTY YEARS, the mentor to Henry Kissinger, was none other than prisoner number 33 at the Dachau trials (an event which has been all but airbrushed from history), Hitler's former chief of staff, SS General Fritz Kramer.

Her entire volume of work is simply breathtaking. And yet she was ostracised by many because she refused to gloss over the one subject which has been verboten in American politics since the end of WWII - America's close working relationship with not just a few former Nazis - but an entire legion of them.

She absolutely slaughtered the likes of famed "Nazi hunters" such as Simon Wiesenthal who claimed to be hunting the perpetrators of the Holocaust when she could point to the likes of Josef Mengele, Otto von Bolshwing and Fritz Kramer publicly enjoying the good life without even bothering to change their names.

Mae Brussell gave everyone a roadmap on how to interpret what are often complex and elusive events. And, believe it or not, it really isn't all that difficult - if you are interested.

But before I give you the link let me make a few points.

I believe people should make up their own minds on these matters. Believing what anyone says - without question - is a surefire way to disaster. However, discounting everything someone says because you don't agree with some small part of his or her research is equally silly. There has never been a researcher in this field who hasn't made mistakes. So don't be eager to discount - especially when they have plenty of successes. Talking specifically about Mae - you'll discover that she says many things which sound unbelievable. But keep an open mind until you've looked at her evidence. Suffice to say you won't find Simon Schama providing as many references.

I STRONGLY advise people not to randomly select Brussell's broadcasts because out of their sequential context you'll either find them indecipherable or unbelievable - or both. I mean, her research is excellent with each broadcast coming with its hefty list of sources, additional reading material etc. etc. But you really need to start at episode one and continue sequentially.

IIRC, there are over 800 episodes. I'm about halfway through and it's an absolutely riveting historical record. You never know what surprises are in store - like the episode in which she talks about how John Lennon called her out of the blue and pleaded with her to visit. Lennon became a major supporter and even funded her first article published in Paul Krassner's "The Realist" Magazine. Then there is the tragedy of Lennon's death and Brussell's determination to root out his killers who she identified years before Fenton Bressler stuck his nose in.

I should say that despite being one of the bravest women I've known of (she routinely went in to bat defending the rights of prisoners in California's notorious penal system, faced down creeps such as Gordon Novel and assassin-for-hire Mitch Werbell (inventor of the terrorist's weapon of choice - the silenced MAC-10) etc. Brussell was terrorised by those whose work she uncovered. Her daughter died in a mysterious road accident, her son was driven insane when a "former" intelligence operative surreptitiously slipped a powerful hallucinogenic into his drink. Her home was broken into on several occasions. Whilst camping in Canada a rattlesnake was tossed into her tent. Eventually she succumbed to a condition she famously coined "[CIA three week cancer".

You can find a link to Brussell's site [url=http://www.maebrussell.com/here[/url. Some of the stuff on there (such as the Flouride link) shouldn't be confused with Brussell's work (she was dead long before it was posted). The site owner (who I discovered isn't connected to Brussell) sells all 800 episodes (plus accompanying research material - and there's A LOT of it) for a bargain sixty-odd quid (delivered in two or three days). If your budget can't stretch to that figure drop me a PM and I can arrange something.

You might think her work is no longer relevant today - but I disagree entirely. The tools and techniques she used then are just as reliable now. Indeed, many of the names she was mentioning in the late eighties are senior players in geopolitical strategy today. Most researchers are lucky to make sense of events within five years of their occurrence. Brussell was THIRTY YEARS ahead of events.

Below are four of her articles written for Paul Krassner's "The Realist" and Larry Flynt's "Rebel". Bear in mind BOTH came under enormous pressure to shut down operations immediately after Brussell joined. Indeed, both were lucky to escape with their lives.

[url=http://www.maebrussell.com/Mae%20Brussell%20Articles/Why%20Was%20Martha%20Mitchell%20Kidnapped%20-%201.htmlWhy Was Martha Mitchell Kidnapped[/url - written a YEAR before Woodward & Bernstein published their diluted story on Watergate which was later filmed as "All The President's Men".
[url=http://www.maebrussell.com/Mae%20Brussell%20Articles/How%20Nixon%20Actually%20Got%20Into%20Power.htmlHow Richard Nixon Actually Got Into Power[/url
[url=http://www.maebrussell.com/Mae%20Brussell%20Articles/Why%20Is%20The%20Senate%20Watergate%20Committee%20Functioning%20As%20Part%20of%20the%20Coverup%201.htmlWhy is the Senate Watergate Committee Functioning as part of the cover-up[/url
[url=http://www.maebrussell.com/Mae%20Brussell%20Articles/Who%20Killed%20Larry%20McDonald.htmlWho Killed Congressman Larry McDonald?[/url

One final point which I feel obliged to mention. If you are really interested and plan to take an interest in Brussell work - [uBE WARNED that you aren't going to like what you find[/u.

There are some things that you really would rather not know.

Who says they need to do anything beyond look after themselves? If the three million or so German Jews knew "the truth" about Hitler's intentions beforehand rather than taking the advice of bitter and twisted cynics such as yourself do you think one or two more might have been able to "do" something?

I don't even know why I'm wasting my time here.

But who has ever suggested that the earth is [iperfectly[/i spherical? In the same way, I don't suppose Flat Stanley and his YouTube pals would argue that it is [iperfectly[/i flat. The point is, it isn't flat, flattish, a bit flat or even vaguely flat - it's a sphere, however imperfect, and it's positively mental to argue otherwise.

And there we have it. Another victory for Godwin's law.

The key point about Flat Stanley and his ilk is not just his delusional flat earth stuff. He actually seems to believe that the whole of science is bogus, there is no universe, there are no planets, let alone astronauts or space stations or craft sent by humans to explore other worlds. There are no GPS satellites, there is no South Pole - there is just a great ice wall beyond which it is (for unexplained reasons) impossible to pass. In this mindset, it is easily possible to dismiss entirely out of hand the hundreds of thousands of professional and amateur scientists and astronomers who have produced innumerable works and, in recent times, the literally millions of images from all around the Universe, as some great NASA hoax and conspiracy. They are all either part of the conspiracy, or ellse, "sheeple" (yes, he really does use that term), or "indoctrinated".

I find it strange to come across, in the 21st century, an apparently quite intelligent, quite literate person, who yet is so utterly delusional in the face of an almost infinite avalanche of fact and evidence. I mean, just take the current space mission of Tim Peake, for instance. This, and the coverage, involves scientists and ground stations around the globe, and tens of thousands of people, particularly at ESA, and of course the Russians who currently have the only means of transport to/from ISS, and who would, presumably, like nothing better than to show up NASA as fakers yet are perfectly amicable collaborators in the venture.

What I find weird is that you will actually find YouTube videos by just the same crew which post footage from the ISS with optical anomalies and say it is "proof" that alien craft surround the ISS and Earth, and that NASA deletes/blocks the footage to keep the existence of aliens from us. So, we have a non-existent ISS, which nevertheless does produce genuine images from its non-existent orbit of real alien craft.

And Stanley would see no issue with that.

The terrorism in Paris is seen in this light. Stanley just loves the phrase "false flag". The trouble is, sitting in his bunker doing nothing but watch dodgy videos by some real lunatics whom he hero-worships, he feels able to pontificate that Paris was a "false flag" - in other words, Islamist fundies did not slaughter the poor kids at the Bataclan - presumably the French did, as part of the New World Order or whatever it is. How offensive these knee-jerk false-flaggers' ramblings are to the parents and families of the victims, I can't even begin to imagine.

Good points.

I've often wondered what framework they employ to ensure that their 'evidence' can be tested, verified, and hold-up to scrutiny. They obviously don't employ the scientific method, which is really the only feasible way to try and understand anything. If they did we wouldn't be having this discussion. It's quite alarming to see how ever more complex their ideas have to be to try and fit evidence around an idea rather than let the evidence lead them to a conclusion. There are similarities between creationists and Falt-earthers in this respect. They have to invent complex realities to stop the foundations of their belief from crumbling. When it becomes too much of a struggle, they simply ignore it.

Hence you get Flat earth which has to lead to NASA hiding things to Governments covering things up then onto elaborate reasons for them to do so. Etc etc. It becomes exhausting as someone looking in to see how far the story has to bend to keep it intact. They don't seem to be aware of how ridiculous the idea has to be to be true. I suppose they are invested in their idea to the point that they simply can't sit back and look at it reasonably and rationally, which is dodgy ground when you are trying to formulate proof of a concept. The scientific method avoids this trap through peer review and the fact that everyone is free to test an idea and prove it wrong, and is encouraged to do so. Conspiracy theorists and flat-earthers struggle with this process because they themselves don't have that rigorous platform to try and test and disprove their own ideas before letting the rest of the public test it. They throw an idea out based around what 'evidence' they can find to fit instead of sitting on the fence and testing it themselves. When problems occur they become defensive and have to invent yet more reasons why other people don't see things the way they do.

Since this topic started I've been accused of being a shill and having multiple accounts to discredit. I've become a conspiracy theory of my own. I wish I was a shill, the extra income would be very welcome this time of year!

It does tell you a lot about the psyche of those people who peddle this stuff though.

Heliocentric nonsense.

Flat Stanley doesn't believe half the things he says. I would have thought some of the smarter people in this thread would have figured this out by now.

I guess I overestimated their intelligence.

Nasa did with their CGI blue marble

Why live in the real world when there is a much more exciting comic book world in which to live in?

They (the people who live in these fantasy worlds) do it because they are gifted, with brains the size of planets, and need to teach us thickies about our mental limitations and how we don't get it!

With such an important message to convey they choose a dark corner of the internet populated by neg heads to reveal it.
And the message is ... the world is fooked up and nothing is what it seems.
And when the message is poorly received they throw tantrums and threaten and throw insults around like confetti.

Lovely!

You have never done that or would wish to ....

If you believe he's a troll ... sort him.
He acts as a good shield for you though, so he is handy as well as deluded.

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 :

Talking about the almighty ... tells us about him/her/it.
What's he/she/it really like ?

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 [uscientific theories can only be disproven[/u.

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 [uHAS[/u 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:

[i"Strange game. The only winning move is not to play...[/i

I believe that you believe it.

Care to elaborate ?