Flatearth.ws - Heliocentric Priests

A lesson in gatekeeping.




This page is front and center of pulling newcomers away from this topic. Its high ranked on Google, so much so that when I typed in 'Gleason map' it popped up on top. Its images are designed in such a way to simultaneously subvert real flat earth arguments, present false ones, and then provide the most confusing explanations so the curious newcomer will run in fear.

In tow is a legion of attack dogs waiting at the ready in the comments sections, ready to counter anything with the usual "flattard" tropes.

I've been taking them on for months now on Instagram to expose this tripe but it does take a lot of unnecessary energy although most of it is amusing, in a way.

Below are the latest, each one more desperate than the last.

flatearth.ws is your source for Heliocentric Priests:

• Soundly
  
• Wolfie6020
  
• Sly Sparkane
  
• SciManDan
  
• GreaterSapien
  
• Reds Rhetoric
  
• CoolHardLogic
  
• Tau Ceti Alpha
  

Faith in Theory = Balltardism

In 1543, and with the advent of the Printing Press, the Judaeo-Freemasonry Vatican (Jesuits) published Heliocentricism, ignoring the stationary,
unmovable Earth, as stated in their Bible scriptures.  Fast forward almost 500 years, where the people are indoctrinated from birth to worship the
man-made constructs of Heaven and Space.

1610? ...but wait, haven't you been told a different story?

Heliocentric Priests Make Bad Navigators
Wolfie6020 Def-eats Science  
by QNFee

Hello, I hope I dont get banned since I am not sure where to get help. I have been a flat earther since some years now, but I am beginning to struggle.

This site you are talking about, flatearth.ws, covers nearly every argument (actual FE arguments and also strawman ones, of course). And I am having a hard time to justify my believes, countering their arguments. They always have a small pic and explaination to make things seem easy to understand.

I know this is a lot to ask but is there a way you can help me counter that? It would be necessary to debunk one pic after the other, maybe doing pictograms and exlpainations ourselves?

I can help puting these together but I am not intelligent enough to debunk that scientificly on my own.

mrg wrote:Hello, I hope I dont get banned since I am not sure where to get help. I have been a flat earther since some years now, but I am beginning to struggle.

This site you are talking about, flatearth.ws, covers nearly every argument (actual FE arguments and also strawman ones, of course). And I am having a hard time to justify my believes, countering their arguments. They always have a small pic and explaination to make things seem easy to understand.

I know this is a lot to ask but is there a way you can help me counter that? It would be necessary to debunk one pic after the other, maybe doing pictograms and exlpainations ourselves?

I can help puting these together but I am not intelligent enough to debunk that scientificly on my own.

that website is just useless. Stop putting effort in trying to counter. Rather become self sufficient.

I don’t know, they make some valid points that can’t be easily dismissed. I know the OP had some lame examples but that’s not the whole picture. Some seem really founded on facts and leave me nowhere to go. Shall I post examples or you just don’t care? I mean most people will believe them.

mrg wrote:I don’t know, they make some valid points that can’t be easily dismissed. I know the OP had some lame examples but that’s not the whole picture. Some seem really founded on facts and leave me nowhere to go. Shall I post examples or you just don’t care? I mean most people will believe them.

This is a research forum and not a Q&A forum. If you have some concerns then bring them up. If you don’t believe in the ball lie as you say then I would suggest trying to debunk some of them yourself. You suggested you are dumb but I don’t believe that is a good mentality. I believe intelligence can be improved just as one can get stronger by training. It’s easier for many to say it’s not my fault than try to improve.

There is a difference of being dumb and not being able to find better scientific explanations than dozens of trained ballearthers, that have every resource in the world. How can I be "trained" to come up with better conclusions myself? Why don't we come together and take them on, at least the real arguments? You asked for concerns, I pick these two for example:

1. The antarctic treaty: https://flatearth.ws/antarctic-treaty
There really seems to be no paragraph to keep people out ot antarctica or arrest them. I read it myself in 2 different languages. Treaty in english: https://www.bas.ac.uk/about/antarctica/the-antarctic-treaty/the-antarctic-treaty-1959/  . I found nothing here, too: https://atslib.omeka.net/
Do we have some valid proof that we cannot go there ? I heard someone got arrested trying to enter antarctica but I find nothing. I cannot afford to go there myself.

2. Is this a proof that the moon might really be a sphere? They call it "liberation": https://flatearth.ws/libration

mrg wrote:There is a difference of being dumb and not being able to find better scientific explanations than dozens of trained ballearthers, that have every resource in the world. How can I be "trained" to come up with better conclusions myself? Why don't we come together and take them on, at least the real arguments? You asked for concerns, I pick these two for example:

1. The antarctic treaty: https://flatearth.ws/antarctic-treaty
There really seems to be no paragraph to keep people out ot antarctica or arrest them. I read it myself in 2 different languages. Treaty in english: https://www.bas.ac.uk/about/antarctica/the-antarctic-treaty/the-antarctic-treaty-1959/  . I found nothing here, too: https://atslib.omeka.net/
Do we have some valid proof that we cannot go there ? I heard someone got arrested trying to enter antarctica but I find nothing. I cannot afford to go there myself.

Hi, I don't have time to address the moon one right now and may not for a few days due to the Fourth of July and other engagements. I will address the Antarctica Treaty as this is very easily debunked and I have some time this morning. They are purposely misleading people to the 1959 version that ignores the protocols put into place after through the years.

I will jump right to the 1991 Environmental Protection Protocols as that is the current version in use. This can be found here: https://www.bas.ac.uk/about/antarctica/the-antarctic-treaty/environmental-protocol/protocol-on-environmental-protection-to-the-antarctic-treaty-1991/

Under Article 3:

It's clear as day you need government approval for all operations. There are also different laws in place by countries that say the same thing. I will use Britain as an example because it is right on the site here: https://www.bas.ac.uk/about/antarctica/environmental-protection/antarctic-act-1994/

Hi!
I want to adress the Problem with the Moon!
You have to clear your assumptions!
Firstly, if you regard the evidence, it becomes clear, that the moon does NOT reflect sunlight! This becomes clear, when you study positions of moon and sun throughout many days over the year. It is also clear that a sphere could never reflect the light the way the moon does, you can easily proove that to yourself at home! Take a light and a small ball which reflects light, it can NEVER EVER reflect the light like the moon does.
Secondly, if you regard the evidence, it becomes clear, that the moons light is translucent! At daytimes, you can see blue sky thorugh the moon. In nighttimes, you can clearly see stars through the part of the moon, which is not lit!
What they want to adress, is, that you see different parts of the moon due to perspective, but this is CLEAR as you regard the stars pathways in the Flat Earth modell (many videos here adress this topic).
So dont get confused, because this is what they want with that BS! LISTEN TO YOUR HEART! Your heart is the best compass, and your heart knows that it is flat, so stay strong in your confidence, every thing they bring up against FE is just amazingly ignorant!

My heart ist clear, please don't worry about that. But my brain has a hard time to wrap around some of the things that seem like legitimate "proof" of ballearth. I wont spam this forum and try to debunk some of the other points myself, as suggested above. Maybe I post my results here for others to find, when they're in need of help against that hell of a site. And maybe I ask here again when I find another "good" point that I can't debunk myself. Thank ya'll for helping me out.

mrg wrote:Hello, I hope I dont get banned since I am not sure where to get help. I have been a flat earther since some years now, but I am beginning to struggle.

This site you are talking about, flatearth.ws, covers nearly every argument (actual FE arguments and also strawman ones, of course). And I am having a hard time to justify my believes, countering their arguments. They always have a small pic and explaination to make things seem easy to understand.

I know this is a lot to ask but is there a way you can help me counter that? It would be necessary to debunk one pic after the other, maybe doing pictograms and exlpainations ourselves?

I can help puting these together but I am not intelligent enough to debunk that scientificly on my own.

This comment is literally the shill template. C'mon guys don't be so nice.

Hey everyone, new to IFERS although been involved and researching flat earth since 2015 and watching/reading Eric Dubays content. Does anyone know if there's a response/adressing video/forum post p on this website flatearth.ws regarding re-debunking of their 'debunking' of Erics 200 proofs or anything talking about the website in general. Thank you and looking forward to reading everyones research and contributions on IFERS