FLAT EARTH DEBATE TACTICS 2 of 10

Tactic 2: Demand Logical Consistency

This is an important tactic. Many of the claims that believers in the ball make are very bold yet, if you apply them universally, you'll see that these same claims to not always apply consistently. It's as though they are cherry picking verse from a holy book to back their claims.

For example, do snipers have to adjust for the rotation of the Earth when aiming at distant targets? According to those that believe in the globe, sniper bullets can travel so far that the globe’s rotation will move the target out of the bullet’s path, so shooters have to adjust their aim accordingly

So according to this claim, if you're aiming at a rabbit three miles away, you have to aim a foot to its left so that the Earth will actually spin and move the rabbit into the path of your bullet. If you don't do this, then the Earth's spin will save the rabbit. And this is what snipers know.

And if you're not a sniper and you've never directly experienced this then you're pretty much accepting this on hearsay, because in my experience it seems that a disproportionately high number of defenders of the globe just happen to “know a sniper” who who regularly take long distance shots, and therefore have to regularly account for the spin of the Earth.

They will unabashedly proclaim, “Hey, my uncles a sniper!” or “My brother-in-law is a sniper.” My response to this argument from authority fallacy is to demand proof. I ask them to show me the shooting manual the sniper rifle user guide which says, “Oh by the way, at this distance you're going to have to account for the spin of the Earth.”

Will any sniper of friend of a sniper step up to back their claim? Will someone show me the sniper guide? I kinda doubt it, but that being said, if that is true: that the bullet once exiting the rifle's barrel is now independent and on its own trajectory, unaffected by the atmosphere, and that the earth moves beneath it, and for the sake of argument we'll assume that it is true, then why isn't it true for airplanes?

Airplanes are not affected by the rotation of the Earth. They don't account for it and it doesn't change flight times from New York to LA versus LA to New York. With a supposed 1000 mile-per-hour rotation, you would think that one trip would take longer but no, they take the exact same.

Aircraft are presumed to fly with an atmosphere that moves with the Earth. So, if aircraft fly in an atmosphere that moves with the spinning planet, then why don't bullets? Are they magic bullets like the one that killed Kennedy? Maybe that's it. Or its magical thinking, cognitive dissonance, doublethink, and indoctrination.

Whatever you wanna call it, what we see here is a lack of logical consistency between these two contradictory claims: that the Earth is spinning and that this has implications for snipers, but these implication don't apply to pilots. What's the difference? Because presumably it would be the same if you were chucking a spear three miles or shooting a bullet, right? What make a bullet special? Why would a plane be exempt from having to calculate the rotation of the Earth? It’s not consistent.

Here’s another example of doublethink in globe belief: I often encounter people who say, “Of course Earth is a ball for boats go over the horizon.” I'm sure you've all encountered this one. It’s the most common refrain of the severely indoctrinated globetard. But do boats, in fact, go over the horizon?

After a boat has, to the naked eye, gone over the hump, you can bring them back into view with a telescopic lens. This is consistent with the idea that they aren't disappearing because of curve, but due to converging planes and the limitations on how far the eye can actually see. You can bring this up to the globe but no, they generally don't care to change their view on this popular myth.

What they care about is boats go over the horizon because it confirms the Earth is curved as they were taught in the 2nd grade. But then if you tell them about how, while you were in an airplane five miles high, you failed to detect any curvature, they will happily inform you that you’re too small to see the curve. Pop-Astrophysicist Neil Degrasse Tyson has made this exact point when attempting to refute the Flat Earth reality.

So which is it, Neil? Tell me, those of you who are blind followers of the Priests of Scientism: are we too small too see the curve of the earth even from a plane? OR, can we see boats go over the horizon? Boats going over the horizon means that the Earth curves and the higher you go, the more pronounced that curve should be. The fact is, high altitude flights reveal a lack of any curve at all. If it curves enough to hide boats within a few miles, then with a view from five miles up, the Earth’s edge should be rounded, not flat and horizontal.

You can’t have both. It’s one or the other. If you hold both to be true then you’re engaging in doublethink. To be consistent you have to let go of one. Either let go of the idea that we're too small to see the curvature or you must let go of this notion of seeing boats going over it. You either can perceive the curve or you can’t.

Does the spin of the Earth selectively affect objects for some reason that we don't yet understand? And why can we see boats go over the horizon but we can’t visually detect curvature? If the rotation of the Earth causes bullets to miss their marks, then why aren’t planes similarly affected? The principle being that the atmosphere moves with the Earth which means the plane doesn’t need to worry about the spin. Yet, this “principle” does not apply to bullets. The principle would remain the same if we’re talking bullets, javelins, arrows, or airplanes.

In fact, if Neil Degrasse Tyson is to be believed, even footballs are affected by the Earth’s spin. He has tweeted more than once about field goals being foiled by the rotation of the Earth:

Today's @Bengals winning OT field goal was likely enabled by a 1/3-in deflection to the right, caused by Earth’s Rotation.
— Neil deGrasse Tyson (@neiltyson) October 11, 2015

If you’re too small to see the curve, Neil, how are you able to see boats go over the horizon?

Are stars visible from the International Space Station or from the moon? Is the universe a wondrous tapestry of twinkling lights and colorful whirling galaxies? Or is space a pitch black palpable and perpetual dark abyss? Both versions are popular among astronauts. More doublethink.

Why aren’t there any HR pictures of the earth? Only CGI composites. Why? They have an Ipad on the ISS yet we can’t get a video clip of the Earth as seen from a handheld device? All the images they show us are from stationary cameras or are animated computer models. It’s because they can’t fake reality as easily with a handheld device because it would giveaway the Fourth Wall, the fact that the entire thing is filmed on a movie set, not in space.

The idea here is to expose chinks in their armour and take them off their assumed intellectual high ground. Reveal how much of what they think they know comes directly from urban legends, myths, and government sponsored made-for-TV science fiction movies presented as news. Show them the unchallenged inconsistencies they have accepted into their minds. These instances of doublethink represent gaps in their understanding and your object should be to expose these and allow them to experience the cognitive dissonance which comes with having a delusion shattered.