by VorJack
They’re the fringe of the fringe. Even creationists don’t want to be affiliated with them. But the Flat Earth Society is back, and it has a new president, Daniel Shenton. Shenton has resurrected the Society after it went adrift following the 2001 death of its previous president, Charles Johnson.
Alright, so another fringe group. The late Robert Schadewald, skeptic and historian, covered the flat earthers for a while. But honestly, why pay attention to them?
What interests me is the fact that Shenton doesn’t appear to be religiously motivated:
In fact, Shenton turns out to have resolutely mainstream views on most issues. The 33-year-old American, originally from Virginia but now living and working in London, is happy with the work of Charles Darwin. He thinks the evidence for man-made global warming is strong, and he dismisses suggestions that his own government was involved with the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
He is mainstream on most issues, but not all. For when Shenton rides his motorbike, he says it is not gravity that pins him to the road, but the rapid upward motion of a disc-shaped planet. Countries, according to him, spread across this flat world as they appear to do on a map, with Antarctica as a ring of mountains strung around the edge. And, yes, you can fall off.
The Flat Earth movement dates back to Victorian times, and it has always been religiously motivated. It was started by a man named Samuel Birley Rowbotham – who operated under the pseudonym “Parallax” – who argued that the Bible depicts a flat earth. If you accept a spherical earth, you have to throw out your Bible.
As Charles Johnson said, “The whole point of the Copernican theory is to get rid of Jesus by saying there is no up and no down. The spinning ball thing just makes the whole Bible a big joke.”
So flat earthers were a more extreme form of creationism. But apparently, not all of them, not anymore. Shenton seems to be a skeptic:
But what about the evidence? In an age where astronauts send photographs of a spherical planet from an orbiting space station, how can the concept of a flat Earth persist?
“Look at what special effects are capable of: you can produce any photograph, any video. I don’t think there is solid proof. I’m not intentionally being stubborn about it, but I feel our senses tell us these things, and it would take an extraordinarily level of evidence to counteract those. How many people have actually investigated it? Have you?”
It’s an odd and extreme sort of skepticism, but there you go. In order to believe in a flat earth, Shenton seems to imply that there’s a conspiracy of governments and special effects artists out to maintain the spherical earth hoax. In order to hold on to his belief, he must create a theory that piles unprovable assumptions on top of conspiracism.
Tyler!: Sooooo who exactly are they taking our country back from??? And i am in the process of moving so... 
NoYourGod: Yerp – nuthin’ saiz “patriotic” like “love it or leave... 
LawnBoy: Gee.. when exactly was this golden age of pureness in politics and the reign of common sense? 
Daniel Florien: So why aren’t you out in Montana with a bomb shelter, stocked food, and tons of ammunition? 
nazani14: Things that can’t go on forever don’t. Following the record heat, the power outages in the D.C.... 
Nelly: my apologies for using “duplicate” way too many times………..I really wish... 
Ty: Please. A moon hoaxer talking about good science? “I personally do not believe that we can prove that... 
59 Comments
How does he rationalize people going around the world in airplanes? Y’know, going from US to Europe to Japan back to US, that kind of thing. And if it were a flat disc, why isn’t there more land/water?
My FSM the stupid burns.
It’s all part of the conspiracy. When the plane get close to the edge of the world the pilot pumps a gas that into the cabin, knocking everyone unconscious, then he fly the plane a long the edge until he’s on the other side and turn in. At that point the sleeping gas is pumped out.
Actually, having read their stances. The idea is that when you travel around the equator you are not traveling around the earth. If the earth is a disk then you are spinning on the disk, much like the grooves on a record (best I could think of). To truly travel around the earth they say you would have to go from the north pole (which to them is the center of the disk) all the way to the south pole and then continue moving in a straight line until you reach the north pole again. As no one, to my knowledge, has done this they claim no one has ever gone “around” the earth.
So where on the earth is the south pole?
The South Pole is a lie!
The south pole is the rapedge of the world, of course! No matter that it is pretty well cartographied and that the extension of Antartic coast doesn’t match at all. But of course, he is not being stubborn about it!
edge, sorry
Well, the spinning sphere hypothesis should be easy to test. Fly two planes in the same direction, but at different speed. After having covered the same distance they should now arrive at different destinations.
It would mean you could get to any destination by flying in any direction and simply vary your speed.
Any direction except off the edge of the disc, that is.
I can’t help but wonder whether Shenton’s statements constitute a cynical trojan horse of sorts. If he professes to accept evolution and anthropogenic climate change, and at the same time maintains that the earth is flat when we’ve know for millennia that it’s a sphere, perhaps he’s wagering that his fringe position on the shape of the planet will drag those bastions of carefully accumulated information through the mud, right along with his wingnuttery. It’s a strategy no less dishonest than what we see from Ken Ham or Ray Comfort.
In order for there to be a conspiracy, there has to be a reason for said conspiracy. Why on (the slightly squashed sphere shaped) Earth would anybody lie about it? By his own rules I think this gentleman needs to throw out his bible and admit that he’s wrong.
Its a joke.
Its a ongoing joke who’s participants never break character. It becomes funnier when the straights take them seriously.
Sunny Day has it almost right, I think.
I remember arguing with Flat Earthers back on Usenet in the 90s. And then taking a step back and looking at the acutal arguments being made. It quickly became apparent that there wasn’t any reason to argue with Flat Earthers at all.
There were roughly two camps of Flat Earthers – those who were arguing from a religious “the Bible says that the Earth is Flat so rejecting that rejects the Bible.” These were the True Believers. There was no point in arguing with them because they were firmly in the camp of “if the Bible says one thing and the empirical evidence says another, you must throw out empiricism and believe the Bible.” You can’t argue with people like that, you can only fight.
Now the other camp – they were the interesting ones. They didn’t have religious motivations at all. In fact, if you looked closely at their arguments, they were mostly arguing to argue. They were honing their debating skills. They didn’t really want to convince you that the Earth was flat – they wanted you to look at your own beliefs and figure out why YOU believed that the Earth was round. Did you just believe it because you were told to believe it? Did you actually look at the evidence for yourself, or were you just taking your belief in a round Earth on trust and authority? Were you just making arguments from authority, or were you able to show how your citations of authority were qualitatively different than the folks who were arguing that the Earth was Flat because the Bible/their pastor said so? Were you using the phrase “conspiracy theory” as an easy dismissal of the topic without dealing with it at all, or were you able to actually make an argument from improbability about both the magnitude of conspiracy needed to pull off a hoax of the level they were talking about AND the utter ridiculousness and pointlessness of such a hoax on a global level?
After a while there was no point in engaging the second group either. Because you couldn’t really argue with them – they weren’t going to be swayed by arguments because they were playing Devil’s Advocate via the Internet, didn’t believe in a Flat Earth anyway, but weren’t going to break character. You might call them trolls, except I still wonder if their purpose wasn’t a little higher than typical Internet trolls – it certainly made an impression on my young fresh-out-of-High-School mind when I started asking myself why I believed the things I believed – either religious beliefs or scientific ones. It wouldn’t surprise me at all to find out that Shenton is from that latter camp.
How can someone believe in global warming and a flat earth simultaneously? Just wondering….
I have the same question about how someone can believe that the bible is the truth. Yet they deny science unless it is to their advantage.
The one thing that the Flat Earth Society did get right and that is: the Bible does teach a flat earth. But then again that was pretty common in the ancient near east and in many other parts of the ancient world. Too bad modern fundamentalists won’t acknowledge that fact.
Come on, this has to be Poe’s Law, right?
Two observations:
* The explanation sounds a little too much like Terry Pratchett’s Discworld (except for the four giant elephants and the even more giant turtle). But perhaps he just hasn’t got to that yet. Wants to break us in slowly.
* “The spinning ball thing just makes the whole Bible a big joke.” Actually, that’s not what does it.
Sorry – I only now see the accompanying picture…
“he says it is not gravity that pins him to the road, but the rapid upward motion of a disc-shaped planet”
LOL – for that to even work, the disc would not only have to be in constant velocity, but also in constant acceleration! The earth-disc must be moving upward faster and faster and faster…
What an ultra maroon! :)
I seem to remember doing a calculation in my ‘O’ level course and coming up with around 5 years to reach the speed of light at a constant 1g. Something is badly wrong here unless he thinks that the earth is less than 5 years old. Or that Einstein got it badly wrong.
I think you are doing classical calculations, which aren’t relevant to the relativity in question. With a constant power supply (from some infinite energy source, I guess), you can generate acceleration equivalent to a constant gravitational field without ever exceeding the speed of light.
I just wonder how they explain things like eclipses and the phases of Venus and other planets.
Oh no, that can only mean one thing. Soon the earth and all it’s inhabitants will become light energy!
I hope it doesn’t hurt…
(of course, that’s JUST a theory. ^_~)
We all know that what hold us down is not rapid movement but his noodly appendages. That what happen when the establishment prevent the teaching of intelligent falling as an alternative theory in schools.
Ramen.
“LOL – for that to even work, the disc would not only have to be in constant velocity, but also in constant acceleration! The earth-disc must be moving upward faster and faster and faster… ”
Well, a constant acceleration, yes, but since acceleration is rate of change of velocity, the velocity isn’t constant ;o)
Is that picture of Discworld??
Sure looks so.
The Turtle moves
He thinks the evidence for man-made global warming is strong…
Srsly? He doesn’t believe in a globe, but he believes in global warming?
Spherical warming.
Circular warming?
Pancakel warming? Mmmm…. warm pancake…
This made me depressed first thing in the morning,… *gulps down java brew*
I remember the flat earthers under Charles Johnson. I think the same thing about the new incarnation.
Its a big Poe (of course, the word Poe wasn’t in use back in < 2001).
The normal, rational views of Robert Schadeweld on everything else seem to point that direction. It's a probably a fun club where they laugh and poke fun at creationists, but pinky swear that they won't let slip their iron clad beleif in a Flat Earth beyond the walls of their club house.
“How many people have actually investigated it? Have you?”
Has HE?
Ha! The astronauts on the ISS must be in on it! ;)
I think he just wants a free ride into orbit for someone who really wants to prove him wrong.
Then again, maybe he’d just say it was an elaborate simulation and he never left the earth.
I agree with James, further up the thread. The Flat Earthers are a decades-long Poe. Sort of a forerunner of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. (Arrgh to you too, matey!) They have no actual positive evidence, and do not engage in any actual dialog with critics. For skeptics, the Flat Earthers are potentially a useful tool in the struggle against the Discovery Institute, which they resemble in important respects.
the Flat Earthers are potentially a useful tool …
As are the geocentrists, such as Gerardus Dingeman Bouw, Ph.D.
It never ceases to amaze me how quickly RE’ers shout ‘bible nut-job’ or ‘troll’ whenever someone threatens their belief system. The simple fact is that some of us do believe the Earth is flat, and our society is finally back on its feet. And while you guys spend your time flinging around baseless accusations, we’ll be seeking and finding the truth.
Also, some of you need to brush up on your special-relativity.
Next on the agenda, we shall persecute you for your dangerous, morally-corrosive beliefs!
I’ve lurked around the Flat Earth Societies forums a few times. People at the FES actually believe the earth is flat and accept the science on evolution and global warming. Of course to explain all things that can’t be if the earth is a disk they appeal to a massive global shadow government that secretly rules the world and who’s sole purpose is to convince everybody that the earth is a sphere (seriously).
The FES is the best example of how conspiracy theories form; people have an idea that the evidence says is wrong or there is no evidence for. In order to make the idea work they will inevitable say “Its a conSPIRAcy!!!1!11!11one” to explain away the evidence or lack of evidence.
Why doesn’t he take that motor bike of his and head east. Keep heading east. Cross the continents, rivers, valley, and mountains. When he gets back to where he started perhaps he might like to explain where the edge of the Earth went?
Ok then guys, if you’re so clever and the Flat Earthers are daft, you prove from first principles that the Earth is a sphere (ish-thing…). And by first principles I mean without hefting Newton and/or photographs at the argument. Please show your working. Bet ya cant. :D
what is the circumference of antarctica?
if the earth were spherical, we would expect to be able to travel in a circle around the north pole in roughly the same amount of time we could travel around the south pole.
If the earth were flat, with the north pole at the center and the extreme southerly parts of antarctica arranged around the outside edge, the amount of time it takes to travel in a circle at a southern latitude would be greater than in a northern latitude.
That uses geometry and a simple, two step test. Good enough for you?
What is this “Antarctica” you speak of?
Sorry Korny, the Greeks already did this 2500 years ago. (Circular shadow of the earth on the moon, and different lengths of shadows at different lattitudes, etc.) Since then we have added such things as observations of other spherical planets (beginning with Galileo, and refined since then), simultaneous celestial observations from opposite sides of the earth (Look up from Australia and New York (for instance) at the same time and see opposite parts of the sky. Admittedly you’d need a live video link to do this, but doable by a small team over the Internet these days!)
And what are your ‘first principles, anyway? How do they make newton and photographs out of bounds?
Also another proof from the Greeks: watching ships sail off into the distance. They appear to “sink” into the horizon but are actually moving over the curvature of the earth. If the world was flat you would be able to see the shores of other continents from any beech with a telescope, and the Himalaya mountains would be visible from just about anywhere in Asia. But due to the generally curved surface of the earth every structure, no matter how tall, will descend into the horizon as your field of vision is blocked by the surface of the earth itself.
The number of proofs for a round earth, without photography or space travel, are numerous.
So numerous that any attempt to maintain otherwise is the result of either will full ignorance (religion) or deliberate stupidity (trolling).
I also don’t know what you mean by first principles, but I can demonstrate it (building on what was said above).
1) From anywhere you like, start travelling east. Continue in a straight line, verifying every step of the way that you are still going east and that you are still going straight (eg, look behind you to see your trail is straight). Continue some more. Continue continuing until you return to your starting point.
2) Repeat the previous step using a model globe. You will see that it is quite repeatable on that small scale (remembering that you must follow east as it applies on that globe, not as it applies to the real world).
3) Repeat step 1 on a flat disc. You will see that you cannot travel straight without falling off the edge.
You have now demonstrated that the same effect is seen on the earth as is seen on a globe. And you have also demonstrated that it works a lot different when on a disc. Therefore the earth is certainly not a disc, but is a globe.
@Korny:
The spherical shape of the Earth was proved 2200 years ago:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JHEqBLG650
And yes, you guys are really, really daft.
Korny, actually it is very simple. When the shadow of the earth is seen on the moon during an eclipse, it is a circle, if the earth were flat, it would be a line.
So you can prove from first principles that the shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse is the Earth? Impressive, lets see it :D
What’s a first principle?
Oh I get the game … you won’t define what you mean by first principles and then when anyone posts a reply you’ll claim that it’s not first principles. Have you considered being a creationist?
Yes, I can. If it were another body, we would be able to see it in a straight line between the sun and the moon. Now it’s your turn. Prove hat the moon is not made of cheese.
Francesc, it’s quite simple. I define cheese to be any food consisting of the coagulated and compressed curd of milk separated from the whey, except any that may be found on the moon.
Therefore the moon cannot be made of cheese because anything the moon comprises is by definition not cheese.
Speaking of which, there is also a society for fundies who still believe that the earth is the center of the universe: http://geocentricity.com/
Funny but you may provide an entire mountain of “evidence” and this person would simply say your “evidence” is wrong. Just because it convinces you completely means nothing. You might as well try to argue to this person that the sky is blue. Common sense and reason does not convince many people, surprising as that sounds. We are but animals.
Rapid upward motion? Upward from what or where? How do we determine up/down in our galaxy? – or does he discount galaxies, too? Does he think the other planets than we can see rotating through our telescopes are flat, too?
One Trackback
[...] VorJack While reading about the Flat Earth Society, I ran across a reference to a little-known contest that took place 140 years ago today. I decided [...]