In a surprising turn of events, a well-known flat-earther conceded that his long-held conspiracy theory was incorrect after embarking on a 9,000-mile journey to Antarctica.
YouTuber Jeran Campanella traveled to the southernmost continent to witness a 24-hour sun - a phenomenon that would be impossible if the Earth were flat.
“I realize that I’ll be called a shill for just saying that and you know what, if you’re a shill for being honest so be it - I honestly believed there was no 24-hour sun… I honestly now believe there is. That’s it,” added Campanella.
…
Campanella still didn’t fully embrace the globe Earth model: “I won’t say the Earth is a perfect sphere,” then said, after first admitting he was wrong.
…
The expedition was part of the Final Experiment project, organized by Colorado pastor Will Duffy, who “hopes to end the debate over the shape of the Earth.”
The expedition was part of the Final Experiment project, organized by Colorado pastor Will Duffy, who “hopes to end the debate over the shape of the Earth.”
He arranged an expedition in which four flat Earthers and four “globe Earthers” were flown to Antarctica to witness the continent’s midnight Sun. Antarctica’s Midnight Sun is one of many proofs that the Earth is spherical. It can only occur on a tilted and rotating sphere, and the axial tilt during summer positions the South Pole to face the Sun continuously for 24 hours.
Flat Earthers often claim that the Antarctic Treaty of 1959 prevents civilians from visiting the southernmost continent in an attempt to hide the true shape of planet Earth. However, Pastor Duffy wanted to demonstrate that this wasn’t the case.
“I created The Final Experiment to end this debate, once and for all. After we go to Antarctica, no one has to waste any more time debating the shape of the Earth,” Duffy declared in a statement. “This is, of course, assuming that the entire “experiment” isn’t just an elaborate prank designed to fool us ‘globe Earthers.’ It seems highly unlikely, but we’ll keep you posted if anything changes – not that we’re trying to sound conspiratorial or paranoid.”
Now we just need to raise enough money to fly each of these crazies from pole to pole. Ugh…
When many different people tell you that you are a fucking moron, at some point you need to listen and reassess.
Darwin would have to disagree.
Heck a large part our planets science history were considered morons when they proposed ideas.
This guy trully is a moron. But the human races history of collective judgement is far from good.
Seems excessive to go to Antarctica to get 24 hour sun. Just go to upper Sweden or something.
They believe the south pole is the edge of the earth, so a 24 hour earth is only possible in the north pole
It help to also demonstrate that the stars are oriented differently in the southern hemisphere
Not when the Sun is blocking them 24 hours a day though. Sorry, stars are closed, come back in 6 months.
Flat earth theory is flat ocean theory. It can be tested with a telescope on an tripod and any land mass at least 10 miles away over the ocean.
One doesn’t need to go to the ends of the map to disprove flat earth. Just far enough to see whether the surface of the ocean is curved or not.
The Earth is not a perfect sphere, nor is it argued to be. It is an oblate spheroid. It bulges at the equator due to the spinning. Additionally, if it were perfectly spherical, we wouldn’t have changes in elevation, mountains, etc.
If I shrunk it down to the same size the earth would be smoother than a billiard ball.
Yup. The earth is definitely not round, but we only really notice the hills and valleys because of the scale. The earth may not be smooth when you’re a tiny organism living on it, but it is smooth when you’re looking at it from a much larger perspective.
Well the problem with flat earthers has never been lack of evidence, its mental illness and gulibility
Oh sure, but it’s good to point out their stupidity from multiple angles. Instead of trying to refute them, I’m attacking the very premise. It’s fun pointing out that the “side” they are arguing against isn’t even making the claims they are making.
this person should be celebrated, not ridiculed. we all could stand to learn from him no matter how divergent our views on life are.
he sought evidence willingly and did not dismiss it out of hand when it didn’t support his hypothesis. in fact, he has gone further and rejected that hypothesis.
his starting point may have been misinformed but he has had the courage to use the scientific method to recalibrate. i salute him.
He dug in his heels and refused any facts and evidence until someone else spent a pile of money to give him something he could no longer argue with.
Yes, he finally admitted the earth may not be flat. Things everyone with a brain already knew. Refusing to listen to experts and insisting you know better until you personally are given special treatment to be shown you are wrong is not something to be applauded.
Fuck this guy for taking it this far.
Kudos to the guy for admitting he was wrong, but I wouldn’t celebrate it too much.
If they’re able to disregard and misinterpret all the available proof regarding Earth’s shape, something is fundamentally wrong. Either they lack the… mental acuity to deal with abstract concepts, or they’re severely lacking in critical thinking.
At least the second one can be overcome if one commits to learning in a structured way, but the first one…
Neither of those reasons are necessarily required to believe in a conspiracy theory.
Plenty of objectively smart people succumb to conspiracy theories. I am almost certain you have unfounded beliefs that when scrutinised make no logical sense.
Often it is just that a person has been disenfranchised and in a vulnerable position where seizing upon a conspiracy theory gives them a sense of control, community and power.
I think this is a lot more common than any other reason.
There is constantly a group of people somewhere shouting loudly that this fact you were just told is no longer true. About everything.
The philosophy of fact and truth eventually has to bridge a gap of trust from the individual. That’s where it can be exploited by some group who stands to benefit or worn down by seeing the scientists rewrite the textbooks with XYZ new discovery.
Exactlty. I found this a really uplifting story.
I think that everyone has forfeited the right to be taken seriously if they simply refuse to acknowledge proven facts until there is no way left to hold on to their crude claims. I think it is even dangerous to take this seriously, because it legitimizes hostility towards science and ultimately harms an objective public discourse based on verifiable arguments. Of course, everyone should be free to express their opinion, but they must also be held accountable for their actions.
I think the efforts of climate change deniers are a especially vivid example of the danger posed by the normalization of irrational pseudo-arguments and factually untenable denialism. This issue, like many others, is largely beyond direct human experience, but that does not mean that climate change is not real. So you can’t even fly these people to the melting glaciers to convince them, which is out of the question anyway because their denialism is actually motivated by purely selfish goals, namely the avoidance of measures to combat climate change that would harm their financial interests or threaten their lifestyle. In such cases I think that it is perfectly legitimate to simply dismiss these outlandish claims as nonsense and expose their authors as mere charlatans.
would you rather that a climate change denier sticks steadfastly to their opinion even when presented with evidence?
or would it be better if they changed their stance when they truly understand the evidence?
I don’t think most of them can be convinced because they are already well aware that they are wrong - they just don’t care because their only concern is to continue their business ventures (big oil and so on) or their lifestyle (huge cars and so on). They deliberately spread misinformation in order to gain support for their irresponsible cause so that they can carry on as before. I don’t think it’s worth spending time trying to convince them that they are campaigning for a destructive course, especially as that’s exactly what they want to achieve: Tie up resources, sow doubt and recruit equally unscrupulous fellow campaigners. So instead, I think it makes more sense to stand up to these people and make their selfish intentions clear so that as few people as possible feel that this behavior is acceptable. I think we owe that to future generations.
Do I also get a free trip to Antarctica, if I pretend to be fucking retarded?
What they failed to mention in the article is that the four flat earthers didn’t have a return ticket.
I’d be ok living in Antarctica. I’m sure penguin is delicious.
It looks appetising, but it’s not without it’s downsides.
The hard part isn’t being a dumbass, the hard part is being a ‘well known’ dumbass
Gotta be the loudest and most dumb of asses.
You could become president with an attitude like that!
Is he a dumbass though. I mean, he was wrong. And obviously so. Given how much simple clear light, experiments can and have questioned his hypothesis.
But honestly, he got someone to gather funds for a trip of a lifetime. Just by being a loudmouth.
Heck, if I thought anyone would take me seriously. I’d be happy to seem stupid to the world for a chance to visit Antarctica. Seems way less hard than actually gaining the qualifications or fiscal clout to be invited.
Can we stop casually using the r-word slur? And stop using it at all while we’re at it?
Thank you. I’m getting so tired of people acting superior to others but behaving like scum.
I actually recently lost almost 2 standard deviations from my IQ due to TBI and am AuDHD. Perhaps you should ask a handicapable MF?
Big time “I’m bi so I can call people f****ts” energy.
Well, a very gay colleague of mine came to a costume party without a costume and when he was asked why he didn’t have one he simply replied “I’m dressed as a f*g”.
Whats wrong with dressing like a fig? They are delicious!
Campanella still didn’t fully embrace the globe Earth model: “I won’t say the Earth is a perfect sphere,” then said, after first admitting he was wrong.
Lol whatever lets you save face, bud… But FYI, scientists don’t believe this either.
Yeah, exactly, he’s not wrong. It’s an oblate spheroid.
Campanella still didn’t fully embrace the globe Earth model: “I won’t say the Earth is a perfect sphere,”
This is correct. It’s an oblate spheroid, calling it a perfect sphere is an incorrect simplification.
Still gets closer to the truth than calling it flat.
He’s jumped from being completely wrong to being potentially more right than most people.
More simply speaking, trees and life but also hills and mountains exist, so it must not be a sphere.
Yeah, but relative. Those features are smaller relative to the size of earth. Then the imperfections on a pool ball.
Whereas the difference of east west diameter to north-south is much greater. But still unlikely to be noticed by a celestial pool player until the ball starts rolling funny.
You wrote perfectly, not approximately so there was my invitation to bullshit.
The earth is basically a huge potato.
Isn’t it a geoid ellipsoid?
Isn’t it a geoid ellipsoid?
All I know is that if I was a hiring manager for any position above fry cook, my first question for potential hires would be to ask if they believe the earth is round. If they answer “no” it would save me a lot of time.
can’t ask people about their personal beliefs directly. you could form it from a series of questions though.
- are you willing to travel across the globe for client needs?
- how many flights would it take you to get from here to x if you flew around the planet?
- what shape is our planet?
How about “Is the earth round?” It’s an objective fact, not a question about beliefs.
How would you prove the Earth is round to a 6 year old?
is the earth round can be construed the same way as, “is Jesus real?”.
it’s different than asking “what shape is our planet” because the onus to answer is on the interviewee. A similar question for religion would be, “who is Jesus”. note the term “is” leading an individual to provide their own opinion of who Jesus is vs “was” describing who Jesus was historically.
facts have nothing to do with personal beliefs, which are protected by the first amendment. you cannot ask someone about their personal beliefs and then reject their application based on those beliefs.
you can however ask them for factual evidence that may lead to them to give up personal prejudices freely. hence giving them an open-ended question that allows them to elaborate on who they are(individual) instead of what they are(position).
is the earth round can be construed the same way as, “is Jesus real?”.
No it can’t. One is a proven fact with huge testable evidence. The other is a faith with no testable evidence.
Also one is not a religion and not in anyway protected by law.
As far as I read their comment, @GreenKnight23@lemmy.world did not intend to compare science and religion, but to discuss interview techniques, using geography and religion as examples.
“Is the earth round?” and “Is Jesus real?” are both closed questions that can only be answered with “yes” or “no”.
“What is the shape of the earth?” and “Who is Jesus?” are both open questions that call for a statement.
I don’t get their argumentation, why open questions are preferable to closed ones because of the first amandement, but agree nonetheless. Closed questions cut off the interviewee and are a very bad interview technique.
People including me are responding to.
can’t ask people about their personal beliefs directly.
Can’t vs should not is where this differs.
And when that is followed with comparison between facts and belief indicating they are the same. Then folks are correctly calling bullshit.
In the US and most of Europe, asking is Jesus real or who is Jesus is a crime.
Asking is the world spherical is not only legal. It is entirely moral. How effective it is was not expressed in the original comment. Just the suggestion, you cannot ask about geological knowledge.
I don’t understand explain it better.
is the earth round can be construed the same way as, “is Jesus real?”
Not legally in the US. And not… factually anywhere.
Why, do we give credence to the mentally insane. It’s 2024.
Because its 2024. The mentally insane have way more ability to be heard then ever.
Prior to the 2000s they never had much option to talk to each other.
They’re not insane. Insane people can’t work, form meaningful relationships, engage in debate or emotionally regulate. If you’re too lazy or too ashamed to try to figure out where their strong mis-belief comes from you’re no better than they are.
Way to take a stand worth taking.
You’ve got a low bar for taking a stand.
He knew for years
Good for them for admitting thier mistake. Respect.
The rest of flat earth society will immediately dismiss these findings of course.
IMO it’s proof enough to watch the oceans horizon on a clear day when traveling by ship and observe things like ships, buildings or wind farms emerge top first, even though the waves are too shallow to cover them. You can use binoculars to see it more clearly.
Not to mention sunsets. How those work on a flat earth in combination with time zones is a mystery. Solar and lunar eclipses. Flight times between South-America, Africa and Australia don’t match up with the flat earth map. And many more
Sorry for my ignorance but why didn’t they just go to the Arctic, it should be much cheaper and one don’t have to go straight to the Pole, northernmost parts of Canada, Alaska, or Europe would be enough to witness 24-hours sun. I personally was to the north of the Arctic circle and the polar day was lit. And it was as cheap and easy as buy one railway ticket from Moscow.
In many flat earth models they envision the arctic as the center and Antarctica as the rim, in which case 24h daylight is possible in the former but not the latter.
That is mind numbingly dumb. Do they think the sun hovers direct over the earth in the summer, then goes underneath in the winter? How would days and nights work anyway?
The same way it currently does, but the sun is significantly closer and smaller, also is has a range of light, like a lamp shade that makes sure the sun isn’t always visible even though it’s always above the disc earth, as is the moon (and don’t even start trying to reason with the moons movements on a flat earth model, or explain either types of eclipse… It only gets worse the deeper you look)
A lamp shade? That makes no sense (naturally) as you can watch the sun move in the sky and go behind a horizon, and the further north or south you go the angle of movement changes. Any person with two brain cells to rub together can poke holes in their theories, yet these nut jobs cling to them like religious fanatics to their holy texts.
Why are people spending so much effort to try to convert them? Just let them wallow in their willful ignorance and shun them.
For the oblivious folks who genuinely believe in the flat earth, the issue they mainly have a complete lack of understanding of scale. Having a sun that has directional light naturally, or that light has a limited range it can travel unimpeded, are symptoms of it.
They cannot fathom the size of our planet, some flat out deny the southern portion of the earth is even real. They have never traveled in any meaningful way to understand the distances they likely travel on a daily basis, let alone larger distances. Expecting them to not attempt to point at daily items like a desk light and think ‘that’s how the sun do’ is a massive failing on general education more than it is those folks being willingly ignorant.
I have no idea.
They considered Tromsø, but it was too expensive and too much of a tourist trap. Also I’m not sure how welcoming Russia is to Americans RN. I assume you didn’t go to Norilsk on holiday, so how was Murmansk?
Actually, I was a biology student at that time and we had summer field practice near the White Sea. It was great, nature and atmosphere were wonderful, except mosquitoes, mosquitoes were everywhere and they were hungry. Though I’ve been to Murmansk later, and the city is decent, I mean, it’s still small, dying, and depressing, but it could be much worse. I was there literally for a day and can’t say much, but they had a very good regional museum and the first nuclear icebreaker is now an interesting museum too.
Cool, I’ve met a few people from Murmansk and Arkhangelsk, but I’ve never actually been to Russia. Wouldn’t risk it now. One of my former colleagues said that he can’t go back to visit his family until the war is over, because they’ve made entering Russia on a damaged passport a jailable offence. He’s worried that he’d be sent to die in Ukraine if he tried to go home.
Was that 9,000 one way or was it for the round trip?
Maybe he went around a few circles, much like his logic
