7 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

we're just batteries for the machines.

 

I do not think so, we are not so high performance and give negative output compared to what needs of energy to keep us alive 😉 

11 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

we're just batteries for the machines.

 

Ok. Why do you think that? And what are the machines?

4 minutes ago, emptypockets said:

Ok. Why do you think that? And what are the machines?

nah, that was a joke

Flat-Earth belief isn’t a mental illness by itself — no serious psychologist claims that. But it is strongly linked to a cluster of psychological problems that explain why it’s so hard to shift.
Flat-earthers typically exhibit extreme distrust of institutions, a very low scientific understanding paired with high confidence, and an inability to update their beliefs when evidence changes. Add confirmation bias, online echo chambers, and a strong need to feel “special” or “in the know", and you get a belief that’s emotionally comforting but intellectually bankrupt.
In most cases, this isn’t pathology — it’s broken reasoning reinforced socially. But research does show that strong conspiracy thinking correlates with higher levels of paranoia, anxiety, and psychological distress. In rare cases, where beliefs are completely reality-detached and socially damaging, clinicians may even consider delusional disorders.
The key point: Conspiracy beliefs can feel empowering, but studies show that they don’t actually increase understanding, control, or well-being. They’re more appealing than satisfying.
So no — flat-earthers aren’t “crazy by default”.
But when someone rejects all evidence, all expertise, and all correction in favour of YouTube videos and vibes, the issue isn’t open-mindedness.
It’s cognition gone badly off the rails.
 

23 minutes ago, kwilco said:

Flat-Earth belief isn’t a mental illness by itself — no serious psychologist claims that. But it is strongly linked to a cluster of psychological problems that explain why it’s so hard to shift.
Flat-earthers typically exhibit extreme distrust of institutions, a very low scientific understanding paired with high confidence, and an inability to update their beliefs when evidence changes. Add confirmation bias, online echo chambers, and a strong need to feel “special” or “in the know", and you get a belief that’s emotionally comforting but intellectually bankrupt.
In most cases, this isn’t pathology — it’s broken reasoning reinforced socially. But research does show that strong conspiracy thinking correlates with higher levels of paranoia, anxiety, and psychological distress. In rare cases, where beliefs are completely reality-detached and socially damaging, clinicians may even consider delusional disorders.
The key point: Conspiracy beliefs can feel empowering, but studies show that they don’t actually increase understanding, control, or well-being. They’re more appealing than satisfying.
So no — flat-earthers aren’t “crazy by default”.
But when someone rejects all evidence, all expertise, and all correction in favour of YouTube videos and vibes, the issue isn’t open-mindedness.
It’s cognition gone badly off the rails.
 

So they are basically idiots.

3 hours ago, save the frogs said:

Why is it that modern science has no clue how the pyramids were built? 

Only inside your little cocoon is that true.

5 hours ago, transam said:

Gawd 'elp us................😬

Gawd grant us the patience to deal with so many fools.

1 hour ago, emptypockets said:

So they are basically idiots.

Can I draw your attention to my earlier post?

 

3 hours ago, kwilco said:

Flat-earthers typically exhibit extreme distrust of institutions, a very low scientific understanding paired with high confidence, and an inability to update their beliefs when evidence changes.
 

 

"an inability to update their beliefs when evidence changes."

 

Let's put this principle to the test with a practical exercise. It isn't about the flat Earth, but the Moon landings.

 

Today, in this thread, I posted a photograph by astronaut Harrison Schmitt, which he purportedly took on the surface of the Moon during the Apollo 17 mission in December 1972. It was quickly established that this photograph is problematic, because two shadows are clearly identifiable: Schmitt's and the upper right rock's, at a perpendicular angle, indicating with certainty that there are two sources of light.

 

 

My belief: this is evidence that the picture was not taken on the surface of the Moon, but in a studio with two light sources.

 

Two forum members have commented on this:

 

- gamb00ler said there must have been a handheld lighting device on the Moon surface when they took the picture, which I quickly disproved as it is officially confirmed that the only light source during this purported photo shoot was the Sun. He did not pursue the exchange.

- Hummin claimed he wasn't willing to focus on such details, adding that any tangible proof that the Apollo missions were not what he believed they were would "rock his belief in humanity".

 

I am now asking you this question, kwilco: how do you explain these perpendicular shadows? I can assure you that if you demonstrate to me that my belief is erroneous, I will shift my view immediately out of principle.

Flat earthers and conspiracy theorists have to separate themselves from reality in so many ways …. For them evolution is impossible - 
Evolution depends on the same science flat-Earth beliefs reject. A round Earth explains gravity, tides, climate systems, radiation shielding, long geological timescales, and stable orbits — all of which are essential for life to develop and evolve over billions of years.
Flat-Earth ideas dismiss astronomy, physics, geology, and much of biology, yet evolution is built on those exact disciplines, backed by genetics, fossils, radiometric dating, and observable natural selection. You can’t reject the scientific method for the shape of the planet and then suddenly trust it for how life evolved.
In short: flat Earth is faith-based denial of evidence; evolution is evidence-based science. They come from fundamentally incompatible ways of understanding reality.

35 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

"an inability to update their beliefs when evidence changes."

 

Let's put this principle to the test with a practical exercise. It isn't about the flat Earth, but the Moon landings.

 

Today, in this thread, I posted a photograph by astronaut Harrison Schmitt, which he purportedly took on the surface of the Moon during the Apollo 17 mission in December 1972. It was quickly established that this photograph is problematic, because two shadows are clearly identifiable: Schmitt's and the upper right rock's, at a perpendicular angle, indicating with certainty that there are two sources of light.

 

 

My belief: this is evidence that the picture was not taken on the surface of the Moon, but in a studio with two light sources.

 

Two forum members have commented on this:

 

- gamb00ler said there must have been a handheld lighting device on the Moon surface when they took the picture, which I quickly disproved as it is officially confirmed that the only light source during this purported photo shoot was the Sun. He did not pursue the exchange.

- Hummin claimed he wasn't willing to focus on such details, adding that any tangible proof that the Apollo missions were not what he believed they were would "rock his belief in humanity".

 

I am now asking you this question, kwilco: how do you explain these perpendicular shadows? I can assure you that if you demonstrate to me that my belief is erroneous, I will shift my view immediately out of principle.

 

Repeatedly asking a question doesn't make any more valid - I refer you to my earlier post.....

https://aseannow.com/topic/1358164-why-so-many-conspiracy-theorists-and-what-to-do-about-them/page/21/#findComment-20293050

 

8 hours ago, emptypockets said:

Gravity works in all directions. Glad you have heard of it. Keep your mind open and you may realise the earth is a globe.

Galileo realised this in the sixteenth century when he observed a ship slowly appearing over the horizon, mast first and the then body of the ship later.

He was a smart guy, unlike some posters.

 

Contrary to popular belief, Galileo was never actually persecuted during the 17th century for his dissemination of the heliocentric model. In fact, serious study shows he was funded by the Church, celebrated and given two days of public honor in Rome… His views were philosophical, not scientific, and they were used because they suited a particular endeavour at a given time (validating the Copernican model, which is, still to this day, disputed).

 

Plenty of experiments were made during the 18th and 19th century, such as by François Arago, which disproved the heliocentric paradigm.

 

A few quotes:

 

“… nor has any physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion.”
Lincoln Barnett (in The Universe and Dr. Einstein, 2nd rev. edition, 1957, p. 73)

 

“Thus, even now, three and a half centuries after Galileo… it is still remarkably difficult to say categorically whether the Earth moves, and, if so, in what precise sense.”
Julian B. Barbour (in Absolute or Relative Motion, Cambridge University Press, 1989, p. 226)

 

“So, which is real, the Ptolemaic or the Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true… One can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest.”
The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, 2010, pp. 41-42

42 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

"an inability to update their beliefs when evidence changes."

 

Let's put this principle to the test with a practical exercise. It isn't about the flat Earth, but the Moon landings.

 

Today, in this thread, I posted a photograph by astronaut Harrison Schmitt, which he purportedly took on the surface of the Moon during the Apollo 17 mission in December 1972. It was quickly established that this photograph is problematic, because two shadows are clearly identifiable: Schmitt's and the upper right rock's, at a perpendicular angle, indicating with certainty that there are two sources of light.

 

 

My belief: this is evidence that the picture was not taken on the surface of the Moon, but in a studio with two light sources.

 

Two forum members have commented on this:

 

- gamb00ler said there must have been a handheld lighting device on the Moon surface when they took the picture, which I quickly disproved as it is officially confirmed that the only light source during this purported photo shoot was the Sun. He did not pursue the exchange.

- Hummin claimed he wasn't willing to focus on such details, adding that any tangible proof that the Apollo missions were not what he believed they were would "rock his belief in humanity".

 

I am now asking you this question, kwilco: how do you explain these perpendicular shadows? I can assure you that if you demonstrate to me that my belief is erroneous, I will shift my view immediately out of principle.

oh dear – there is a level of lack of education amongst some people on this thread - You might need O level physics to understand that photo (are you over 16?) - Deniers see a silhouette and immediately shout “studio lights” because they don’t understand basic lighting physics. The sun was the only light source on the moon. The astronaut’s bright white suit and the lunar surface both reflect sunlight, creating secondary illumination — exactly what physics predicts. If this were a studio, shadows would be crisp and inconsistent; instead, they’re soft and coherent, which is precisely what you get from a single, distant light source. This isn’t evidence of fakery—it’s evidence of misunderstanding how light works. Do you know what camera was used? 

2 minutes ago, kwilco said:

Do you know what camera was used? 

 

Harrison Schmitt used a 70-millimeter Hasselblad camera, which was the standard for the Apollo program.

11 minutes ago, kwilco said:

 

Repeatedly asking a question doesn't make any more valid - I refer you to my earlier post.....

https://aseannow.com/topic/1358164-why-so-many-conspiracy-theorists-and-what-to-do-about-them/page/21/#findComment-20293050

 

 

It isn't a question of making it more valid, you have misunderstood.

There’s a clear pattern here: a very parochial, Earth-bound (and often US-centric) view of reality. Conspiracy theorists assume everything must behave on the Moon exactly as it does on Earth — same dust, same light, same physics — and when it doesn’t, they cry “fake.”

Lunar dust looks “wet” because it’s ultra-fine and electrostatically charged, not because there’s moisture. The flag doesn’t wave — it moves because there’s no atmosphere to damp motion. Shadows look harsh because the Sun is brutally bright in an airless environment, and light reflects far more efficiently without atmospheric scattering. Low gravity changes everything.

In short, they mistake their own lack of physics for evidence of a conspiracy — and then confidently lecture the rest of the world about it.

3 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

It isn't a question of making it more valid, you have misunderstood.

so look at my earlier post!

There’s a clear pattern here: a very parochial, Earth-bound (and often US-centric) view of reality. Conspiracy theorists assume everything must behave on the Moon exactly as it does on Earth — same dust, same light, same physics — and when it doesn’t, they cry “fake.”

Lunar dust looks “wet” because it’s ultra-fine and electrostatically charged, not because there’s moisture. The flag doesn’t wave — it moves because there’s no atmosphere to damp motion. Shadows look harsh because the Sun is brutally bright in an airless environment, and light reflects far more efficiently without atmospheric scattering. Low gravity changes everything.

In short, they mistake their own lack of physics for evidence of a conspiracy — and then confidently lecture the rest of the world about it.

48 minutes ago, kwilco said:

The astronaut’s bright white suit and the lunar surface both reflect sunlight, creating secondary illumination — exactly what physics predicts.

 

When I look at the other pictures taken during the Apollo 17 mission, I find no such 'secondary illumination'. How do you explain that?

 

11 minutes ago, kwilco said:

In short, they mistake their own lack of physics for evidence of a conspiracy — and then confidently lecture the rest of the world about it.

 

I'll leave the lectures to you, teach'. I'm just asking questions.

1 minute ago, rattlesnake said:

 

When I look at all the other pictures taken by Harrison Schmitt, I find no such 'secondary illumination'. How do you explain that?

 

it depends what objects are reflecting!

I wish that for just one time you could stand inside my shoes,
 And just for that one moment I could be you. 
Yes, I wish that for just one time you could stand inside my shoes, 
You’d finally understand why explaining things to you feels like yelling into a jar of mayonnaise!
 

Just now, kwilco said:

it depends what objects are reflecting!

 

Indeed it does:

 

23 minutes ago, kwilco said:

The astronaut’s bright white suit and the lunar surface both reflect sunlight, creating secondary illumination — exactly what physics predicts.

 

 

All the Apollo moon photos are consistent with a single, distant light source—the Sun—and the Moon’s unique environment. Shadows look odd to Earth-bound eyes only because of perspective, uneven terrain, and reflected light from suits and the lunar surface. NO MULTIPLE SHADOWS - Every object casts a single shadow, not dozens, and independent analyses and modern orbital imagery confirm the landing sites. Claims of “studio lights” collapse under basic physics and common sense; if you still think otherwise, you haven’t even glanced at how light and shadows actually work.

40 minutes ago, kwilco said:

I wish that for just one time you could stand inside my shoes,
 And just for that one moment I could be you. 
Yes, I wish that for just one time you could stand inside my shoes, 
You’d finally understand why explaining things to you feels like yelling into a jar of mayonnaise!
 

 

By the way, kwilco, how do you explain this 2014 quote from NASA engineer Kelly Smith, talking about the Orion spacecraft, in which he explains the great danger of the Van Allen radiation belt, and the necessity for scientists to study it before sending people through it? If the technology was not invented yet in 2014, how could it exist in 1969?

 

"My name is Kelly Smith, and I work on navigation guidance for Orion. Before we can send astronauts into space on Orion, we have to test all the systems. Only one way to know if we got it right, fly it into space. For Orion's first flight, no astronauts will be aboard. The spacecraft is loaded with sensors to record and measure all aspects of the flight in every detail. We're headed 3,600 miles above Earth, 15 times higher from the planet than the International Space Station. As we get further away from Earth, we'll pass through the Van Allen belt, an area of dangerous radiation. Radiation like this can harm the guidance systems, onboard computers, or other electronics on Orion. Naturally, we have to pass through this danger zone twice, once up and once back. But Orion has protection. Shielding will be put to the test. As the vehicle cuts through the waves of radiation, sensors aboard will record radiation levels for scientists to study. We must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space."

 

 

8 minutes ago, kwilco said:

All the Apollo moon photos are consistent with a single, distant light source—the Sun—and the Moon’s unique environment. Shadows look odd to Earth-bound eyes only because of perspective, uneven terrain, and reflected light from suits and the lunar surface. NO MULTIPLE SHADOWS - Every object casts a single shadow, not dozens, and independent analyses and modern orbital imagery confirm the landing sites. Claims of “studio lights” collapse under basic physics and common sense; if you still think otherwise, you haven’t even glanced at how light and shadows actually work.

 

The only valid explanation for this picture is two light sources. For the 'secondary illumination' explanation to hold water, there would have to be other photographs from the same shoot showing the same phenomenon, but this is not the case.

 

7 hours ago, Hummin said:

You have to understand we are a social species where trust is everything for survival. Do not need to trust everything, but there is some clear lines of social accepted truths, and I know it sound stupid, because we are societies bult on fundaments on belief systems, sometimes harmful belief systems, but we are human who needs a reason to live.

 

You have just explained the core vulnerability of the human species: our penchant for narratives and foundational myths. This has been used to our detriment over and over again. I think it is a flawed idea to say that it is okay to base a society on a harmful belief system – it is not okay at all, a corrupt foundation can only lead to a corrupt society.

6 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

You have just explained the core vulnerability of the human species: our penchant for narratives and foundational myths. This has been used to our detriment over and over again. I think it is a flawed idea to say that it is okay to base a society on a harmful belief system – it is not okay at all, a corrupt foundation can only lead to a corrupt society.

 

No doubt, but obviously humans needs guiding, and we need order, and some need some mystery as well, not unlike you as a good example. 

12 minutes ago, Hummin said:

 

No doubt, but obviously humans needs guiding, and we need order, and some need some mystery as well, not unlike you as a good example. 

 

A quest for the truth is not a quest for mystery, in fact it is quite the opposite: the more one studies a topic, the less mysterious it becomes.

1 hour ago, rattlesnake said:

 

A quest for the truth is not a quest for mystery, in fact it is quite the opposite: the more one studies a topic, the less mysterious it becomes.

That have a natural explanation, which Kwilco posted earlier. There are som facts we just have to accept in life, 

Conspiracy theorists don’t “analyze” moon photos—they fixate on details they don’t understand, then ignore physics, context, and the scientific method altogether. They mistake “looks weird to me” for evidence, driven by a naïve faith in images and a poor grasp of how light, perspective, and photography actually work. Humans are wired to trust visuals, so a photo that feels intuitive gets treated as truth, especially when it flatters a pre-existing belief. Add confirmation bias, weak media literacy, and ignorance of how easily images can be misread or manipulated, and you get confident nonsense dressed up as scepticism. The problem isn’t the photos—it’s people confusing gut reactions and YouTube tropes with evidence and calling it critical thinking.