Sign into an existing account

The Solomon Asch Experiment

The Solomon Asch experiments, conducted in the 1950s, are seminal studies in social psychology that demonstrated the power of conformity in groups. Solomon Asch, a Polish-American psychologist, designed a series of experiments to investigate the extent to which social pressure from a majority group could influence a person to conform.

The Experiment Setup

1. Participants: The study involved groups of 7 to 9 male college students.

2. Task: The task was a simple perceptual one, where participants had to match the length of a line on one card to one of three lines on another card. The correct answer was always obvious.

3. Confederates: All but one of the participants in each group were confederates, meaning they were in on the experiment. The real participant, unaware of the setup, was seated either at the end or second to last in the line-up.

4. Procedure: Confederates were instructed to give unanimous but incorrect answers on 12 out of 18 trials, called "critical trials."

Findings

1. Conformity Rate: On average, about one-third (32%) of the participants conformed to the clearly incorrect majority on the critical trials.

2. Individual Differences: About 75% of participants conformed at least once, while 25% never conformed.

3. Responses: When interviewed after the experiment, many participants said they did not really believe the group’s answers but had gone along with the group for fear of being ridiculed or thought peculiar. A few of them said they actually believed the group's answers were correct.

Factors Influencing Conformity

1. Group Size: Conformity increased with group size up to a point, with the highest levels of conformity observed with three to four confederates. Larger groups did not significantly increase the level of conformity.

2. Unanimity: The presence of just one ally who also gave the correct answer significantly reduced conformity. When participants had at least one other person who supported their correct choice, the pressure to conform was substantially decreased.

3. Confidence: Participants who were more confident in their judgments were less likely to conform.

Implications

The Asch conformity experiments highlighted the powerful impact of social pressure and group dynamics on individual behavior. These findings have been applied to various fields, including education, business, and politics, to understand how group influences can shape decision-making and behavior.

The Asch experiments remain a cornerstone in social psychology, illustrating the profound effect of group pressure on individual judgments and behaviors. They paved the way for further research into social influence, conformity, and group dynamics, shaping our understanding of human social behavior.

Application to the Heliocentric Lie

1. Perceived Consensus: To convince the masses of the heliocentric model, it is not necessary to convince each individual directly. Instead, the strategy involves creating a perceived consensus. If people believe that the majority, including respected authorities and peers, accept the heliocentric model, they are likely to conform to this view, even if it contradicts their own observations and logic. The Asch experiment shows that individuals often doubt their own senses when they see others unanimously endorsing a different perspective.

2. Authority and Expertise: The role of scientific authorities, educational systems, and media is crucial. By presenting the heliocentric model as an established and uncontested fact through these channels, a powerful illusion of unanimous agreement is created. Asch's findings suggest that under such conditions, individuals are likely to adopt the prevailing view to avoid social isolation or the perception of ignorance.

3. Social and Psychological Pressure: The Asch experiment highlights how social pressure can lead to conformity. In the context of heliocentrism, individuals who question or refute the model may face ridicule, ostracism, or even professional consequences. This social pressure discourages dissent and promotes conformity to the accepted narrative, further reinforcing the lie.

4. Educational Indoctrination: From a young age, individuals are taught the heliocentric model as an unquestionable truth. This early indoctrination, combined with the perception of unanimous belief among teachers, peers, and media, ensures that the belief is deeply ingrained. The Asch experiment illustrates how once a belief is established within a social framework, it becomes self-perpetuating, as individuals conform to avoid conflict and maintain social harmony.

5. Media Manipulation: The widespread dissemination of space flight narratives and astronomical imagery through movies, news, and documentaries reinforces the heliocentric model. The Asch experiment demonstrates that when an individual perceives a unanimous belief in such media portrayals, they are likely to align their views accordingly, even if they personally doubt the authenticity of space flight or astronomical observations.

Conclusion

The Solomon Asch experiment reveals that convincing the masses of a lie, such as the heliocentric model, does not require direct persuasion of each individual. Instead, by creating a strong perception of consensus and leveraging social and psychological pressures, the illusion of truth can be maintained. People are more likely to conform to what they believe everyone else believes, even if it contradicts their own observations and reason. This powerful insight into human behavior underscores how the heliocentric model could be perpetuated as a grand deception.

A Critical Analysis of Eratosthenes' Methodology: Exposing Post Hoc Reasoning and Affirming a Flat Earth Perspective

Introduction

Eratosthenes' experiment, hailed as one of the earliest scientific proofs of a spherical Earth, relies on a set of assumptions that merit critical examination. By reassessing his methodology and observations through a flat Earth perspective, it becomes apparent that Eratosthenes' conclusions were shaped by post hoc reasoning. This paper argues that, had Eratosthenes not assumed the Earth was spherical, his observations would have logically supported the conclusion that the Earth is flat and stationary with a local Sun.

Re-evaluating Eratosthenes' Experiment

Eratosthenes' experiment involved measuring the angles of shadows cast by sticks (gnomons) in Syene and Alexandria during the summer solstice. In Syene, he observed that a stick cast no shadow at noon, while in Alexandria, a stick cast a shadow at an angle of approximately 7.2 degrees. Eratosthenes concluded that these differing shadow angles were due to the Earth's curvature, calculating the Earth's circumference based on this assumption.

Post Hoc Reasoning and Initial Assumptions

Eratosthenes' methodology presupposed a spherical Earth, leading him to interpret his observations in a manner that supported this belief. This approach exemplifies post hoc reasoning, where conclusions are tailored to fit pre-existing assumptions. Instead of independently deriving his conclusions from the data, Eratosthenes adjusted his interpretation to confirm the spherical Earth model.

Alternative Explanations for Eratosthenes' Observations

By considering observable phenomena from a flat Earth perspective, alternative explanations for Eratosthenes' observations emerge, challenging the necessity of a spherical Earth hypothesis.

Crepuscular Rays and a Local Sun

https://files.catbox.moe/likxfy.webp

Crepuscular rays, which appear to diverge from a point source, suggest a much smaller and closer Sun than the heliocentric model proposes. If the Sun were 93 million miles away, its rays should appear parallel. The fact that they do not supports the idea of a local Sun, which aligns with a flat Earth model. Eratosthenes might have observed these rays and hypothesized that the Sun's proximity could explain the differing shadow angles without invoking Earth's curvature.

Water Always Finds Its Level

Water consistently finds its level, from small bodies of water to vast oceans. This principle aligns perfectly with a flat Earth. The spherical Earth model complicates this straightforward observation, requiring gravitational explanations that seem unnecessary if the Earth were flat. Eratosthenes could have observed the flat surfaces of large bodies of water as evidence supporting a flat, stationary plane.

Selenelion Eclipse

During a selenelion eclipse, both the Sun and the Moon are visible in the sky simultaneously, contradicting the idea that the Earth's shadow causes the lunar eclipse. Eratosthenes might have witnessed this phenomenon and questioned the spherical Earth explanation. He could have proposed alternative causes for the shadow on the Moon, such as another object or effect, which fit better with a flat Earth model.

Atmospheric Refraction and the Apparent Horizon

Ancient scholars understood atmospheric refraction, which explains why objects appear to disappear from the bottom up. As objects move away, increased moisture and atmospheric conditions cause more refraction. Light particles from the bottom of the object refract downwards into the Earth, out of the observer's line of sight. This creates the illusion of an object being obscured from the bottom up, as if on a curved surface. Eratosthenes might have studied this effect and concluded that the apparent horizon did not necessitate a spherical Earth.

Observing Objects Beyond the Horizon

Eratosthenes would have definitely observed objects beyond a horizon that a curved Earth with the circumference he claimed would allow. If the Earth were truly curved, as he proposed, objects should disappear completely beyond a certain distance. However, numerous observations show that distant objects, such as ships or distant landmasses, remain visible beyond the supposed curvature limit, suggesting a flat and extended plane.

Logical Conclusions from Eratosthenes' Observations

Had Eratosthenes conducted his experiment without the assumption of a spherical Earth, his logical analysis of shadow angles, water level behavior, eclipse phenomena, atmospheric refraction, and observations of distant objects would have led him to a different conclusion.

Shadow Angles and a Local Sun

Eratosthenes would have observed that the differences in shadow angles between Syene and Alexandria could be explained by a local, smaller Sun casting divergent rays. This would negate the need for a curved Earth to explain the shadow differences. The hypothesis of a nearby Sun aligns with the observable behavior of crepuscular rays.

Water Level Behavior

By confirming that large bodies of water maintain a level surface, Eratosthenes would have found this consistent with a flat Earth. The natural behavior of water supports a stationary, flat plane rather than a curved surface, challenging the necessity of gravitational explanations required by the spherical Earth model.

Selenelion Eclipse and Alternative Explanations

Witnessing a selenelion eclipse, Eratosthenes would have concluded that the Earth's shadow was not responsible for lunar eclipses. This would prompt him to explore other explanations that fit a flat Earth model, such as another celestial object causing the shadow.

Atmospheric Refraction and the Apparent Horizon

Eratosthenes' observations of atmospheric refraction would have led him to understand that objects disappearing from the bottom up could be explained by light refraction. This would account for the apparent horizon without needing to invoke Earth's curvature, supporting the flat Earth model.

Observing Objects Beyond the Horizon

Eratosthenes would have recognized that the visibility of objects beyond the horizon contradicts the curved Earth hypothesis. This observation supports a flat Earth, where distant objects remain visible due to the extended, flat nature of the plane.

Possible Reasons for Eratosthenes' Post Hoc Reasoning

Several factors may have contributed to Eratosthenes' reliance on post hoc reasoning. The prevailing intellectual climate of his time might have favored the idea of a spherical Earth, influencing his interpretation of the data. Additionally, the desire to align with earlier scholars' theories, such as those of Pythagoras and Aristotle, who proposed a round Earth, could have led Eratosthenes to adjust his conclusions to fit this model.

Conclusion

Eratosthenes' conclusions about a spherical Earth were shaped by post hoc reasoning, driven by his initial assumptions. By reevaluating his observations through a flat Earth perspective, it becomes clear that his methodology could have logically supported the conclusion that the Earth is flat and stationary with a local Sun. Observable phenomena such as crepuscular rays, the behavior of water, selenelion eclipses, atmospheric refraction, and the visibility of objects beyond the horizon provide coherent explanations within a flat Earth model, challenging the necessity and validity of the spherical Earth hypothesis. This analysis underscores the importance of objective observation and logical reasoning in scientific inquiry, highlighting how initial assumptions can shape conclusions.

Here's a picture of the entire city of Chicago from the Michigan shoreline.

https://files.catbox.moe/o3hnot.jpg

Here's an abc57 article talking about the picture.

https://www.abc57.com/news/mirage-of-chicago-skyline-seen-from-michigan-shoreline

From the article:


The article has to claim this because from where the picture was taken, there should be over 2,000 feet of obstruction caused by the supposed curvature of the earth, but yet we see the entire city of Chicago which has its tallest building, the Willis Tower, standing at 1,729 feet tall.

Every single time I see an image that shows an object that should be hidden beneath a supposed physical horizon caused by the supposed curvature of the globular Earth, I'm told it's a "mirage" or that it's "refraction." So they claim that curvature still exists but the lack thereof is only an illusion. I'm going to address this fallacy and prove that mirages and refraction do not create such an illusion.

Let's start with mirages.

The claim in the article is that a "superior mirage" is what's causing the illusion. What's a mirage? It's a reflection. A reflection is the act of light reflecting back. Reflections cause inversion.

Here's an example of a "superior mirage."

https://files.catbox.moe/huri1b.jpg

Notice the inverted image of the ship above its true position. The ship is reflecting off the atmosphere above it.

Here's an example of an "inferior mirage."

https://files.catbox.moe/eeg4ad.jpg

Notice the inverted image of the ship below its true position. The ship is reflecting off the surface below it.

The differences between "superior" and "inferior" are simply the position of the mirage.

Is the article suggesting that the mirage is somehow a projected image above the object's true location and without inversion? Maybe they meant to say "Fata Morgana," a "complex" form of superior mirage visible in a narrow band right above the horizon.

So it's "complex." What makes it so complex? Basically, the only thing complex about it is that it's actually not a mirage at all but a misinterpretation of what is called a "false horizon."

Here's an example of a "false horizon."

https://files.catbox.moe/9az794.jpg

Notice the image on the left. It appears to be a ship floating in mid-air. If we were to change the color temperature in the photo, like we see in the image on the right, we can see that it's actually not floating in mid-air but is floating on a section of water that is experiencing a mirage effect. It's caused by a change in the refractive index due to the high temperature near the water and the lower temperature above it. Remember, mirages are reflections. It is reflecting the sky above it, giving the illusion that it itself is part of the sky. So technically, it's just an "inferior mirage" of the sky. Notice where the mirage ends. It's creating a "false horizon." This type of inferior mirage can also be seen on solid surfaces.

Here's an example of an asphalt road experiencing the same type of inferior mirage.

https://files.catbox.moe/o4ctaa.jpeg

The reality is, there is no such thing as a mirage that can be seen as a non-inverted image projecting above an object's true position. The only examples that exist are provably misinterpreted false horizons.

Now that we've established that the Chicago photo isn't caused by a "mirage," let us take a look at the possibility that refraction's causing the illusion.

Refraction's the process by which light shifts its path as it travels through a material, causing the light to bend. That's what refraction is, but most people misunderstand the effect of refraction.

Here's an example of refraction.

https://files.catbox.moe/e9ehww.jpg

Notice you are viewing the pencil as it exists in two different mediums. From your position you see that above the water, the pencil is surrounded by air as you'd normally see it. As it enters The denser medium water, which acts as a lens that bends light, you see that it magnifies the pencil. A lens has limitations though. When an object is magnified within a lens, the entire image is expanded from the center of the lens outward, cutting off the edges that no longer fit in the lens. Since the pencil isn't directly in the center of the image being magnified, it expands outward, giving the illusion of a broken pencil. Also notice that you cannot see the eraser anymore because the bottom of the image is also cut off when it is magnified.

Here's another example that shows what a pencil would do in 3 different positions.

https://files.catbox.moe/yzyz9b.jpg

Notice the image on the far left. The pencil is positioned in the center of the glass. The lens magnifies the image from the center outward. Since the pencil is in the center, it remains in its horizontal position but magnifies, only cutting off the top and bottom slightly. Now notice the image on the far right. The pencil's placed close to the left edge of the lens. Since the lens is magnifying the image from the center of the lens outward, part of the pencil is cut off due to the limitation of the lens not being able to fit the entire image that's now being magnified.

Now that we understand what both reflection and refraction is, and the actual effects they create, let me give you an example of refraction occurring naturally in the atmosphere.

https://youtu.be/Y0bQm8sJwd4

This is called the "Shrinking Mill" because of the refraction that occurs regularly in this area. Notice the object being refracted is magnified at a distance, then reduces in size as it's approached. This effect is no different than holding a magnifying glass out from your face and bringing it closer. You'll notice the closer the magnifying glass is to your face, objects will appear smaller, allowing more of the object to fit inside the lens.

Here's a video of an experiment anyone can do debunking the globohomo claim that the atmosphere isn't magnifying things.

https://youtu.be/YG40kkbh734

Here are some practical experiments that can show you the results we see in our observable reality.

https://youtu.be/UFP4HQQoejs

Here's an example of how refraction would actually prevent you from seeing objects at great distances.

https://youtu.be/s-PhStb6mTQ

Notice how objects at the bottom of the lens disappear as it magnifies. This is because our apparent horizon acts as the bottom of the lens as it's at the bottom of the medium creating the magnification effect.

This is how refraction works. It doesn't magically project an image of an object above its true position. Not only is it nonsense to say it's refraction that allows one to see an object beyond a supposed physical horizon caused by supposed curvature, it's asinine because refraction would actually do the opposite and hide an image you actually could see if it wasn't being magnified by refraction.

Being able to see the entire city of Chicago from the shoreline of Michigan is due to the atmospheric conditions creating a LACK OF REFRACTION and it's NOT producing a magnifying effect, allowing the bottom of the lens to be viewed as normal. Like taking the water that's causing refraction out of the glass, allowing you to see the pencil as it truly is.

If we were to view a picture of Chicago from the shoreline of Michigan on a different day with different atmospheric conditions, we will get different results. Like the following.

https://files.catbox.moe/f1g8jb.jpeg

Conclusion: There is no curvature to the earth and any claim that a mirage or refraction can bend light in such a way as to project an image above an object's true position making a globe Earth appear flat is just false. It simply does not work that way and not a single bit of evidence exists that would suggest otherwise.

Here was a video I found of somebody talking about the Chicago picture. I figured I would include it.

https://youtu.be/kRPtku19_hw

The bullshit they tell you:

A black hole has so much gravity nothing escapes.

Gravity is a function of mass.

Black holes were stars.

What is a star?

What does a star do for billions of years?

It is matter ~~the~~ that burns away. ie.. it loses mass for billions of years.

And then gets heavy enough to be a black hole?

Use your fucking head you inbred fuckwit.

Did they actually sneak a Giant balloon holding a giant mechanical piece of machinery into the United States without anybody noticing?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/china-spy-balloon-collected-intelligence-us-military-bases-rcna77155


Sure, That's pretty convincing. Lol.

These countries have hundreds of satellites yet, balloon warfare is still a thing? What a joke.

Nasa, worldwide is the number one purchaser of helium. Hmmmm

How did flat earthers explain satellites again?

https://files.catbox.moe/1fe82j.jpg

It's like crickets in here.

Get a USDA choice grade that ideally is more evenly thick than others throughout the point and flat, doesnt have excessively huge nodules of fat, and appears to have some marbling in the meat. Do a mild trim where you simply take off the extreme excessive fat. Don't worry about getting it all off, fat is flavor just get off the big hard chunks. Leave that bottom layer at least 1/4 inch.

Cover in coarse black pepper, salt, and garlic powder. Seasoning should be evenly cpatex throughout the meat but not excessive so that smoke can still penetrate. Mustard slather can be helpful to keep the seasoning sticking as you apply. Plastic wrap and set in fridge 24 hours. Remove plastic let rest on counter for a couple hours, then smoke at 225 with water pan underneath until it hits 165 internal. As an added bonus, grease will collect in the pan and make for easier cleanup. Then wrap in either butcher paper or foil (I prefer pink butcher paper but foil works) and cook at 275 or 300 until 203 internal. The goal is to wrap somewhat tightly so that the meat will begin to braise a bit in its own tallow. Use an instant read thermometer and check in several areas. If certain areas aren't up to temp or are rough getting the thermometer to slide in, cook until they temp properly and are tender.

Once it's done, rest for a little bit on the counter then place in your oven at keep warm for 3 or 4 hours. I have noticed a long rest resulting in incredible flavor. Overnight rest is the best if you have the patience for it. Cut in half Then slice both the lean and fatty side against the grain.

Takes a bit of effort doing it this way which is why jews typically prefer oven braising but I've found smoking gives the meat a flavor that cannot really be replicated by anything else.

@love240
@getfuckedcunt
@mcnasty