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.

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

You see folks, if you just stop ignoring the jews, their boss eventually tells them to leave you the fuck alone because it's blowing their cover.

Ancient cultures didn't have a word for "blue". In ancient languages, "blue" was actually described as a shade of black. The ocean and the sky were written as lighter shades of black. The nights sky a darker shade of black.

So, if we want to be purely technical, the sky was labeled by early humanity as black before "blue" was differentiated as a color. An argument can be made that the sky is actually black.

Too bad @McNasty can't comment on this because he's banned from my subverse. I'm sure there's a lot of flat-earth bullshit him and @love240 would love to add.

I love how a post like this gets all the shills triggered. Watch them flock in here now. Yes, I own you faggots. You are like a jew that can't pass up a penny.

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.

Eratosthenes is claimed to have proven the earth is round in 240 BC with his observation of shadows.

In his observation he made a couple presumptions. First, he presumed that the earth was round. Because of this presumption, he had to presume that the sun's rays were reaching the earth in parallel fashion for the behavior of shadows to be accurate. His conclusion looked like this.

https://files.catbox.moe/6k92sk.png

This is odd because nobody ever gives a reason why he should have presumed the earth was round in the first place, given it was 240 BC, prior to his observation of shadows. The oddest part being, he would have seen clouds all his life that looked like this.

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

In 240 BC, why would any reasonable person see clouds that look like this their entire life, then presume that the sun's rays are reaching the entire earth in parallel fashion?

So let's take the objective, observable, and repeatable data that Eratosthenes would have objectively seen, crepuscular rays, and make the necessary presumptions we need for the behavior of shadows to be accurate.

Crepuscular sun rays from behind clouds would suggest a smaller local Sun. With a smaller local Sun, the behavior of the shadows can be reproduced on a flat Earth. That conclusion would look like this.

https://files.catbox.moe/e8kule.png

Now I know that you globs like to cry "illusion" and "the sun rays really are parallel, but they just appear to be crepuscular." After all, Einstein told us all about reality and how it's all a "persistent illusion." But we are talking about 240 B.C. They didn't have jewish "scientists" lying to them about rockets in space yet. Their entire reality is based on their terrestrial observations. He would have saw the same thing that we see today. Crepuscular rays. Sure, modern science can argue things are "illusions." And I can argue that they're not. The following is an example.

The distance of the sun from the earth to scale.
https://files.catbox.moe/hfaki9.jpg

Now visualize that distance and convince yourself that the sun can create this hotspot with parallel rays.
https://files.catbox.moe/q4zj4v.png

Now attempt to visualize parallel rays creating the illusion of crepuscular rays in this picture.
https://files.catbox.moe/5ffm86.jpg

I can make an argument against the claim of illusion but my point in this post is that they are described as illusions for a reason. An illusion is something that appears like one thing, but is something else in reality. Without the explanation of the illusion, you would have no reason to believe it was an illusion. So if atmospheric refraction creating crepuscular rays is an illusion, and we're told that in reality the sun's rays are parallel, but the illusion is that they appear crepuscular, then Eratosthenes should have observed them and presumed that the sun was small and local because he personally had no reason to presume crepuscular rays were an illusion and he should have came to the conclusion that the earth was flat.

Sure, you could argue that the world would proved him wrong years later, but I'm asking about Eratosthenes, in 240 BC, with the information he had available to him, and whether or not you find his conclusion reasonable given his circumstances.

With all this being said, Even if we give him the benefit of the doubt with his presumption that the earth was round in the first place, this would indeed require that the sun's rays are parallel, but modern science can't even keep consistent with that claim when they try to explain an eclipse.

https://files.catbox.moe/m0j93u.png


Everybody has their own chronological order in which they received red pills. We receive them all our lives. From the moment you realized that Santa Claus wasn't real, you have progressed to understanding that the CIA killed JFK, 911 was an inside job, climate change propaganda and so on. It might differ from person to person but we all have a list. But at some point you understood that the Holocaust was a hoax. This was a major leap because it probably changed your perspective on the entire world and the history we are given. You realized that 911 was an inside job, but the people behind that job were jews. Or that the CIA did kill JFK, but that the CIA answers to the Mossad. You eventually see a pattern. But as a Holocaust denier, you would fully understand what it is like to have such an unpopular opinion. And you would also understand what it is like to argue against a brick wall of ignorance and regurgitated mainstream narratives without any substance until you are inevitably banned from whatever platform you used and relocated to the limited hangout farm we call voat. That is where I am at today. Ever since I learned the truth about the Holocaust, I've treated anything and everything with the same skepticism. It has led me to the inevitable conclusion that the Earth is flat. I simply challenge the mainstream claim by observing reality.

I fully expect shills to be butthurt and agree with the disclaimers that Wikipedia or YouTube would put on the information that I try to share. If you're a Holocaust denier, then you know the routine. Make a post with substance, get denial, get insults, accusations, and deflection. Not a single one of them will address the actual post I made about Eratosthenes because the argument is bulletproof. They will treat this post the same exact way reddit would treat a post that was questioning why the chimney at Auschwitz wasn't attached to the building or ask how Anne Frank could write her diary with a ballpoint pen. There's no argument against it so they will avoid it at all costs.