The disappearing island

For starters, this is a question for my fellow flat-Earthers. I know the standard round-Earth answer involving the horizon. This thread is not for debating the competing philosophies. I'm posting this question in hopes that my fellow flat-Earthers can help me understand this so that I can answer it when the question comes up:

I spent some time on the lovely island of Maui, from which you can take a boat to go snorkeling on the small islet of Molokini. You can also see Molokini from the beaches in the town of Wailea, as well as south Kikei. Molokini is a crescent-shaped island with a high vertical back wall, lower in the middle than at the sides, and then tapering down on the arms that partially surround a lagoon. From above it would look a bit like the letter C. From the north it looks a little like a Bactrian camel, because there are two humps.

Sometimes we would take kayaks out from Makena Landing, and if you are a reasonably strong kayaker you can paddle all the way out to Molokini and back on a calm day.

Sometimes, however, due to rough seas at Makena, we would drive north and take the kayaks out from Olowalu instead, about 15 miles roughly NNE of Molokini. Sitting in a kayak off the coast at Olowalu, you distinctly see what appears to be two smaller islands, rather than one larger one. If you paddle north towards Lahaina, and turn around, you can still see Kaho'olawe and the cinder cone at Makena, but you do not see Molokini any more.

Now, as you paddle back to Olowalu, until you are an hour or more south of Lahaina paddling time you see nothing of Molokini, until you finally discern first one speck that you might think is a boat, and then a second one appears, and as you continue south towards Olowalu these specks grow very slowly (paddling speed) until you finally realize that you are seeing the twin humps of Molokini. If you continue south, eventually those humps will merge and become the one island.

Because the Earth is flat, I know that the island is not gradually disappearing bottom-first below the horizon as you move away, and re-appearing top first above the horizon as you approach, the way the round-Earthers would say. But I truly do not understand what is happening here. You see a flat horizon, and then as you move toward the two-humped island you see a speck, then two specks, and then the specks get taller and taller until eventually you see the whole island with its two humps and the back wall lower in the middle.

Flat-Erthers: Please help me understand this.

Thanks.

And yes, I'm back after about half a year when I didn't have time for internet forums.

And to repeat: I'm posting this in Q&A because it's a question for FE-ers, I'm not interested in debating RE vs FE in this thread.

This isn't what Q&A is for.

Sometimes, however, due to rough seas at Makena, we would drive north and take the kayaks out from Olowalu instead, about 15 miles roughly NNE of Molokini. Sitting in a kayak off the coast at Olowalu, you distinctly see what appears to be two smaller islands, rather than one larger one. If you paddle north towards Lahaina, and turn around, you can still see Kaho'olawe and the cinder cone at Makena, but you do not see Molokini any more.

Now, as you paddle back to Olowalu, until you are an hour or more south of Lahaina paddling time you see nothing of Molokini, until you finally discern first one speck that you might think is a boat, and then a second one appears, and as you continue south towards Olowalu these specks grow very slowly (paddling speed) until you finally realize that you are seeing the twin humps of Molokini. If you continue south, eventually those humps will merge and become the one island.

Because the Earth is flat, I know that the island is not gradually disappearing bottom-first below the horizon as you move away, and re-appearing top first above the horizon as you approach, the way the round-Earthers would say. But I truly do not understand what is happening here. You see a flat horizon, and then as you move toward the two-humped island you see a speck, then two specks, and then the specks get taller and taller until eventually you see the whole island with its two humps and the back wall lower in the middle.

Flat-Erthers: Please help me understand this.

Thanks.

And yes, I'm back after about half a year when I didn't have time for internet forums.

And to repeat: I'm posting this in Q&A because it's a question for FE-ers, I'm not interested in debating RE vs FE in this thread.

Maybe it's just "flat earth perspective" as described in:

How Perspective & Sunsets Work on Flat Earth by Phuket Word
Phuket Word has posted numerous videos on his "flat earth perspective", Flerspective.

PS And maybe it isn't .

This isn't what Q&A is for.

I thought that Q&A was for asking questions. I saw something and it raised a question: I know the RE explanation. I would like to know the FE explanation. So I asked the question. I'm not going to debate anyone here because that's not what I'm interested in, and so I didn't ask in the debate forum.

This isn't what Q&A is for.

It looks to me that it is a  '' flat earth ''' QUESTION asking for a '' flat earth '' ANSWER  ?
I know the ''round earth'' answer, too , as do most people.
I found out the hard way that you don't post RE answers in the Q&A section.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on May 05, 2019, 04:49:59 PM

This isn't what Q&A is for.

I thought that Q&A was for asking questions. I saw something and it raised a question: I know the RE explanation. I would like to know the FE explanation. So I asked the question. I'm not going to debate anyone here because that's not what I'm interested in, and so I didn't ask in the debate forum.

And I posted a "Flat Earth Answer" from that wonderful source of all wisdom , YouTube and I know that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, but . . . .

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on May 05, 2019, 04:49:59 PM

This isn't what Q&A is for.

I thought that Q&A was for asking questions. I saw something and it raised a question: I know the RE explanation. I would like to know the FE explanation. So I asked the question. I'm not going to debate anyone here because that's not what I'm interested in, and so I didn't ask in the debate forum.

There's not a single question in your OP.

Quote from: magellanclavichord on May 06, 2019, 04:30:48 PM

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on May 05, 2019, 04:49:59 PM

This isn't what Q&A is for.

I thought that Q&A was for asking questions. I saw something and it raised a question: I know the RE explanation. I would like to know the FE explanation. So I asked the question. I'm not going to debate anyone here because that's not what I'm interested in, and so I didn't ask in the debate forum.

There's not a single question in your OP.

The way it looks to me that what he observed was in the OP.
The question he is asking is what the flat Earth explanation would be for this.
And the flat earth answer should be the flat Earth explanation.
In other words he is asking a question and asking for an answer.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on May 06, 2019, 05:48:48 PM

Quote from: magellanclavichord on May 06, 2019, 04:30:48 PM

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on May 05, 2019, 04:49:59 PM

This isn't what Q&A is for.

I thought that Q&A was for asking questions. I saw something and it raised a question: I know the RE explanation. I would like to know the FE explanation. So I asked the question. I'm not going to debate anyone here because that's not what I'm interested in, and so I didn't ask in the debate forum.

There's not a single question in your OP.

The way it looks to me that what he observed was in the OP.
The question he is asking is what the flat Earth explanation would be for this.
And the flat earth answer should be the flat Earth explanation.
In other words he is asking a question and asking for an answer.

Thank you. This is correct. I described an observation. My question is: What is the FE explanation? I do not want a debate and I will not engage in debate in this thread. I would like my fellow FE-ers to give me the FE explanation because I am new to FE and still learning.

Again, my question is: What is the FE explanation for what I observed?

Thanks.

Quote from: Googleotomy on May 06, 2019, 07:14:08 PM

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on May 06, 2019, 05:48:48 PM

Quote from: magellanclavichord on May 06, 2019, 04:30:48 PM

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on May 05, 2019, 04:49:59 PM

This isn't what Q&A is for.

I thought that Q&A was for asking questions. I saw something and it raised a question: I know the RE explanation. I would like to know the FE explanation. So I asked the question. I'm not going to debate anyone here because that's not what I'm interested in, and so I didn't ask in the debate forum.

There's not a single question in your OP.

The way it looks to me that what he observed was in the OP.
The question he is asking is what the flat Earth explanation would be for this.
And the flat earth answer should be the flat Earth explanation.
In other words he is asking a question and asking for an answer.

Thank you. This is correct. I described an observation. My question is: What is the FE explanation? I do not want a debate and I will not engage in debate in this thread. I would like my fellow FE-ers to give me the FE explanation because I am new to FE and still learning.

Again, my question is: What is the FE explanation for what I observed?

Thanks.

I have have had more or less the same experience  as yours. I was trying to get a FE explanation of the horizon on a flat earth .
I'm still waiting.
Good Luck !

The horizon of a flat earth has been explained since the 1800s. Just read the fucking books man.

The horizon of a flat earth has been explained since the 1800s. Just read the books man.

Really?
Well why is no flat earther here able to answer the question about "The disappearing island". Why should our authority be an explanation in a book some 150 years old?

If you think that they are so marvellous you might post some references.

I've seen lots of "FlerSpective" explanations in videos by Phuket Word but they have idiotic ideas about things being visible past the "vanishing point" - Duh!

The horizon of a flat earth has been explained since the 1800s. Just read the fucking books man.

Very helpful. 

Do you mean Rowbotham's Earth Not A Globe?  Or any other fucking books?

Is this why Flat Earther's never manage to publish any research?  Complete failure to cite actual references, it's just fucking books man.

Why so coy about it anyway?  It's almost like you don't really want people reading it.

https://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm

The horizon of a flat earth has been explained since the 1800s. Just read the fucking books man.

That's rather hostile. I just want to know what to say when I'm attacked by round-Earthers. I suppose I could go searching for books and start reading them until I find one that answers my question, but this is the FES chat board, and should be a resource for us FEers to get help from each other. If I go to PriusChat with a question about my Prius, they don't say "Just read the fucking manual, man." They answer my simple question. And they do it in a friendly manner.

Certainly it wouldn't hurt you to answer the question. I'm sure I'm not the only person looking for answers. Ignore the round-Earthers and help a fellow out.

@Googleotomy: Your sig says FEers should never go to sea. I've been to sea. It's really quite nice, though it can get lumpy at times. I recommend Kwells if you get seasick. Active ingredient is hyoscine hydrobromide, but it's actually the same chemical as scopolamine.

Quote from: John Davis on May 07, 2019, 09:54:55 PM

The horizon of a flat earth has been explained since the 1800s. Just read the fucking books man.

Very helpful. 

Do you mean Rowbotham's Earth Not A Globe?  Or any other fucking books?

Is this why Flat Earther's never manage to publish any research?  Complete failure to cite actual references, it's just fucking books man.

Why so coy about it anyway?  It's almost like you don't really want people reading it.

https://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm

The link above is quite interesting, but unfortunately does not address the issue of "my" island. It clearly demonstrates that our ability to resolve small details decreases with distance. This is both intuitively correct and mathematically correct: A fly on a wall disappears as we move farther and farther away from it. The link shows mathematically why this happens, though we already knew it happens.

The problem is that the author gives numerous examples where the smaller detail, which disappears first due to its small size, is placed at the bottom of the object, giving the mistaken impression that the bottom part of an object will always disappear first as you move away from it. But note that, in the first example, the white segment would also disappear even if it was placed on top. The lamps remain while the posts disappear, not because the posts are below the lamps, but because they are narrower.

But my island is largest at the bottom and smallest at the top. Understanding the perspective arguments in the link correctly: That smaller details disappear before larger details, we should actually lose sight of the (smaller) humps on top of the island before losing sight of the much larger base of the island.

So my question remains unanswered, and since it was a round-Earther who offered the link, I'm still waiting for one of my fellow flat-Earthers to give me the true explanation. I know that such an explanation exists, because I can see that the Earth is flat (relatively, with bumps). Even at sea I can see that the Earth is flat. As a matter of fact, it's even more evident at sea than on land, where mountains and valleys (i.e. bumps) obscure the view. At sea you can see as far as you can see, and it's all flat. (As before, with waves, i.e., more bumps.) So I know there's an explanation.

Have pity on a seeker after truth and help me out.

G

Were you pushed overboard?

Who would you trust the most for information about the horizon ?
(1) Rowbotham
(2) The Navy

Who would you trust the most for information about the horizon ?
(1) Rowbotham
(2) The Navy

Who would you trust more? Do you even know anyone who has ever been in "The Navy?"

Quote from: Googleotomy on May 08, 2019, 06:30:54 PM

G

Were you pushed overboard?

My keyboard  messed up !      :-(

Quote from: Googleotomy on May 08, 2019, 07:53:28 PM

Who would you trust the most for information about the horizon ?
(1) Rowbotham
(2) The Navy

Who would you trust more? Do you even know anyone who has ever been in "The Navy?"

(2) After reading ENAG. I most assuredly would not trust  Doctor Sir Samuel Birley Rowbotham , PhD, MD....even if he did graduate from Edinburgh University !  LOL
I certainly would trust the ''Navy Manual For Lookouts'' more than ''Earth Not A Globe '''for information about the horizon.

Yes .I met and know some with whom I served when I was in the Navy .
However , I am not bragging about my Navy service.
Enlisted as ETSR (Electronic Technician, Seaman Recruit , Enlisted Pay Grade E-1) completed 4 years service as. ET2 (Electronic Technician, Petty Officer Second Class, Enlisted Pay Grade E-5 ) Not quite par for the course as I didn't quite make it to First Class as some of my shipmates did. Matter of bad timing. :-( And that is how I ''even know anyone who have ever been in ''The Navy'' .''  LOL

We still keep in touch by e-mail, snail mail , telephone and ham radio from time to time.

Quote from: boydster on May 08, 2019, 07:55:30 PM

Quote from: Googleotomy on May 08, 2019, 07:53:28 PM

Who would you trust the most for information about the horizon ?
(1) Rowbotham
(2) The Navy

Who would you trust more? Do you even know anyone who has ever been in "The Navy?"

(2) After reading ENAG. I most assuredly would not trust  Doctor Sir Samuel Birley Rowbotham , PhD, MD....even if he did graduate from Edinburgh University !  LOL
I certainly would trust the ''Navy Manual For Lookouts'' more than ''Earth Not A Globe '''for information about the horizon.

Yes .I met and know some with whom I served when I was in the Navy .
However , I am not bragging about my Navy service.
Enlisted as ETSR (Electronic Technician, Seaman Recruit , Enlisted Pay Grade E-1) completed 4 years service as. ET2 (Electronic Technician, Petty Officer Second Class, Enlisted Pay Grade E-5 ) Not quite par for the course as I didn't quite make it to First Class as some of my shipmates did. Matter of bad timing. :-( And that is how I ''even know anyone who have ever been in ''The Navy'' .''  LOL

We still keep in touch by e-mail, snail mail , telephone and ham radio from time to time.

Here is a great long thread on Samuel Birley Rowbotham - Academic Qualifications - if you've the patience to wade through it .

Who would you trust the most for information about the horizon ?
(1) Rowbotham
(2) The Navy

I'd be glad to engage in that question in another thread. Start a thread in an appropriate forum, and I'll jump in. This is Q&A, not Debate, and I'm just asking for an answer from the FE perspective, though I'm starting to be disappointed in this forum if nobody here is willing to answer my question.

Please, let's not debate FET vs. RET in this thread, there are plenty of threads for that.

Quote from: Googleotomy on May 08, 2019, 07:53:28 PM

Who would you trust the most for information about the horizon ?
(1) Rowbotham
(2) The Navy

I'd be glad to engage in that question in another thread. Start a thread in an appropriate forum, and I'll jump in. This is Q&A, not Debate, and I'm just asking for an answer from the FE perspective, though I'm starting to be disappointed in this forum if nobody here is willing to answer my question.

Please, let's not debate FET vs. RET in this thread, there are plenty of threads for that.

I think a lot of FE questions such as this topic end up as a debate between FE and RE , whether we like it or not.
I also think the explanation for the answer to the question of this topic is - from the FE side - is based solely on Rowbotham's writings , especially from his ''Earth Not A Globe.'' Rather than debate on this forum, I would suggest that a FE should find a RE who is an expert in oceanic or nautical navigation for debate to settle the matter.

Quote from: magellanclavichord on May 09, 2019, 07:23:14 AM

Quote from: Googleotomy on May 08, 2019, 07:53:28 PM

Who would you trust the most for information about the horizon ?
(1) Rowbotham
(2) The Navy

I'd be glad to engage in that question in another thread. Start a thread in an appropriate forum, and I'll jump in. This is Q&A, not Debate, and I'm just asking for an answer from the FE perspective, though I'm starting to be disappointed in this forum if nobody here is willing to answer my question.

Please, let's not debate FET vs. RET in this thread, there are plenty of threads for that.

I think a lot of FE questions such as this topic end up as a debate between FE and RE , whether we like it or not.
I also think the explanation for the answer to the question of this topic is - from the FE side - is based solely on Rowbotham's writings , especially from his ''Earth Not A Globe.'' Rather than debate on this forum, I would suggest that a FE should find a RE who is an expert in oceanic or nautical navigation for debate to settle the matter.

Thank you for those thoughts. But in this thread I was not trying to settle the matter. I was looking for the FE explanation. Maybe I need to do a search for the topic in the FE debate forum and see what the FEers offer as their arguments.

I would hope that the link posted earlier to the chapter from Rowbotham is not the only explanation on offer, because as I noted, it is all correct but does not actually address the issue. It addresses the disappearance of smaller details of a whole; it does not address the disappearance of the lower portion of an object, except when the smaller detail being discussed happens to be at the bottom. Put that same smaller detail at the top and it will still disappear first.

The link above is quite interesting, but unfortunately does not address the issue of "my" island. It clearly demonstrates that our ability to resolve small details decreases with distance. This is both intuitively correct and mathematically correct: A fly on a wall disappears as we move farther and farther away from it. The link shows mathematically why this happens, though we already knew it happens.

The problem is that the author gives numerous examples where the smaller detail, which disappears first due to its small size, is placed at the bottom of the object, giving the mistaken impression that the bottom part of an object will always disappear first as you move away from it. But note that, in the first example, the white segment would also disappear even if it was placed on top. The lamps remain while the posts disappear, not because the posts are below the lamps, but because they are narrower.

But my island is largest at the bottom and smallest at the top. Understanding the perspective arguments in the link correctly: That smaller details disappear before larger details, we should actually lose sight of the (smaller) humps on top of the island before losing sight of the much larger base of the island.

So my question remains unanswered, and since it was a round-Earther who offered the link, I'm still waiting for one of my fellow flat-Earthers to give me the true explanation. I know that such an explanation exists, because I can see that the Earth is flat (relatively, with bumps). Even at sea I can see that the Earth is flat. As a matter of fact, it's even more evident at sea than on land, where mountains and valleys (i.e. bumps) obscure the view. At sea you can see as far as you can see, and it's all flat. (As before, with waves, i.e., more bumps.) So I know there's an explanation.

Have pity on a seeker after truth and help me out.

I think you missed quite how bonkers Rowbotham’s ideas on perspective were.

There’s a lot more to it than the resolution of small details, and it does go on to “explain” why objects seem to disappear over the horizon.

Read again from fig. 75.

The idea is that the angular resolution of the eye somehow determines the angle of parallel lines seeming to converge at the vanishing point.  He claims the  vanishing point is not at infinite distance as in real perspective, but a specific distances.  Also that the further a parallel line is from eye level (usually higher), the further away its vanishing point will be.

That means the allegedly flat earth can somehow rise up to a vanishing point closer than tall objects with a more distant vanishing point, literally obscuring the view of the bottom.

It’s really quite mad, but as he was pretty much the Godfather of modern flat eartherism, this seems to be the basis of a lot of very wrong flat earther perspective ideas.

Quote from: magellanclavichord on May 08, 2019, 04:19:05 PM

The link above is quite interesting, but unfortunately does not address the issue of "my" island. It clearly demonstrates that our ability to resolve small details decreases with distance. This is both intuitively correct and mathematically correct: A fly on a wall disappears as we move farther and farther away from it. The link shows mathematically why this happens, though we already knew it happens.

The problem is that the author gives numerous examples where the smaller detail, which disappears first due to its small size, is placed at the bottom of the object, giving the mistaken impression that the bottom part of an object will always disappear first as you move away from it. But note that, in the first example, the white segment would also disappear even if it was placed on top. The lamps remain while the posts disappear, not because the posts are below the lamps, but because they are narrower.

But my island is largest at the bottom and smallest at the top. Understanding the perspective arguments in the link correctly: That smaller details disappear before larger details, we should actually lose sight of the (smaller) humps on top of the island before losing sight of the much larger base of the island.

So my question remains unanswered, and since it was a round-Earther who offered the link, I'm still waiting for one of my fellow flat-Earthers to give me the true explanation. I know that such an explanation exists, because I can see that the Earth is flat (relatively, with bumps). Even at sea I can see that the Earth is flat. As a matter of fact, it's even more evident at sea than on land, where mountains and valleys (i.e. bumps) obscure the view. At sea you can see as far as you can see, and it's all flat. (As before, with waves, i.e., more bumps.) So I know there's an explanation.

Have pity on a seeker after truth and help me out.

I think you missed quite how bonkers Rowbotham’s ideas on perspective were.

There’s a lot more to it than the resolution of small details, and it does go on to “explain” why objects seem to disappear over the horizon.

Read again from fig. 75.

The idea is that the angular resolution of the eye somehow determines the angle of parallel lines seeming to converge at the vanishing point.  He claims the  vanishing point is not at infinite distance as in real perspective, but a specific distances.  Also that the further a parallel line is from eye level (usually higher), the further away its vanishing point will be.

That means the allegedly flat earth can somehow rise up to a vanishing point closer than tall objects with a more distant vanishing point, literally obscuring the view of the bottom.

It’s really quite mad, but as he was pretty much the Godfather of modern flat eartherism, this seems to be the basis of a lot of very wrong flat earther perspective ideas.

"angle of parallel lines"?

And I wonder why this effect should happen only horizontally? If it is caused by human "round" eyes or round lenses (with telescope it is said that the vanishing point is further away), then why doesn't happen this also vertically? If it is really connected to viewing distance, it should happen radially in all directions, or not? 

Because that’s what happens when crazy religious fundamentalists try to do science.  They start with their crazy religious fundamentalist idea and attempt to warp reality to fit.

Quote from: magellanclavichord on May 08, 2019, 04:19:05 PM

The link above is quite interesting, but unfortunately does not address the issue of "my" island. It clearly demonstrates that our ability to resolve small details decreases with distance. This is both intuitively correct and mathematically correct: A fly on a wall disappears as we move farther and farther away from it. The link shows mathematically why this happens, though we already knew it happens.

The problem is that the author gives numerous examples where the smaller detail, which disappears first due to its small size, is placed at the bottom of the object, giving the mistaken impression that the bottom part of an object will always disappear first as you move away from it. But note that, in the first example, the white segment would also disappear even if it was placed on top. The lamps remain while the posts disappear, not because the posts are below the lamps, but because they are narrower.

But my island is largest at the bottom and smallest at the top. Understanding the perspective arguments in the link correctly: That smaller details disappear before larger details, we should actually lose sight of the (smaller) humps on top of the island before losing sight of the much larger base of the island.

So my question remains unanswered, and since it was a round-Earther who offered the link, I'm still waiting for one of my fellow flat-Earthers to give me the true explanation. I know that such an explanation exists, because I can see that the Earth is flat (relatively, with bumps). Even at sea I can see that the Earth is flat. As a matter of fact, it's even more evident at sea than on land, where mountains and valleys (i.e. bumps) obscure the view. At sea you can see as far as you can see, and it's all flat. (As before, with waves, i.e., more bumps.) So I know there's an explanation.

Have pity on a seeker after truth and help me out.

I think you missed quite how bonkers Rowbotham’s ideas on perspective were.

There’s a lot more to it than the resolution of small details, and it does go on to “explain” why objects seem to disappear over the horizon.

Read again from fig. 75.

The idea is that the angular resolution of the eye somehow determines the angle of parallel lines seeming to converge at the vanishing point.  He claims the  vanishing point is not at infinite distance as in real perspective, but a specific distances.  Also that the further a parallel line is from eye level (usually higher), the further away its vanishing point will be.

That means the allegedly flat earth can somehow rise up to a vanishing point closer than tall objects with a more distant vanishing point, literally obscuring the view of the bottom.

It’s really quite mad, but as he was pretty much the Godfather of modern flat eartherism, this seems to be the basis of a lot of very wrong flat earther perspective ideas.

Hmmm. Okay. So maybe I need to figure out the reason for myself. I didn't realize that Rowbotham was the originator of FET. I'll give it some thought. Maybe FET needs a more scientifically-minded proponent.

Maybe if light moves faster when it's closer to water it would explain it. Or we might be able to revive phlogiston. It fell out of favor as an explanation for fire, but maybe it causes light to bend away from water.

Hmmm. Okay. So maybe I need to figure out the reason for myself. I didn't realize that Rowbotham was the originator of FET. I'll give it some thought. Maybe FET needs a more scientifically-minded proponent.

As far as I’m aware most of the modern flat earth ideas were his- The polar azimuthal projection map, with a “spotlight” sun and moon circling above us between the tropics, Antarctic ice wall, etc.

Obviously there are variations on these ideas, but it seems to be the basis of most of what we hear now.  I could be wrong if anyone wants to correct me?

So it’s worth checking out his stuff, if only to see the origins of it all.

Of course being a round earther, I’d advise you to be extremely sceptical about it all.  But, you know “do your own research” and all that.