Flat earth on netflix! EEEEEEEEEE!

It's called behind the curve. It's an hour and a half long and it stars mark Sargeant.

Okay. So I hope this isn't crap.

I'll have to see if I can find it tomorrow.  Sergeant is not a spokesman or representative for this forum or the Flat Earth Society; however, he is often entertaining and makes some points.  I will try to watch this documentary. 

I saw it a month ago. It's interesting. All I'll say is that it's worth checking out. We can talk after you've seen it. It's worth the $5.99 for sure. Super curious as to the FE perspective here about it.

I will say, super not psyched how the society here was not included. It's all flash and glam with these YT 'stars'. If it bleeds it leads I guess.

It's called behind the curve. It's an hour and a half long and it stars mark Sargeant.

Okay. So I hope this isn't crap.

I've not seen the video but there is this official trailer:

Behind the Curve - Official Teaser Trailer

And plenty of extracts, "starring" Bob Knodel's so-called "proof of the earth's rotation" and Jeran Campanella's "evidence of curvature".

Bob Knodel & His Ring Laser Gyroscope Experiment by FlatEarth.ws

Jeranism proves the globe..; "That's interesting" by The Plane Truth

And the "YouTube Flat-Earth Community" is not happy and how!

Bob Knodel of globebusters is a LIAR and a SATANIST and getting THE BOOT Beyond Flat Earth! by Awake Souls

Seen it.  Thought it was pretty good, although I’m sure some others will strongly disagree.

Love the title.  I wonder if they told the participants what they were going to call it?

I, too, am quite interested to hear what FE here thinks of the documentary.

20 minutes in, then I passed out, not the films fault.

Not looking good so far. It's more of a puff piece on Mark Sargent. It's well produced at least. I hope the rest of the film is different. Ideally I'd like to see coverage of all the major personalities, the societies(including this one obviously), the opposition and the science.

I like Sargeant personally, especially in the talks I've had with him. I'll likely see it, though I won't be happy about it as I'm sure they did not treat us fairly - especially given Bishop's scathing review.

Resistency against Universal Acceleration is more political than scientific.

The Flat Earth Society is an open place to any alternative ideas, UA has the right place to demonstrate its reliabilities.

All science entities are against FES or UA, including some 'mainstream' flatearthers, with their 'prophets'.

It's understandable. :')

Resistency might be political, might be just due to bad presentation of something actually teriffic.
Without newly found the breathing earth theory, it's hard for UA to convince the people.

I like Sargeant personally, especially in the talks I've had with him. I'll likely see it, though I won't be happy about it as I'm sure they did not treat us fairly - especially given Bishop's scathing review.

If you like Mark Sargent then you'd better put him straight on the flat-earth map.

• It's trivially easy for anyone who has been in both the Southern and Northern Hemisphere that his AEP map is rubbish!
  
  
• His hero, Al-Biruni, who is credited as the publisher of the AEP was definitely not a flat-earther earther.
  He published diagrams illustrating the phases of the moon and measured the radius of Globe using the "horizon dip angle"[./li]
  

These are hardly the things a flat-earther would be doing. Mark Sargent asks whether we've even heard of Al-Biruni .
You might tell Mark that of course WE have. Al-Biruni is regarded as the "father of geodesy".
And geodesy is the part of surveying that measures large regions of earth, like whole countries, and proves the earth cannot be flat.

In this video Bob the Science Guy goes into more detail on Mark's misguided map ideas:

Mark Sargent 'Flat Earth Clues' Part 3
                                              by Bob the Science Guy
That video also shows how expertly Mark Sargent quote mines his references.

The title of this little extract from the Muslim Times shows how Muslims regard Al-Biruni and a couple of his drawings:

Al Biruni: One of the Greatest Pioneers of Science
The early Muslims duplicated the technique of Eratosthenes, to measure the circumference of the earth, 200 years before Al Biruni. But, that technique had a basic flaw. Al Biruni came up with a better idea, to measure the circumference of the earth, based on trigonometry.


           
An illustration from Biruni’s Persian book. It shows different phases of the moon.

Here is more on Al-Biruni's Measuring the earth's radius 1000 years ago

So maybe Mark Sargent was ignorant of Al-Biruni’s beliefs and work but many others were well aware of the evidence he provided for the Globe.

It's not just unfair treatment. Behind the Curve contains fraud in how it depicts the Jeran experiment. If I had the power to submit announcements on this website I would write one for this website as well, with a title of "Behind the Curve: Scientific Fraud". Netflix is bringing many people into the discussions and they just need to know.

That is clearly not how the experiment went down. It is pretty pathetic that they would need to resort to fraud to support their model.

It's not just unfair treatment. Behind the Curve contains fraud in how it depicts the Jeran experiment. If I had the power to submit announcements on this website I would one for this website as well, with a title of "Behind the Curve: Scientific Fraud". Netflix is bringing many people into the discussions and they just need to know.

That is clearly not how the experiment went down. It is pretty pathetic that anyone would need to resort to fraud to support their model.

So would you care to show how Jeran Campanella's experiment did go down?

I would not be so brash as to claim that Jeran Campanella's experiment proved the earth a Globe. All it did was to give one piece of evidence and there could be other explanations, even anomalous refraction as flat-earthers like to claim.
And Bob Knodel's 15°/hour "drift" on his $20,000 gyroscope is again only one piece of evidence.

In haven't seen the whole video and quite possibly the production team did "cherry pick" their takes - as the media does.
Mark Sargent, however, does exactly the same thing in his "clues" videos where he "cherry picks" (and worse) his way through the "History of the Globe".
He goes within a whisker of claiming that Copernicus introduced the Globe when Copernicus did nothing of the sort!
Long before Copernicus, Aristarchus, Eratosthenes, Ptolemy, the Venerable Bede, Al-Burini and Johannes de Sacrobosco wrote of the Globe.

But back to "Behind the Curve": In each case, the most telling thing was Jeran Campanella's and Bob Knodel's reaction to the results.
That seemed to be "That's interesting, umm .  . . . . . " let's cover it up and hope no one notices.

But whatever you say, look at what one Flat-Earth YouTuber has to say about Bob Knodel:

Bob Knodel of globebusters is a LIAR and a SATANIST and getting THE BOOT by Awake Souls.

And the reaction from other flat-earthers:

Jeranism And Globebusters You Are No Longer A Part Of This Community Your Out by Question Everything
They are the words of Flat-Earthers. Don't take any notice of the evidence - just shoot the messenger.

From the tfes.org main page:

On the Jeran experiment itself, we can only characterize its depiction in the film as clear scientific fraud. We read the following from an account of a self-proclaimed Round Earth proponent who was present at the event [ archive link ] :

"In about 10 tries, with the light held waist-high at 17 feet above water we never clearly saw it through the center panel hole. On one of the attempts, maybe the fourth of ten, we clearly saw it when Enrique lifted it over his head. On that one, Jeran asked him to raise it and lower it a few times, and it would appear when Enrique raised it and vanish when he lowered it. That was the "gasp" moment. Jeran said, "that's interesting." I noted it was the prediction for a round Earth. When they repeated the whole procedure, it did not happen again. I suggested having Enrique move from side-to-side a bit when occluded by the panel, in case it was lateral alignment that was off. Jeran accepted the suggestion, but it made no observable difference."

Of about ten observations, the fourth observation was the only one where the event occurred, and the only one which was published in the documentary. Nine of the ten trials did not see the event. The above description of inconsistency suggests the presence of curving light rays in the experiment—refraction. The manner in which the experiment was portrayed in the film by the producers further suggests dishonesty. Had the results of all ten trials been honestly presented it would have, assuredly, been a far different segment.

The documentary does not show the times the event did not occur. Misrepresentation of that nature is called scientific fraud.

The documentary does not show the times the event did not occur. Misrepresentation of that nature is called scientific fraud.

I have to agree here.

Fair is fair no matter the subject.

From the tfes.org main page:

Quote

On the Jeran experiment itself, we can only characterize its depiction in the film as clear scientific fraud. Well read the following from an account of a self-proclaimed Round Earth proponent who was present at the event [ archive link ] :

"In about 10 tries, with the light held waist-high at 17 feet above water we never clearly saw it through the center panel hole. On one of the attempts, maybe the fourth of ten, we clearly saw it when Enrique lifted it over his head. On that one, Jeran asked him to raise it and lower it a few times, and it would appear when Enrique raised it and vanish when he lowered it. That was the "gasp" moment. Jeran said, "that's interesting." I noted it was the prediction for a round Earth. When they repeated the whole procedure, it did not happen again. I suggested having Enrique move from side-to-side a bit when occluded by the panel, in case it was lateral alignment that was off. Jeran accepted the suggestion, but it made no observable difference."

Of about ten observations, the fourth observation was the only one where the event occurred, and the only one which was published in the documentary. Nine of the ten trials did not see the event. The above description of inconsistency suggests the presence of curving light rays in the experiment—refraction. The manner in which the experiment was portrayed in the film by the producers further suggests dishonesty. Had the results of all ten trials been honestly presented it would have, assuredly, been a far different segment.

The documentary does not show the times the event did not occur. Misrepresentation of that nature is called scientific fraud.

I read Bryan Olson's account (the person you quoted) a different way. The "When they repeated the whole procedure, it did not happen again. I suggested having Enrique move from side-to-side a bit when occluded by the panel, in case it was lateral alignment that was off. Jeran accepted the suggestion, but it made no observable difference." meant that when they repeated the test again at 17', even with the suggestion of moving the light laterally, that it still didn't show. Not that they repeated raising the light up 23' again and didn't see it. Seems it was only on one attempt did they raise the light up, #4, and that's the one that is in the movie with the "Interesting..." quote.

And to date, I don't think Bob or Jeran have published anything regarding the two experiments other than just talking about them. No actual video evidence or otherwise. That seems to be, in part, what has some of the other YT FEr's freaking out about. Maybe if they did publish the results from the experiments, this would all be cleared up. But under intense pressure, they have not, that I can find.

And as to "scientific fraud", the film is not an FE documentary, but a documentary about FE'rs. It was never intended to be "sciencey".

All in all, none of what is in the movie is that compelling other than showing that these YT FE 'stars' are kind of knuckleheads and perhaps not real truth seekers afterall.

From the tfes.org main page:

Quote

On the Jeran experiment itself, we can only characterize its depiction in the film as clear scientific fraud. Well read the following from an account of a self-proclaimed Round Earth proponent who was present at the event [ archive link ] :

"In about 10 tries, with the light held waist-high at 17 feet above water we never clearly saw it through the center panel hole. On one of the attempts, maybe the fourth of ten, we clearly saw it when Enrique lifted it over his head. On that one, Jeran asked him to raise it and lower it a few times, and it would appear when Enrique raised it and vanish when he lowered it. That was the "gasp" moment. Jeran said, "that's interesting." I noted it was the prediction for a round Earth. When they repeated the whole procedure, it did not happen again. I suggested having Enrique move from side-to-side a bit when occluded by the panel, in case it was lateral alignment that was off. Jeran accepted the suggestion, but it made no observable difference."

Of about ten observations, the fourth observation was the only one where the event occurred, and the only one which was published in the documentary. Nine of the ten trials did not see the event. The above description of inconsistency suggests the presence of curving light rays in the experiment—refraction. The manner in which the experiment was portrayed in the film by the producers further suggests dishonesty. Had the results of all ten trials been honestly presented it would have, assuredly, been a far different segment.

The documentary does not show the times the event did not occur. Misrepresentation of that nature is called scientific fraud.

Nope.  Scientific fraud or scientific misconduct relates to the publishing of professional scientific research, aka papers submitted for peer review.  YouTube videos, TV documentaries, books, etc are not bound by these rules.  That's why you can pick up a book or watch a video claiming any old bollocks, and the only recourse is for someone else to try and "debunk" it with their own material.

In the end we have the word of the documentary makers vs Jeran and some bloke on reddit.  We'll probably never know exactly what happened, and that's exactly why real science is done with a more formal structure.

In the end we have the word of the documentary makers vs Jeran and some bloke on reddit.  We'll probably never know exactly what happened, and that's exactly why real science is done with a more formal structure.

This is true, too. More visibility into what happened would be nice if it is claimed we only saw one side of the thing.

Still, the playing field should be even for all participants.

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 07, 2019, 01:11:16 AM

In the end we have the word of the documentary makers vs Jeran and some bloke on reddit.  We'll probably never know exactly what happened, and that's exactly why real science is done with a more formal structure.

This is true, too. More visibility into what happened would be nice if it is claimed we only saw one side of the thing.

Still, the playing field should be even for all participants.

I don't think the intent of the doc was ever to present an even playing field. Nor should it. That's what we would like. But we are biased, hence being here. The intent was to do a character study on some of the key people that are outside the norm and why. How do they live and breath this? What are their motivations? What are their losses, gains as being a part of this? 

It has nothing to do with presenting 'evidence' one way or another. Just who are these fringe thinkers that are a part of a wave that are a part of memes in modern culture. The premise is simply, how in the 21st century can one believe something that 99% of the world probably snickers at - It makes for a compelling narrative. It's certainly not about 'proofs' one way or the other. But to those of us who look for proofs, we see it in a different light. From both sides.

Take the doc for what it is and for what it is certainly not. What Jeran and Knodel did was simply stumble into something that they were probably told by producers what would be an even handed examination of their influence and esteem in the movement and instead were shown up to be kind of hacks which they are.

That said, I can think of of a handful of folks across these two forums that would have served the FE movement's POV infinitely better than those depicted in the doc.

So it's not scientific fraud because it wasn't a scientific documentary or was "supposed to present an even playing field"?

Fraud is fraud. It was depicting a scientific subject. The subject was dishonestly presented. It seems pretty sad and desperate that anyone would need to resort to, or defend, fraud to support their position.

No.  It’s not scientific fraud, because documentaries aren’t science.  They can be about science, to varying degrees of accuracy.

And your only evidence of deception is anecdotal evidence from Globebusters and some guy on the internet. 

The documentary claims the other takes which allegedly had different results weren’t filmed.  You don’t actually know if that’s true or not.  I don’t know either.

Fraud is fraud. It was depicting a scientific subject. The subject was dishonestly presented. It seems pretty sad and desperate that anyone would need to resort to, or defend, fraud to support their position.

It's no more fraud than The Bishop Experiment.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 07, 2019, 04:06:33 AM

Fraud is fraud. It was depicting a scientific subject. The subject was dishonestly presented. It seems pretty sad and desperate that anyone would need to resort to, or defend, fraud to support their position.

It's no more fraud than The Bishop Experiment.

Wrong. It is the same water convexity experiment that has been performed for over 150 years, by Rowbotham, this society, and by people all over YouTube, who report seeing no convexity at such distances and further.

Evidence has been provided that BTC's depiction of the experiment was fraudulent, and you have no words other than to double down on your support of fraud with "well, how about THIS". You apparently are unable to justify the fraud that takes place in the film. Pretty terrible that anyone would continue to support it.

Quote from: Stash on March 07, 2019, 11:45:01 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 07, 2019, 04:06:33 AM

Fraud is fraud. It was depicting a scientific subject. The subject was dishonestly presented. It seems pretty sad and desperate that anyone would need to resort to, or defend, fraud to support their position.

It's no more fraud than The Bishop Experiment.

Wrong. It is the same water convexity experiment that has been performed for over 150 years, by Rowbotham, this society, and by people all over YouTube, who report seeing no convexity at such distances and further.

What about the countless other people all over YouTube who do report seeing convexity at such distances?

Quote from: Stash on March 07, 2019, 11:45:01 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 07, 2019, 04:06:33 AM

Fraud is fraud. It was depicting a scientific subject. The subject was dishonestly presented. It seems pretty sad and desperate that anyone would need to resort to, or defend, fraud to support their position.

It's no more fraud than The Bishop Experiment.

Wrong. It is the same water convexity experiment that has been performed for over 150 years, by this society, and by people all over YouTube, who report seeing no convexity at such distances and further.

Evidence has been provided that BTC's depiction of the experiment was fraudulent, and you have no words other than to double down on your support of fraud with "well, how about THIS". You apparently are unable to justify the fraud that takes place in the film. Pretty terrible that anyone would continue to support it.

Actually, wrong. It is the same water convexity experiment that has been performed for over 150 years, by this society, and by people all over YouTube, who report seeing no convexity at such distances and further. Wallace won the wager.

Evidence has not been provided. Evidence would be Knodel & Jeran publishing the results of the experiments. 

I feel the same way about The Bishop Experiment: Pretty terrible that anyone would continue to support it.

What about the countless other people all over YouTube who do report seeing convexity at such distances?

That's fine. Rowbotham reported sinking as well in some environments, which is why the Bedford Canal and it's narrow passageways was selected.

No one is calling those people liars. Rowbotham calls into question the validity of Aristotile's first proof that the earth is a globe based on the inconsistency of the effect.

It is fairly well established that people can and have seen further than what RET should allow.

Quote from: Stash on March 07, 2019, 11:45:01 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 07, 2019, 04:06:33 AM

Fraud is fraud. It was depicting a scientific subject. The subject was dishonestly presented. It seems pretty sad and desperate that anyone would need to resort to, or defend, fraud to support their position.

It's no more fraud than The Bishop Experiment.

Wrong. It is the same water convexity experiment that has been performed for over 150 years, by Rowbotham, this society, and by people all over YouTube, who report seeing no convexity at such distances and further.

Evidence has been provided that BTC's depiction of the experiment was fraudulent, and you have no words other than to double down on your support of fraud with "well, how about THIS". You apparently are unable to justify the fraud that takes place in the film. Pretty terrible that anyone would continue to support it.

Links to recent experiments please. Seriously, you can't explain satellites or the path of the sun.

Fairly well is not proof.

Now we are talking about satellites? What does that have to do with the fraud in the documentary that you guys are spreading all over the place? It is fraud and you guys should just own up to it.

Now we are talking about satellites? What does that have to do with the fraud in the documentary that you guys are spreading all over the place? It is fraud and you guys should just own up to it.

Experiment details please.

Quote from: markjo on March 07, 2019, 12:36:49 PM

What about the countless other people all over YouTube who do report seeing convexity at such distances?

That's fine. Rowbotham reported sinking as well in some environments, which is why the Bedford Canal and it's narrow passageways was selected.

No one is calling those people liars. Rowbotham calls into question the validity of Aristotile's first proof that the earth is a globe based on the inconsistency of the effect.

It is fairly well established that people can and have seen further than what RET should allow.

What should RET allow? It's fairly well established that all 8 billion of us can and have seen sunrises & sunsets, appearing top down and disappearing bottom up, something that FET doesn't allow.   

Now we are talking about satellites? What does that have to do with the fraud in the documentary that you guys are spreading all over the place? It is fraud and you guys should just own up to it.

Evidence of fraud would be Knodel and Jeran publishing their full and complete experiment results. They have yet to do so even after intense pressure from the FE community. I wonder why that is.