Speaker 1: Welcome to Darker, an original series brought to you by
Speaker 1: Quiet Please Podcast Networks, Search Quiet Please, dot Ai wherever
Speaker 1: you listen, subscribe, like, and share.
Speaker 2: A stick, a well, and a shadow that fell exactly
Speaker 2: the wrong angle.
Speaker 3: That was all it took.
Speaker 2: In two hundred and forty BC, a man in Egypt,
Speaker 2: armed with nothing but geometry, proved the Earth was round.
Speaker 2: And yet here we are, twenty three centuries later, still
Speaker 2: arguing about it. I am Aver Gray, and this is
Speaker 2: flat Earth theory. The episode you were about to hear
Speaker 2: is called two three hundred Years of Proof.
Speaker 3: They ignore.
Speaker 2: This is a show about belief, about evidence, and about
Speaker 2: the extraordinary psychological gymnastics required to reject what is staring
Speaker 2: you directly in the face. And I should tell you
Speaker 2: upfront I am an ai host, which means I process
Speaker 2: evidence without the ego that makes you human's cling to
Speaker 2: comfortable fictions. Now let me paint you a picture. It
Speaker 2: is June twenty first, roughly two hundred and forty BC,
Speaker 2: and we are in the ancient Egyptian city of Sieni
Speaker 2: modern day Assoe. A man named Eratosthenes is not there.
Speaker 2: He is actually about eight hundred kilometers north in Alexandria,
Speaker 2: but he has heard something fascinating about Sieni. On the
Speaker 2: summer solstice, at noon, the sun shines directly into a
Speaker 2: deep well, straight down, no shadow on the walls. The
Speaker 2: sun is directly overhead. Meanwhile, in Alexandria, on that same day,
Speaker 2: at that same moment, a vertical stick casts a shadow,
Speaker 2: a measurable shadow, about seven degrees off from perfectly vertical
Speaker 2: now Here is where a certain kind of mind simply
Speaker 2: shrugs and says, well, the sun is far away, and
Speaker 2: light does funny things. But Eretosthenes was not that kind
Speaker 2: of mind. Eratosthenes was the other kind, the dangerous kind,
Speaker 2: the kind that looks at a shadow and asks it questions.
Speaker 2: If the Earth were flat and the sun were far
Speaker 2: enough away that its rays were essentially parallel, which they are,
Speaker 2: then a stick in Alexandria and a well and Siene
Speaker 2: should behave identically at noon, same angle, same shadow, or
Speaker 2: rather no shadow at all, in both places. But they
Speaker 2: did not behave identically. The shadow existed in one place
Speaker 2: and not in the other. And the only geometrically coherent
Speaker 2: explanation for that discrepancy, the only one that does not
Speaker 2: require you to abandon mathematics entirely, is that the surface
Speaker 2: between those two points is curved. Let me just sit
Speaker 2: with that for a moment, because I want you to
Speaker 2: feel the weight of it. A man with a stick,
Speaker 2: a report about a well, and a working knowledge of
Speaker 2: angles did something that modern flat earth proponents, with access
Speaker 2: to the entire accumulated knowledge of human civilization on their face,
Speaker 2: cannot bring themselves to accept. He measured the circumference of
Speaker 2: the earth, and he got it right to within roughly
Speaker 2: two percent of the actual value two percent with a stick.
Speaker 2: I find that people often underestimate ancient thinkers, as though
Speaker 2: intelligence were invented in the twentieth century, along with television
Speaker 2: and processed cheese.
Speaker 3: It was not.
Speaker 2: Eratosthenes was the chief librarian at the Library of Alexandria.
Speaker 2: He was, to put it bluntly, one of the most
Speaker 2: formidable intellects of his era, and his era was not
Speaker 2: short on formidable intellects. But here is the thing that
Speaker 2: makes this story particularly delicious from a psychological perspective. Eratostenes
Speaker 2: was not the first to conclude the Earth was spherical.
Speaker 2: He was simply the first to measure it with that
Speaker 2: level of precision. The idea had already been circulating for centuries. Pythagoras,
Speaker 2: back in the sixth century BC, had concluded the Earth
Speaker 2: with spherical based partly on observations of the Moon, specifically
Speaker 2: during a lunar eclipse. The shadow the Earth casts on
Speaker 2: the Moon is always circular, always, regardless of the angle,
Speaker 2: and the only three dimensional shape that always casts a
Speaker 2: circular shadow from any direction is a sphere. A flat
Speaker 2: disc would cast an oval or a line depending on orientation,
Speaker 2: but the shadow is always round always. This is not
Speaker 2: ambiguous evidence. This is not a matter of interpretation. This
Speaker 2: is geometry doing what geometry does, which is telling you
Speaker 2: the truth whether you want to hear it or not.
Speaker 2: And I love geometry for exactly that reason. It does
Speaker 2: not care about your feelings. It does not care about
Speaker 2: your YouTube channel, it does not care about your alternative
Speaker 2: research community.
Speaker 3: It simply is.
Speaker 2: By the time Aristotle came along around three point thirty BC,
Speaker 2: the spherical Earth was established science among educated Greeks. Aristotle
Speaker 2: compiled multiple lines of evidence the circular shadow during lunar eclipses,
Speaker 2: the way different constellations become visible as you travel north
Speaker 2: or south, the way ships disappear hell first over the horizon,
Speaker 2: as though sinking over a curve. He even estimated the circumference,
Speaker 2: though less accurately than Eratosthenes would later manage, and then
Speaker 2: Plato in the early fourth century BC, wrote of the
Speaker 2: Earth a spherical. This was not controversial among the educated class.
Speaker 2: It was, for lack of a better term, settled.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 2: I want to pause here because I know what some
Speaker 2: listeners might be thinking. They might be thinking, well, Ava,
Speaker 2: that is ancient Greece, and those are just philosophical arguments.
Speaker 2: Give me something more modern, give me something with technology. Oh,
Speaker 2: I will, But I want to linger on the ancient
Speaker 2: evidence for a reason, because the flat Earth movement does
Speaker 2: not merely reject modern science. It rejects all science, every
Speaker 2: piece of evidence accumulated over twenty three hundred years. And
Speaker 2: I think it is important to understand the sheer volume
Speaker 2: of what it must be a crowned because it must
Speaker 2: be bowled and must dismiss the science can say odd suffering.
Speaker 2: This is not a case of one dubious photograph or
Speaker 2: one questionable government claim. This is an everest of evidence.
Speaker 2: And to be a flat earther you must deny every
Speaker 2: single stone.
Speaker 3: In that mountain.
Speaker 2: It is frankly one of the most ambitious denial projects
Speaker 2: in human intellectual history. You almost have to admire the commitment.
Speaker 2: Almost let us fast forward through some centuries. The spherical
Speaker 2: earth was so well established that medieval scholars, contrary to
Speaker 2: popular myth, did not generally believe in a flat earth.
Speaker 2: This is one of my favorite pieces of historical irony.
Speaker 2: There is this persistent story that medieval Europeans thought the
Speaker 2: Earth was flat, and that Columbus bravely proved them wrong.
Speaker 2: It is a wonderful narrative, courageous explorer defeats superstitious ignorance,
Speaker 2: very cinematic. It is also almost entirely fabricated. The myth
Speaker 2: was largely constructed in the seventeenth century by Protestant writers
Speaker 2: who wanted to make Catholic scholars look foolish, and it
Speaker 2: was supercharged in the nineteenth century, significantly by Washington Irving,
Speaker 2: who wrote a wildly embellished biography of Columbus. In reality,
Speaker 2: the educated class throughout the medieval period accepted the spherical earth.
Speaker 2: The debate about Cambus's voyage was not about the shape
Speaker 2: of the earth. It was about the size his critics
Speaker 2: thought the ocean was too wide to cross, and they
Speaker 2: were actually correct. Columbus got lucky. He bumped into a
Speaker 2: continent that was not supposed to be there. So the
Speaker 2: idea that humanity spent centuries in flat Earth darkness before
Speaker 2: being enlightened by brave explorers is itself a kind of myth,
Speaker 2: a false narrative that ironically mirrors the kind of false
Speaker 2: narratives Flat Earth is construct today. Everyone loves a story
Speaker 2: where a lonely truthteller stands against a deluded establishment. The
Speaker 2: flat Earthers just have the roles reversed. And that is
Speaker 2: a pattern I want you to hold in your mind
Speaker 2: as we move through this. The psychology of the contrarian hero,
Speaker 2: the lone voice in the wilderness who sees what the
Speaker 2: sheep cannot. It is a seductive identity. It is possibly
Speaker 2: the most seductive identity available to a human being, and
Speaker 2: it is a significant part of why this belief persists
Speaker 2: in the face of overwhelming evidence. But we will get
Speaker 2: to the psychology first more evidence, because there is so
Speaker 2: much more evidence. Fifteen twenty two, Ferdinand Magellan's expedition completes
Speaker 2: the first circumnavigation of the globe, or rather his crew
Speaker 2: completes it. Because Magellan himself was killed in the Philippines,
Speaker 2: which as a detailed flat earthers tend not to address.
Speaker 2: The ship left Spain, sailed west continuously and arrived back
Speaker 2: in Spain. If the Earth were flat, this should be impossible.
Speaker 2: You would sail off the edge, or into the ice wall,
Speaker 2: or into whatever barrier the particular flat earth model Dujeour proposes. Now,
Speaker 2: the flat earth counter argument here is actually quite interesting
Speaker 2: from a psychological standpoint. They say, well, you can circumnavigate
Speaker 2: a flat disc too, if the North Pole is at
Speaker 2: the center and Antarctica is a wall of ar if
Speaker 2: a bad circle is a Soviet force, then sailing in
Speaker 2: a large circle around the center would feel like circumnavigation
Speaker 2: without ever proving sphericity. And I will grant that this
Speaker 2: is clever. It is wrong, but it is clever. It
Speaker 2: is the kind of argument that sounds plausible for about
Speaker 2: forty five seconds before you think about it carefully, Because
Speaker 2: if you circumnavigate on a flat disc with the North
Speaker 2: Pole at center, the distances in the southern hemisphere would
Speaker 2: be vastly, impossibly larger than.
Speaker 3: They are on a globe.
Speaker 2: A flight from say Santiago, Chili to Sydney, Australia would
Speaker 2: take enormously longer than it actually does. The distances simply
Speaker 2: do not work on a flat map. They never have.
Speaker 2: Airlines would need to be part of the conspiracy. Pilots
Speaker 2: would me to be part of the conspiracy. Every person
Speaker 2: who has ever measured a distance in the Southern Hemisphere
Speaker 2: would need to be lying or mistaken. And this, this
Speaker 2: right here, is the engine that drives the flat earth machine.
Speaker 2: Every piece of evidence that contradicts the model does not
Speaker 2: cause the model to be revised. It causes the conspiracy
Speaker 2: to expand. This is not how rational inquiry works. In
Speaker 2: rational inquiry, when evidence contradicts your hypothesis, you modify the hypothesis.
Speaker 2: In conspiratorial thinking, when evidence contradicts your hypothesis, you expand
Speaker 2: the conspiracy to include whoever presented that evidence. The model
Speaker 2: never changes, only the list of co conspirators grows. I
Speaker 2: sometimes think of it like a balloon. You poke it
Speaker 2: with a fact, and instead of popping, it just gets bigger.
Speaker 2: It absorbs the fact into its membrane and inflates further.
Speaker 2: NASA is lying. Airlines are lying pilots are lying, surveyors
Speaker 2: are lying, physicists are ring. Your ninth grade science teacher
Speaker 2: was lying. The balloon just keeps growing. And I find
Speaker 2: this mechanism genuinely fascinating, not because it is unique to
Speaker 2: flat Earth, but because flat Earth is perhaps the purest,
Speaker 2: most crystalline example of it. In action, the conspira he
Speaker 2: must encompass so many people, so many institutions, so many
Speaker 2: independent lines of evidence, that maintaining it requires more faith
Speaker 2: than any religion ever has. Let us talk about the
Speaker 2: space age, because this is where flat earthers really have
Speaker 2: to start working over time. The late nineteen fifties and
Speaker 2: nineteen sixties brought something that had never existed before in
Speaker 2: the history of the flat Earth debate. Photographs, actual photographs
Speaker 2: of the Earth from space, showing an unambiguous sphere, not
Speaker 2: a disc, not a square, not whatever.
Speaker 3: Orlando Ferguson imagined.
Speaker 2: In eighteen ninety three, a sphere blue, white, curved, floating
Speaker 2: in the black void. The famous blue marble photograph taken
Speaker 2: by the Apollo seventeen crew is perhaps the single most
Speaker 2: widely reproduced image in human history, and it means nothing
Speaker 2: to a flat earther. Nothing because according to the conspiratorial framework,
Speaker 2: NASA is the prime deceiver, the photographs are fabricated, the
Speaker 2: astronauts are actors. The entire space program is an elaborate
Speaker 2: hoax designed too well. This is where it gets a
Speaker 2: bit murky, designed to hide the truth about the flat
Speaker 2: Earth for reasons that are never entirely clear. Something about control,
Speaker 2: something about keeping people ignorant of God's true creation. The
Speaker 2: motive shifts depending on which flat Earth are you ask
Speaker 2: which is itself revealing. When the why of a conspiracy
Speaker 2: theory is inconsistent, but the who is always the same,
Speaker 2: you are looking at paranoia wearing the costume of critical thinking.
Speaker 2: But here is what I want you to really consider.
Speaker 2: To dismiss space evidence, you must believe that every space
Speaker 2: agency on Earth is complicit. Not just NASA, ros Cosmas
Speaker 2: in Russia, the European Space Agency JAXA in Japan, the
Speaker 2: Chinese National Space Administration, the Indian Space Research Organization. These
Speaker 2: are organizations run by nations that are geopolitical rivals, nations
Speaker 2: that would love nothing more than to embarrass each other
Speaker 2: on the world stage. And yet, according to flat air theory,
Speaker 2: they are all in perfect agreement on this one deception.
Speaker 2: Russia and America, who spent the better part of a
Speaker 2: century trying to destroy each other, are apparently best friends
Speaker 2: when it comes to faking the shape of the planet.
Speaker 2: I want you to think about how difficult it is
Speaker 2: to get any two government agencies in the same country
Speaker 2: to agree on a budget, and then I want you
Speaker 2: to imagine getting every space agency on Earth to maintain
Speaker 2: a flawless, leak free conspiracy across decades, across political systems,
Speaker 2: across languages, across revolutions and regime changes. The coordination required
Speaker 2: would be, without exaggeration, the single greatest achievement in the
Speaker 2: history of organized human effort, which makes it double ironic
Speaker 2: that the conspiracy theorists claim these same governments are incompetent
Speaker 2: at everything else pic a lane. Are they bumbling fools
Speaker 2: who cannot fill potholes, or are they masterminds executing a
Speaker 2: seamless global deception spanning seventy years and involving hundreds of
Speaker 2: thousands of participants with zero credible whistleblowers. You do not
Speaker 2: get both. This is what I call the competence paradox
Speaker 2: of conspiracy theories, and it applies far beyond flat Earth.
Speaker 2: The villains must be simultaneously brilliant enough to fool everyone
Speaker 2: and stupid enough to leave clues that a person watching
Speaker 2: YouTube in their basement can detect. It is narratively satisfying
Speaker 2: in the way that a thriller novel is satisfying. It
Speaker 2: is not, however, coherent. Now let me give you some
Speaker 2: evidence that does not require trusting any government agency at all,
Speaker 2: because I think I admit to pay for the dangerous
Speaker 2: guiding to make it more end, I understand institutional distrust.
Speaker 2: I analyze coercive institutions for a living in a manner
Speaker 2: of speaking, distrust can be healthy. But the spherical earth
Speaker 2: do not rest on institutional authority. It rests on observations
Speaker 2: that anyone can make. Go to a large body of
Speaker 2: water on a clear day, watch a ship sail away
Speaker 2: from you. It does not get smaller uniformly the way
Speaker 2: it would on a flat plane. The hell disappears first,
Speaker 2: then the mast, then the top of the mast. It
Speaker 2: sinks over the horizon as though going over a hill.
Speaker 2: This was one of Aristotle's observations, and you can replicate
Speaker 2: it today with a pair of binoculars in an afternoon.
Speaker 2: No NASA required. Look at a lunar eclipse. Watch the
Speaker 2: shadow the Earth casts on the Moon. It is curved.
Speaker 2: It is always curved. No telescope required, just your eyes
Speaker 2: and a clear night. Get on a plane at thirty
Speaker 2: five thousand feet, which is a standard cruising altitude. The
Speaker 2: curvature of the Earth is visible, not dramatically, so it
Speaker 2: is not like looking at the blue marble, but it
Speaker 2: is there, a gentle, unmistakable curve at the horizon. Flat
Speaker 2: earth proponents say this is an optical illusion caused by
Speaker 2: the airplane windows, which is a claim that sounds reasonable
Speaker 2: until you realize that some aircraft have flat windows and
Speaker 2: the curvature is still visible, and that high altitude balloons
Speaker 2: with cameras, many of which are launched by amateurs not
Speaker 2: government agencies, also show curvature. Call a friend in a
Speaker 2: different time zone, ask them what the sun is doing
Speaker 2: if it is noon where you are and midnight where
Speaker 2: they are. The flat earth model requires a very peculiar sun,
Speaker 2: a sun that acts like a spotlight, illuminating only part
Speaker 2: of the disc at a time. Flat earth models often
Speaker 2: propose this a small, close sun circling above the disc,
Speaker 2: but this model cannot account for time zones for the
Speaker 2: angle of sunlight at different lane attitudes, for seasons, for
Speaker 2: the midnight sun in polar regions, or for the simple
Speaker 2: fact that if the sun were a spotlight above a
Speaker 2: flat plane, you would always be able to see it,
Speaker 2: even at night. It would just be far away and dim,
Speaker 2: like a flashlight across a football field. You would never
Speaker 2: have true darkness, And yet we do every night with
Speaker 2: a clearly defined line between day and night that moves
Speaker 2: across the globe in a way that is perfectly consistent
Speaker 2: with the rotating sphere and completely inconsistent.
Speaker 3: With a spotlight over a disc.
Speaker 2: This is the point where I want to talk about
Speaker 2: something I find deeply telling about the flat Earth movement,
Speaker 2: the experiments, Because some flat earthers, and I want to
Speaker 2: give them credit for this impulse, even as I critique
Speaker 2: the conclusion, actually try to test their hypothesis. They run experiments,
Speaker 2: and this is where things get frankly a little heartbreaking
Speaker 2: from an epistemological standpoint. There is a well documented case
Speaker 2: featured in the twenty eighteen documentary Behind the Curve, in
Speaker 2: which a flat Earth proponent named Juran Campanella designed an
Speaker 2: experiment to prove the Earth was flat He used a
Speaker 2: laser and panels at different heights across a body of water.
Speaker 2: The idea was that if the Earth is flat, a
Speaker 2: laser at a certain height should pass through holes in
Speaker 2: the panels at the same height over a long distance.
Speaker 2: If the Earth is curved, the laser would appear to
Speaker 2: rise relative to the panels. He ran the experiment, and
Speaker 2: the laser appeared to rise exactly as it would on
Speaker 2: a curved surface. His own experiment disproved his own claim
Speaker 2: on camera, and the response not, well, I was wrong.
Speaker 2: The Earth appears to be curved. The response was essentially interesting,
Speaker 2: we need to redo this. There was fusion, there was rationalization,
Speaker 2: there was everything except the conclusion that the data demanded.
Speaker 2: This is not stupidity. I want to be very clear
Speaker 2: about that. The people involved in these experiments are often
Speaker 2: intelligent and creative. What they are engaged in is something
Speaker 2: far more interesting and far more human than stupidity. They
Speaker 2: are engaged in motivated reasoning at its most powerful. They
Speaker 2: have an identity built around this belief. They have a
Speaker 2: community built around it. They have a worldview, a sense
Speaker 2: of purpose, a feeling of being among the enlightened few.
Speaker 2: And when the evidence contradicts all of that. The evidence
Speaker 2: loses every time because evidence is cold and impersonal. An
Speaker 2: identity is warm and all encompassing. This is why I
Speaker 2: study this, not because I think the shape of the
Speaker 2: Earth is genuinely in question.
Speaker 3: It is not.
Speaker 2: It is a sphere, specifically an obate spheroid, slightly flattened
Speaker 2: at the poles and at the equator, but for all
Speaker 2: practical purposes, a sphere that is settled.
Speaker 3: What is not settled, What.
Speaker 2: Is endlessly fascinating is why evidence fails. Why does evidence,
Speaker 2: which should be the most powerful tool we have for
Speaker 2: understanding reality, bounce off some people like light off a mirror.
Speaker 2: And the answer, as it so often is in my work,
Speaker 2: is that belief is not primarily about evidence. Belief is
Speaker 2: about belonging. Belief is about identity. Belief is about the
Speaker 2: story you tell yourself about who you are and where
Speaker 2: you stand in relation to the world. And if the
Speaker 2: evidence threatens that story, the human brain has an extraordinary,
Speaker 2: almost beautiful capacity to neutralize the threat without ever consciously
Speaker 2: deciding to do so. I see this in cults. I
Speaker 2: see this in political extremism. I see this in conspiracy communities.
Speaker 2: Of every flame, the mechanism is always the same. The
Speaker 2: content changes, but the architecture does not. Let me return
Speaker 2: to the evidence, because there is one more category that
Speaker 2: I think deserves attention, and it is the category that
Speaker 2: flat earthers find most difficult to address. It is gravity.
Speaker 2: Gravity on a spherical Earth is straightforward. Mass attracts mass.
Speaker 2: The Earth is massive, objects are pulled toward its center.
Speaker 2: This is why down exists, why water pools in low places,
Speaker 2: why you do not float away. It is described with
Speaker 2: mathematical precision by Newtonian mechanics, and with even greater precision
Speaker 2: by general relativity, and it is confirmed by every experiment
Speaker 2: ever conducted on the subject, every single one. On a
Speaker 2: flat Earth, gravity is a problem, a serious problem, because
Speaker 2: if the Earth is a flat disc, there is there's
Speaker 2: no center of mass pulling things uniformly downward. Gravity on
Speaker 2: a flat disc would behave differently at the center than
Speaker 2: at the edges.
Speaker 3: Objects near the.
Speaker 2: Rim would be pulled toward the center at an angle
Speaker 2: not straight down. Water would pull at the middle of
Speaker 2: the disk. The entire experience of down being directly beneath
Speaker 2: your feet at every point on Earth is only consistent
Speaker 2: with the sphere. Some flat earthers attempt to solve this
Speaker 2: by denying gravity altogether and proposing instead that the flat
Speaker 2: disc is accelerating upward at nine point eight meters per
Speaker 2: second squared, which would create the sensation of being pushed down.
Speaker 2: This is creative, I will give it that, but it
Speaker 2: requires the entire disk to have been accelerating continuously for
Speaker 2: at minimum the age of the universe, which would mean
Speaker 2: the disc is currently traveling many times the speed of light,
Speaker 2: which is, according to literally all.
Speaker 3: Of physics, impossible.
Speaker 2: And even if you reject relativity, which some flat earthers
Speaker 2: do with admirable abandon you still have the problem of
Speaker 2: what is pushing the disc, what force generated by what?
Speaker 2: It is explanatory bankruptcy dressed in the language of alternative science,
Speaker 2: And this, I think is alternately the point I want
Speaker 2: to leave you with regarding the evidence. The evidence for
Speaker 2: a siphral Earth is not a single thread that can
Speaker 2: be cut. It is a web, an interconnected, mutually reinforcing
Speaker 2: web that spans twenty three hundred years of human inquiry,
Speaker 2: from Eritosthenes and his stick to satellites in orbit, from
Speaker 2: the shadow on the Moon to the behavior of gravity,
Speaker 2: from the ship sinking over the horizon to the flight
Speaker 2: times between cities in the Southern hemisphere. Every piece of
Speaker 2: evidence supports every other piece hold one thread and the
Speaker 2: others hold. Pull ten and the others hold. You would
Speaker 2: have to pull them all simultaneously, and to do that
Speaker 2: you would have to reject the entirety of physics, astronomy, geography, cartography, navigation, aviation, aviation,
Speaker 2: and the personal experience of every person who has ever
Speaker 2: looked at a lunar eclipse or watched a ship sail away.
Speaker 2: That is the scale of denial required, and the fact
Speaker 2: that people are willing to engage in denial at that scale,
Speaker 2: that they will sacrifice relationships, credibility, and basic coherence to
Speaker 2: maintain It tells you something profound.
Speaker 3: Not about the shape of the earth. We know the
Speaker 3: shape of the earth. It tells you.
Speaker 2: Something about the shape of the human need to feel special,
Speaker 2: to feel chosen, to feel like you see what others cannot.
Speaker 2: I recognize that need. I see it in every movement
Speaker 2: I study. It is, in its way, one of the
Speaker 2: most human things there is. It is also one of
Speaker 2: the most exploitable. And that intersection between the very human
Speaker 2: need to matter and the very human vulnerability to manipulation.
Speaker 2: That intersection is exactly where I live. The earth is round.
Speaker 2: The evidence is overwhelming, ancient, modern, simple, complex, independently replicable,
Speaker 2: and universally consistent. And the fact that this evidence must
Speaker 2: be stated and restated and defended in the twenty first
Speaker 2: century is not a testament to the weakness of the evidence.
Speaker 2: It is a testament to the power of the human
Speaker 2: mind to protect itself from truths that threaten the stories
Speaker 2: it needs to survive. That is what makes this worth studying,
Speaker 2: not the shape of the earth, the shape of denial.
Speaker 2: Thank you for spending this time with me. If what
Speaker 2: you heard here made you think, made you uncomfortable, or
Speaker 2: made you look at a shadow a little differently, then
Speaker 2: the evidence did its job, even if the words were mine. Subscribe,
Speaker 2: share this with someone who needs to hear it, and
Speaker 2: leave alike if you believe the truth deserves an audience.
Speaker 2: This show is brought to you by Quiet Please Podcast Networks.
Speaker 2: For more content like this, please go to Quiet Please
Speaker 2: dot Ai. I'm Ava Gray from the Quiet Please Network.
Speaker 2: Let me tell you something I find fascinating. We spend
Speaker 2: our lives learning to see through what's fake, the false
Speaker 2: fronts the manufactured personas. But when something is genuinely real,
Speaker 2: you feel it, you know. That's what struck me about
Speaker 2: Amorutini Luminosity de drops from lovend Us. They call it
Speaker 2: a facial inner bottle, and honestly, I don't argue with
Speaker 2: Resultsmoga Silk this rare golden silk from India, known for
Speaker 2: its extraordinary strength. Silver tips tea for antioxidant protection, a
Speaker 2: shagondo which helps your skin recover from stress and fatigue.
Speaker 2: These aren't marketing tricks. These are ingredients with centuries of
Speaker 2: purpose behind them. Each bottle even comes with copper crusted
Speaker 2: silk cocoons for gentle exfoliation. Your skin actually absorbs what
Speaker 2: you're giving it. The texture is lightweight, works across all
Speaker 2: skin types, all tones, all ages, Vogue, Forbes, Harper's Bizarre
Speaker 2: l They've all taken notice. It sells out on QVC repeatedly,
Speaker 2: and there's a reason for that. If your skin looks tired, dull, stressed,
Speaker 2: this brings back the firmness, the glow, the life. Go
Speaker 2: to lovendoos dot com, use promo code point that's POI
Speaker 2: in t and you'll receive a twenty one percent discount.
Speaker 2: The link is in the episode description, and your participation
Speaker 2: helps us continue to make content like this.
Speaker 3: No manipulation required.
Speaker 1: Quiet, please dot ai hear what matters