RT Promoting Flat Earth?

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
20171116-065927-ly65m.jpg

This article starts out praising the usefulness of YouTube, then has a brief diversion in YouTube videos as evidence of Satanic Abuse, and then changes into something that I can't tell if it's rejecting or supporting the the Flat Earth hypothesis:

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/316642-youtube-art-investigation-research/ http://archive.is/ntPJR
Another point of interest was how battle lines formed across the debate. On the one hand are the new pioneers – those who are essentially very good at presenting in accessible, modern terms ideas which had been all but killed off by the time they were born. Then there are the enquirers: those who – presumably, like me – had not been able to understand mainstream science’s explanations of tilted balls spinning very fast governed by a magical force so strong it holds the seas to the surface but so weak birds can fly about in the sky. Then there are the supporters of modern science who appear affronted to the point of apoplexy that doubt should cast in this time of NASA footage and Hubble telescopes upon something which is so universally accepted.
...
YouTube provided a wonderful platform on which to listen to various points of view – be they for, against, or merely lost. It was all new to me. I sucked it all in. And I thought about it for a while.

And then I did my research.

I read Samuel Rowbotham’s book Zetetic Astronomy. And then I read another couple of books by some men who have been dead for a while. I went away and learnt something about the principles of perspective. I formulated some simple tests I could do myself in the real world involving actual land and water to demonstrate to myself whether I am on a spinning ball hurtling endlessly through space or whether I am on a fixed plane at the center of things – objective, repeatable tests.

I did those tests. I formed my conclusions. And then I packed that particular question away in a box marked "done."

But I realized that for many on both sides of the debate – and the reason perhaps why passions rose so quickly – is that while the watching of YouTube videos has exposed the internet generation to old ideas it would never otherwise have encountered, mere watching has become synonymous with actual research.
Content from External Source
At first I couldn't figure out if he thinks the Earth is flat or not.

The writer, Sam Gerrans, has a complicated web site and ebook dedicated to his personal interpretation of the Quran. His other articles on RT^ are largely socially conservative, nationalistic and pro Russia opinion pieces.

His articles on his blog are something different:
https://www.quranite.com/flat-earth-quran/ (http://archive.is/z2ZTK)

I don’t feel like I live on a spinning ball. I only have NASA’s word for it. And, frankly, I have no good reason to believe either them or the media system^ which promotes both NASA and their ‘genius’ Einstein^.

See Eric Dubay and Jeranism on YouTube for intelligent modern summaries, or look into Samuel Rowbotham who was saying the same thing in different words long ago.

In the absence of anything but CGI and insultingly badly acted press conferences from NASA, I’m going to stick with the evidence of my own eyes and the word of God.
Content from External Source
So he does believe the Earth is flat. Eric Dubay and Jeranism are two of the most shared promoters of the Flat Earth theory - and Rowbotham is the 19th Century originator of many of the more ridiculous claims of evidence they still use today.

So what's going on? Does RT just have really lax editorial standards? Is this just like a blog that happens to be hosted on RT? Or does RT actually approve of these articles written by and eccentric muslim Flat Earther? Are they simply promoting different voices, or is there some broader goal in promoting conspiracy theories as extreme as Flat Earth?
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The author of the RT article, Sam Geerans, also say the Quran predicts "Chemtrails"
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7t4IvTzeIdo

Sam Gerrans
Published on Nov 28, 2016

SUBSCRIBE 2.3K
In this video I outline my thoughts on chemtrails with regard to the Qur'an. At surah 44:10 the Qur'an speaks about 'obvious smoke' in the sky 'covering the people'. Look in the sky today: do you not see 'obvious smoke'? Called chemtrails – and derided as a conspiracy theory (by the same interests which control our food, education, entertainment and economy) – it is clear to those with capacity for independent thought that something is going on above our heads.
...


Your lord And lord of your fathers of old. The truth is: they are in doubt, playing. So wait thou for a day when the sky will produce obvious smoke Covering the people. This is a painful punishment! Our lord: remove thou from us the punishment We are believers!
Content from External Source
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
it sounds to me, by his wording, that he believes the earth is flat. btw..

I had become interested in the sky a few years ago and tried to learn something about what is going on up there, what the relationships are between the earth and the sun and the moon.

But my brain works in a particular way. I can only learn something I understand. And I can only understand something which makes sense. And since what I found in books didn’t make sense (it lost me at the claim the summer and winter come about because the earth is tilted – which makes no sense at all) I had been unable to get very far with it.
Content from External Source
just for point of reference from someone who understands very little 'complicated science', the tilt thing is not hard at all to understand!

But ultimately the "article" is under "Op-Edge".
upload_2017-11-13_21-37-1.png


so it is definitely an opinion piece. Russia is very proud of their space program. Perhaps the paper concluded, wrongly.. imo, he decided the earth is not Flat. or they are just trying to get conspiracy theorists -or Russian young citizens who are doubting THEIR gov - more on board with RT so they will believe RT's other bunk.
 

Attachments

  • i.JPG
    i.JPG
    17.5 KB · Views: 419

Trailspotter

Senior Member.
I do not read or watch RT, so my comment may be off topic. Could it be that the RT opinion piece in OP simply reflects on the American news?

Today on the BBC News site that I do visit regularly, the most watched piece is

Why do people still think the Earth is flat?
The Flat Earth International Conference in Raleigh, North Carolina, attracted hundreds of attendees who believe the shape of the Earth is a disc instead of a sphere.
Content from External Source
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/41973119/why-do-people-still-think-the-earth-is-flat

The FE supporters worldwide become noticeable. Yesterday I spotted a few of their comments to another BBC piece on the Venus and Jupiter conjunction:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41956191
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I do not read or watch RT, so my comment may be off topic. Could it be that the RT opinion piece in OP simply reflects on the American news?

It seems that way at first glance, however the writer of the piece does actually claim to be a believer in a Quran inspired Flat Earth, as well as Quran inspired chemtrails, and probably the whole raft of other theories. He's toned it down a bit for RT, but it's clear after reading his other work (on his blog and Youtube channel) that when he said

I formulated some simple tests I could do myself in the real world involving actual land and water to demonstrate to myself whether I am on a spinning ball hurtling endlessly through space or whether I am on a fixed plane at the center of things – objective, repeatable tests.

I did those tests. I formed my conclusions.
Content from External Source
That he actually thought he found was was on a fixed plane in the center of things.

This kind of reminds me of Abby Martin, one of their more well known presenters on RT TV. When RT recruited her in 2012 she was a solid 9/11 Controlled Demolition Truther.

Of course this guy is more extreme in his pseudoscience.

RT has also used Veteran's Today (a "jews did it, and everything is fake" general conspiracy site masquerading as an actual Veteran-related news site) as a source several times. In fact Sam Gerrans references VT as an example of a US site that supports Russia:
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/322690-russia-savior-decadent-west/

The US has squandered what moral capital and good will it had and is now openly regarded as the good guy gone bad by most the world. This has left a good-guy vacuum in the minds of many. And, increasingly, Russia is being regarded in that role – at least by some.
The thesis gaining ground is that Russia is the last bastion of goodness and virtue.

From Brother Nathanael, a Jewish American convert to Orthodox Christianity, to the American site Veterans Today praise for both Russia and Putin is copious and frequent.
Content from External Source
The question here, likely unanswerable, is to what extent is this just poor journalistic standards on RT's part, and to what extent is it the result of an active measures subversion agenda?
 

OTACHI

New Member
I know this guy called Sam Gerrans,i know him for some Islam related stuff,i think he is [...] making his own version of Islam and wild claims.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Atomic Nixon

New Member
Seeing as the entire US media and much of the international has bought the whole "Russia hacked the DNC" narrative without question I won't stare too hard at this. What I find much more harmful is their anti-GMO position and specifically their anti-glyphosate propagandizing. This doesn't set them apart from their western comrades either.
 

Vostok

New Member
As someone who checks out both RT and Sputnik international on a regular bases to see how things look on the other side of the fence, I'd say there's a fat chance of either supporting a flat earth.

To be specific, at least in Sputnik's case, it releases a lot of click-bait articles about UFOs and the like, but always directs the article to a scientific explanation or an official statement.

Regarding RT, well, as it was already pointed out that the article was opinion. Enough said.

And in a wider context, both outlets have no shortage of articles boasting about the Soviet space race contribution and the various milestones. It doesn't make too much sense for them to suddenly start a flat earth campaign, especially if their mission is, as most in the west put it, to push the position of the Kremlin.

As a final note. the Opinion articles I've seen on both RT and Sputnik are quite diverse in their expressed views. Naturally you get some that advocate some religious message, others do the opposite. Some praise the Russians, and on occasion, some condemn them.

Some links to related articles:
- https://www.rt.com/news/405678-flat-earth-theory-space-video/
- https://www.rt.com/uk/410845-earth-flat-flintoff-conspiracy/
- https://sputniknews.com/art_living/201502191018464253/

The language in these articles that are actually published by the outlet tell a different story. They use phrases like "Ridiculous remarks" when referring to certain unscientific views. But make of it what you will.
 

Unique Name

New Member
Good site.

But then I found it disheartening that the referenced article is here in the present context. It's not even remotely about flat earth, it's about youtube and, in part, how it gives absolutely anybody a platform/soapbox. It's about what can happen because of that. Flat earth is only an example. And this youtube thing happens to be a very interesting topic at the moment because it stands at the heart of the issues of the day: populism, tribalism, "the crisis of democracy", etc.

But instead of respecting the article for what it is, you latched on, clearly because it's RT, and posed your central question, are they supporting flat earth or not? Really? You are saying journalists are supposed to take sides now? Flat or geoid, there is something wrong with the shape of that world.

And surely if it's RT you're trying to somehow besmirch, drawing attention to their impartiality isn't likely your best bet.

And then you go on to propose some kind of conspiracy on the part of RT, some "broader goal", well, Mr Debunker, if you're in the business of concocting such preposterous theories I'm inclined to invite you to take your rightful place among the flat earthers.

Sorry. I've grown tired of vital news agencies being further marginalised by the gullible. You need to hear from all sides if you want any chance at the truth.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
But then I found it disheartening that the referenced article is here in the present context. It's not even remotely about flat earth, it's about youtube and, in part, how it gives absolutely anybody a platform/soapbox. It's about what can happen because of that. Flat earth is only an example. And this youtube thing happens to be a very interesting topic at the moment because it stands at the heart of the issues of the day: populism, tribalism, "the crisis of democracy", etc.

The point here is that the author is a flat earth believer who has been given a platform to share his beliefs on RT. That's what I'm focussing on. The fact that he also discusses other topics is not relevant.

But instead of respecting the article for what it is, you latched on, clearly because it's RT, and posed your central question, are they supporting flat earth or not? Really? You are saying journalists are supposed to take sides now? Flat or geoid, there is something wrong with the shape of that world.
Journalists should be on the side of truth and accuracy, yes. The shape of the Earth is demonstrably not something where they need to be impartial.

And then you go on to propose some kind of conspiracy on the part of RT, some "broader goal", well, Mr Debunker, if you're in the business of concocting such preposterous theories I'm inclined to invite you to take your rightful place among the flat earthers.
The idea that RT is attempting to muddy the waters of western discourse is hardly new, or even controversial. It's impossible to know if any one specific action is a deliberate choice, or just an emergent result of their general policies. Here I suspect the latter, but with less extreme conspiracy theories there's a high likely hood that they are deliberately promoting them.
 

DavidB66

Active Member
It is an unavoidable part of flat earth doctrine that the government and space agencies of Russia, and formerly of the Soviet Union, are part of a global - sorry, world-wide - conspiracy to suppress the flat earth truth. So it is hardly likely that RT would be genuinely endorsing such a doctrine. Let alone Sputnik, for obvious reasons. This would not prevent them from mischief-making aimed at Western audiences, which is a large part of their raison d'etre.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It is an unavoidable part of flat earth doctrine that the government and space agencies of Russia, and formerly of the Soviet Union, are part of a global - sorry, world-wide - conspiracy to suppress the flat earth truth. So it is hardly likely that RT would be genuinely endorsing such a doctrine. Let alone Sputnik, for obvious reasons. This would not prevent them from mischief-making aimed at Western audiences, which is a large part of their raison d'etre.

And just to be absolutely clear: it's the "mischief-making" that I'm suggesting RT is engaging in here.
 

Unique Name

New Member
The idea that RT is attempting to muddy the waters of western discourse is hardly new, or even controversial.

That's the problem. It goes something like this:

Western Media: Certain alternative news agencies are telling you that things are happening differently to the way we say they are happening. They're a bunch of liars.

Most Western People: Sure thing. We believe you without question. We'd never doubt the legitimacy of our own side.

So yes, the world is definitely not flat. But the worldview we're all being encouraged to have is worse than flat, it's one-sided.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Western Media: Certain alternative news agencies are telling you that things are happening differently to the way we say they are happening. They're a bunch of liars.

Most Western People: Sure thing. We believe you without question. We'd never doubt the legitimacy of our own side.

False. Most American's don't trust the media or the government.
http://wjla.com/news/nation-world/main-stream-media-continue-to-lose-the-publics-trust
[2016] In its annual confidence poll, Gallup found that Americans' trust in the mass media "to report the news fully, accurately and fairly" reached its lowest level in polling history, with only 32 percent saying they have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the media.
Content from External Source
http://www.people-press.org/2017/05...ar-historic-lows-as-partisan-attitudes-shift/
The national survey by Pew Research Center, conducted April 5-11 among 1,501 adults, finds that the overall level of trust in government remains near historic lows; just 20% say they trust the government to do what’s right always or most of the time. Far more say they trust the government only some of the time (68%); 11% volunteer that they never trust the government to do what’s right.
Content from External Source
 

Rory

Senior Member.
I do find those stats interesting, and am glad you posted them.

Though the previous assertion was about "most western people", not just Americans.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
Western Media: Certain alternative news agencies are telling you that things are happening differently to the way we say they are happening. They're a bunch of liars.

Most Western People: Sure thing. We believe you without question. We'd never doubt the legitimacy of our own side.

The worldview we're all being encouraged to have is worse than flat, it's one-sided.
Can you provide examples of this? While the mainstream news has reported on the modern phenomenom of fake news, it seems more in the way of interest and analysis rather than suppressing alternative viewpoints.

What is the "worldview we're all being encouraged to have"? I don't personally feel I'm being encouraged to have any particular worldview - and I imagine many people will feel the same.


I suppose it's difficult to separate out "trust the government to tell us the truth" with "trust the government to run the economy" or "trust the government to make correct foreign policy decisions" (et cetera).

[This data] rates [the BBC's] impartiality as only 6.4 (which means on average there is a 64% chance they ain't spinning or lying). Which in this day and age of "media", is a pretty dang good score if you ask me.
That is a good score. Perhaps especially good given it comes from a survey of the public:

https://downloads.bbc.co.uk/aboutth...bc_report_trust_and_impartiality_nov_2017.pdf

Moreso it means that there's a 64% chance the public don't think the BBC is spinning or lying.

I suppose a more accurate measure of the BBC's impartiality would have to be carried out by someone impartial. ;)
 

Keith Beachy

Senior Member
RT has been a platform for fringe claims, and conspiracy theories. RT has presented people arguing 9/11 was an inside job, UBL's death was faked. Most mainstream media explained 9/11 truth and FE are not based on evidence. RT did not explain FE is nonsense, and 9/11 truth claims were based on speculation, not evidence. RT is like the alternative news agencies spreading false claims, and supporting conspiracy theories. Not expecting real news without spin from a state run propaganda ministry.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
RT has been a platform for fringe claims, and conspiracy theories. RT has presented people arguing 9/11 was an inside job, UBL's death was faked. Most mainstream media explained 9/11 truth and FE are not based on evidence. RT did not explain FE is nonsense, and 9/11 truth claims were based on speculation, not evidence. RT is like the alternative news agencies spreading false claims, and supporting conspiracy theories. Not expecting real news without spin from a state run propaganda ministry.

Of course though there are also British tabloids (e.g. Daily Star, The Sun) that are platforms for fringe claims and conspiracy theories. Then there's the "state run" BBC, which (mostly) is not. The questions is really if RT are just being tabloid-like, or is their promotion of conspiracy theories different to the tabloids?
 

qed

Senior Member
An example of RT claiming 9-11 is a false flag and worse.


  • Funded and planned by With House - operation Gladio.
  • Decades of terrorist attacks against there own people organized by CIA and White House.
  • Enumerable regular meetings between US representataives and Bin Ladin's deputies, claims whistle blower Sibel Edmons.
  • WT7 collapse defies physics.
  • Etc
 
Last edited:
well compared to the competition.

the following slides rate their impartiality as only 6.4 (which means on average there is a 64% chance, they ain't spinning or lying. ) Which in this day and age of "media", is a pretty dang good score if you ask me.

pp.PNG

The government of the day (and presumably some supporters), particularly to the right, tend to accuse them of political bias. This is somewhat reassuring IMO.
 
Top