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:
At first I couldn't figure out if he thinks the Earth is flat or not.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.
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:
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.
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.
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?