“...if a person hasn’t truly been taught the why of believing something rather than the what, then they are an easy prey for all sorts of odd ideas.”

I know a flat-earther, and have studied it in some depth. I do not subscribe to it, but it is not as easily dismissed as one might think. (A good primer can be viewed here). And not all flat-earthers are fools.

The author states some points that I too have encountered. But in my experience flat-earth advocates do not mention Columbus. They usually trace the beginning of the “conspiracy” to the beginning of the scientific revolution in the mid to late 16th and early 17th centuries.

Many Christian flat-earthers do place a lot of emphasis upon the Book of Enoch (the same way many ‘Nephilim’ hunters do). Rob Skiba even seems to think it has a claim to be canonical.

Of course, as Faulkner points out, you have to be immersed in conspiracy theories to swallow this view. I just cannot begin to believe all that one must believe in order to embrace flat-earth. Too, many Christian flat-earthers hold anti-semitic views. One source (Edward Hendrie) even believes the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are factual.

Neither do I believe the main reason to hold the view is hubris. Rather, for many I think they are honestly skeptical of (and fed up with) the patronizing pronouncements of modern scientism. What greater way to thumb ones nose at the establishment than accept a flat-earth?

Finally, while I reject flat-earth theory completely, the Michelson-Morley experiment, along with those of Sagnac and Airy, do offer support for the geocentric model proposed by Tycho Brahe. That is worth taking a gander at.

http://www.citypages.com/news/on-the-banks-of-bde-maka-ska-a-flat-earth…