6 March 2020 /Uncategorized

Mark Sargent is a Shill Behind the Lines in a War on True Science

Mark:


Please address each of my points in my email. You have skirted the issues I raised. Your responses during the CBS interview clearly indicated:


1) You agreed that the flat earth is based on “hunches, doubts, maybe selective evidence."
2) You agreed that there are "mounds of evidence establishing the science behind a spherical globe.”
3) You expressly stated that you “cannot” prove that the earth is flat.


Indeed, you were in agreement with the interviewer on those points right out of the gate. Your explanation is that "I nod and agree with every host's opening statements. It's part of what I do. I lure them in by NOT being defensive."


Agreeing with a false premise is not luring anyone in. By doing that, you painted yourself into a corner. You put yourself on their field of battle. And, indeed, when given the opportunity to explain your position, instead of correcting their erroneous foundation, which you could not do because you have already agreed with it, you drive home their conclusion and state, without equivocation, that you cannot prove that the earth is flat. You were being interviewed as the expert advocate on flat earth and you, the authority on flat earth, agreed with the interviewer that the scientific proof is that the earth is a sphere and it is just a hunch that the earth is flat. You then close out by stating that you cannot prove that the earth is flat!


After that, there is nothing that you could have said to convince anyone that the earth is flat.


In your email, you defend your approach by claiming that "[a]lmost all exposure is good exposure. Would you rather have had CBS not run the piece? If so then you really aren't getting how this all works."


In my world, truth matters. You seem not to understand that propaganda works. Propaganda can be true and it can be false. Helping the major media promote lies and deception is furthering false propaganda. I want the truth to be told. Aiding and abetting deception just to get publicity makes one an accomplice to that deception. You seem okay with that. I am not.


Your defense that you "get compliments on how I conduct myself during interviews. Every. Single. Day" is really irrelevant. I want answers to the specific issues I raised. How do you explain yourself? Please stay on point.


Ed



On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 1:31 PM MARK SARGENT msargent23@comcast.net wrote:


Hi Ed,



I understand your doubts, and I've been hearing them since I first made the clues. Please remember that the bigger the media, the more time to take to refine the editing. The CBS Dallas interview was in November. Adam and I spoke several times for over an hour and he HATED Flat Earth. He hated the conference, he hated me, and was horrified that the little girl and her family were standing next to us waiting for the interview to end so that they could speak with me.


You are correct, I nod and agree with every hosts opening statements. It's part of what I do. I lure them in by NOT being defensive. I've done hundreds of these things, and many start off the same way. We KNOW the earth is a globe, there are mountains of evidence, yet almost all the hosts never follow up. I let them go down that path for exactly that reason. At the end of the interview they circled back to me. I stated that FE should be taught in schools. I push scientists, and even put my life on the line with my vacuum chamber challenge. I paid for the Dallas books, I donated 1000 pounds to the UK Globe lie tour. I've flown out to I don't know how many meetups, and promoted hundreds more on my channel. If I can't connect directly with media requests, then I recommend local area people who can, happily.


I also get compliments on how I conduct myself during interviews. Every. Single. Day.


If you think that someone else can handle the media better, please by all means, promote them. It makes no difference to me.


Lastly, remember this. Almost all exposure is good exposure. Would you rather have had CBS not run the piece? If so then you really aren't getting how this all works.


Eric Dubay has been calling me a shill for five years now, based on nothing. You think I'm a government agent because I "looked shifty" on CBS? That's a personal bias, and is just divides the community. We're all on the same team, a team by the way that I'm willing to die for. Can you say the same?


Mark



On Mar 6, 2020, at 11:28 AM, Edward Hendrie edwardhendrie@gmail.com wrote:


Why is it that every time a major media organization decides to interview an “expert” advocate on behalf of the flat earth, they trot out Mark Sargent to be that expert advocate? The reason for that is that he is on their team. The interviews are scripted to undermine the truth of the flat earth and the credibility of its advocates. Mark Sargent is a shill.


Up until now, I have been silent about publically pronouncing my suspicions regarding Mark Sargent because I lacked the evidence to substantiate them. But the recent interview conducted by Adam Yamaguchi for a CBS documentary confirms my suspicions.



Adam Yamaguchi, Executive Producer of the CBS Documentary, The War On Science, interviews Mark Sargent in the video found at the link above.


The interview with Sargent begins at 2:48 of the video, during which, there is the following exchange between Yamaguchi and Sargent:


Yamaguchi: You have mounds of evidence
Sargent: Um um (lifting head and pursing lips in agreement)
Yamaguchi: establishing the science
Sargent: Ah ah (openly smiling and lifting his head in agreement)
Yamaguchi: behind a spherical globe.
Sargent: Right (closing eyes and nodding in agreement)


Yamaguchi: You have hunches doubts, maybe selective evidence
Sargent: Um (smiling, closing eyes, and nodding in agreement)
Yamaguchi: suggesting that it’s flat.
Sargent: Right


Yamaguchi: Apples and oranges, no?
Sargent: Yah (nodding in agreement)


Sargent: Can I prove to you, well obviously not you, but can I prove to anybody right now that the earth is flat? No, I cannot.


Listen closely and watch the interaction between the Yamaguchi and Sargent. It is obvious that it is not an impromptu interview but rather a scripted exchange. Sargent agrees with Yamaguchi in each of his statements before Yamaguchi finishes the statement. How does Sargent know to agree with Yamaguchi without knowing the object about which Yamaguchi is speaking? Obviously, Sargent knew ahead of time what Yamaguchi was going to say.


Notice also that Yamaguchi is not asking questions, but he is rather making statements. Sargent is playing the role of agreeing with those statements.


Immediately upon Yamaguchi saying: “You have mounds of evidence,” Sargent agrees with him. Mounds of evidence for what? How does Sargent know to agree without knowing what is the object of "the mounds of evidence?"


Immediately upon Yamaguchi saying: “You have hunches doubts, maybe selective evidence,” Sargent immediately, without hesitation, agrees with him. How does Sargent know to agree with the statement without knowing the object of the “hunches doubts, maybe selective evidence?”


Sargent is a shill that is being set up to undermine the true science behind the flat earth. He agreed with Yamaguchi that there are mounds of evidence “establishing” the science that the earth is a sphere. And he agreed with Yamaguchi that only hunches, doubts, and selective science “suggest” that the earth is flat. He did all of that at intervals during the course of Yamaguchi’s statements and not at the end as would be expected if it were truly an interview.


Sargent knows to agree with each statement before Yamaguchi completes the statements. When Yamaguchi does finally ask a question, Sargent completely capitulates and agrees that the “hunches doubts, maybe selective evidence” for flat earth cannot hold a candle to the “mounds of evidence establishing the science behind a spherical globe.” Sargent agrees that they are on two completely different levels, as different as apples are from oranges.


Then Sargent goes in for the kill and deceptively states that he “cannot” prove that the earth is flat.


During the entire interview, Sargent portrays himself as a shifty-eyed charlatan. That is the role he is playing. That is how the scientific establishment and mass media want the public to envision an advocate of the flat earth.


Yamaguchi and Sargent are two clowns on the stage of pseudoscience that are put there to entertain the gullible masses and conceal the truth of the flat earth.


Ed

Subscribe to Shall Not Be Moved

Get updates sent to your email