Shot down by aliens?

[kwackers]

Did he crash, did he collide with "the dome" or did aliens/the man shoot him down?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-51602655

Apologies; I could have tagged this on the end of the other flat earth thread but I didn't...

[661-Pete]

Yes, I saw that story. It may be a bit callous to say this, but surely this guy qualifies for a 'Darwin' award par excellence?!

I'm now off to visit the Flat Earth Society forum - to see their take on this poor chap's demise. Have to be carefully tactful if I post anything. They may be nutters, but they're still people...

[wirral_cyclist]

[quote="661-Pete"]Yes, I saw that story. It may be a bit callous to say this, but surely this guy qualifies for a 'Darwin' award par excellence?!

Darwin award is for really dumb folk who must remove themselves from the gene pool, so that's a given - but if he was sterile would he still qualify for an award?

[peetee]

I read somewhere that the wooden parachute failed to deploy.

[mercalia]

should have been posted under the steam bicycle thread, as the rocket was steam powered?

[Fairweather]

I hope this doesn't start a flood of flat earth conspiracists!

[kwackers]

I hope this doesn't start a flood of flat earth conspiracists!

Floods can only happen on flat earths, on globe shaped earths the water just dribbles down and falls off the south pole...

[pete75]

Yes, I saw that story. It may be a bit callous to say this, but surely this guy qualifies for a 'Darwin' award par excellence?!

Darwin award is for really dumb folk who must remove themselves from the gene pool, so that's a given - but if he was sterile would he still qualify for an award?

He's alreday passed on his genes to his two children Perhaps you'd like to explain to them why his demise is a good thing. Anyhow there's not much difference between folks who talk about a "Darwin" award and those who advocate eugenics.

[kwackers]

Yes, I saw that story. It may be a bit callous to say this, but surely this guy qualifies for a 'Darwin' award par excellence?!

I'm now off to visit the Flat Earth Society forum - to see their take on this poor chap's demise. Have to be carefully tactful if I post anything. They may be nutters, but they're still people...

In his defence he did claim not to be a flat earther - more an agnostic.
He reckoned he was going to go up to prove it once and for all.

My problem with that is how do you prove the earth is flat or round from only a few miles up?
All you'll see is a small disc, the crown of whatever bit of the earth you're over. Unless you can stay up long enough to see it rotate you'll prove nothing except that most of the continents are either missing or they're not what we've been told and that the earth (if it is flat) is a disc.

[kwackers]

Anyhow there's not much difference between folks who talk about a "Darwin" award and those who advocate eugenics.

Technically eugenics is how nature works.
Not sure how talking about Darwin awards is the same as advocating eugenics, that's a bit of a leap...

Anyways, I reckon over my lifetime I've had a couple of close brushes with Darwinism - as I suspect most people have, particularly in their rash youth.
It's an interesting question, why are youths so rash and thoughtless in their actions when you'd think nature would have ensured that if anything they should be more conservative than us oldies?
There's obviously a cost/benefit ratio to such behaviour.

[pete75]

Anyhow there's not much difference between folks who talk about a "Darwin" award and those who advocate eugenics.

Technically eugenics is how nature works.
Not sure how talking about Darwin awards is the same as advocating eugenics, that's a bit of a leap...

Anyways, I reckon over my lifetime I've had a couple of close brushes with Darwinism - as I suspect most people have, particularly in their rash youth.
It's an interesting question, why are youths so rash and thoughtless in their actions when you'd think nature would have ensured that if anything they should be more conservative than us oldies?
There's obviously a cost/benefit ratio to such behaviour.

I was going by Wirral cyclist's definition "Darwin award is for really dumb folk who must remove themselves from the gene pool" - isn't that what eugenics is all about, removing what is considered "undesirable" form the gene pool .

[661-Pete]

Well, on the FE forum, they're saying that 'globularists' shot the thing down - 'globularists' being one of their words for us sad, deluded folk, who actually believe that the Earth is round....

But others have pointed out, rightly, that this is all in poor taste and one shouldn't speak ill of the dead.

[kwackers]

I was going by Wirral cyclist's definition "Darwin award is for really dumb folk who must remove themselves from the gene pool" - isn't that what eugenics is all about, removing what is considered "undesirable" form the gene pool .

I'll concede that.

Darwinism doesn't really care about "dumb". It's a conceit of the human race that intelligence is a desirable trait - amazing when you consider that we're currently on a roller coaster to our species oblivion.
A few hundred thousand years (a few tens as 'modern' humans), not really something to shout about and certainly not a vindication of intelligence.
If only dinosaurs* could see us now...

(*Yes I realise dinosaurs are more directly comparable to mammals than humans)

[Psamathe]

But his trajectory back to Earth would have proven if the Earth were flat or not (ask Brian Cox about that after his "foot-in-the-mouth" pre-recorded statement about free-fall trajectories where he got it wrong - despite advisers, editors, re-takes, etc.).

Ian

[mattheus]

Jeez, the Darwin Award people aren't going around KILLING stupid people!

They're just having a laugh at the idiots' expense. Sure, you can argue that's in bad taste - but to describe it as "eugenics" is absurd. Almost as funny as Flat Earthers!