Mark Sargent

Yes, I know. If you use headphones these interviews often are not good. But if you put it on speakers they are fine.

Yes, this is all I ever wanted to do. To speak freely about the points that make me suspect (the religious point of view, and the too many sudden interviews) and the points that make me hope he's not a "shill". Now if those who put us on trial there read this forum, they should come here and apologize to all of us, once they see that we are working as "shills" on a forum with 8 members.

min.32
he talks about the controversy with Eric

He still talks about the "creators" and those that might be "guarding the firmament".  It's the same thing as always, planting the seeds of some crazy "alien" thing or something? 

But really, how is this any different than what Eric does?  Eric calls Mark a shill for this kind of blabber.  But while Eric does deny the "alien" nonsense, Eric is still feeding this same unbiblical analysis about the whole thing, even going to far as to arrogantly attack the Bible to the max.  Does that make Eric a shill as well?

And Matt did the same with his recent videos regarding the "other places on the plane".

Which again, is why the word "shill" is so lame.  On this one issue alone, you could label all three of them to be shills, if you use this as the standard.

So what can you get from these men?  I believe each of them has something to offer.  Mark does a good job with the flight routes.  Matt does a good job with the motivations of the world conspirators and why they would lie about it.  Eric does a good job with the mathematics and mechanics of a flat earth.

Agreed completely.  Which is why Eric going on the "shill" label rampage, makes no sense.

Latest interview:



pretty funny interview, the funniest of all his interviews, and one of the most interesting ones, together with the second fakeologist interview (in this case, too, with questions by callers):
ifers.boards.net/post/1288/thread

Nice editing of quotes in the first 3 minutes

Radio show with questions from callers, pretty funny call at minutes 7-8

min. 13:
Mark gets asked another abrupt personal question. At fakeologist's second interview, it was "are you a Christian?" by UNreal, this time it is "how old are you?". He answers "46". Whereas the prompt answer "Yes!" to the spiritual question did not satisfy me, this one was apparently a sincere reply and it satisfied me.

Of course, you don't have to be religious to be right. I know religious people who are wrong about a lot of stuff and illogical about even more. Please join and debate with the rest of us

P.S: It seems to me this issue and his overall shill and disinfo paranoia is clearly becoming a shoot in his own foot for Dubay

Here's yet another interview:



At minute 6, Mark gives out some more personal information, about his job and his trip to Egypt. The more personal information he keeps on providing, the less he seems like a "shill" to me.

At minute 10, he discusses Matt Boylan.

Minute 27: Mark is asked and discusses the difference between the FES and IFERS. He's only been critical of FES in the past, and this was to me a point in favor of the not-a-shill hypothesis.

Minute 41: flight routes, very interesting (more information on the subject than usual)

A 3 hour hangout with Lisa M. Harrison, Mark Sargent and Lily Earth (?) where the let their heads spin and speculate the heck out of FET and bringing up all ideas that come to their minds of what might be going on with mother Earth.

Naaasty speculation all over without having asked for absolution from FET-Monopol-holder Dubay.

And guess what ....no one is hurt by this 3 hour hardcore speculation hangout

Thanks for posting it. I had missed it, too. Longest interview so far: 3 hours. And thanks for your feedback, guests.

Anyone, please feel free to write down your notes on a post as you listen to it. Best if you write down the minutes where he says something.

Here's my note for now:

minute 1: I am remarking he is always holding that globe. Obviously, I get suspicious about it. However, he could simply be shy, and needs to hold something in his hand.

Some things make me appreciate him, and some things make me suspicious (cf. first post I wrote in this thread).

Hmm, interesting. Thanks for the detailed feedback. If you have more time and feel like it, we could keep discussing these interviews in the future. For today I would like to mention just one more important doubt I had about him, the most important doubt.

I keep wondering about that "yes!" when he was asked by UNreal (which here below I kept calling, by mistake, "Andrea") if he is a Christian (we suspect he is not):
ifers.boards.net/post/1288/thread

Well, great, then. You have addressed all my questions, because elsewhere (maybe it was on IFERS) you wrote that he is getting all these interviews simply because he is easygoing and put his contacts on his videos. Another question I had was indeed why he was getting all these interviews with hosts who said "I just came across your video...".

Your hypothesis could very well be true. I am not positive it is true, but certainly after he was attacked on IFERS the way he was attacked, he will not go back there to explain his point of view. So I now regret having participated in that thread that attacked him, although I did not attack him enough to avoid being banned and labeled as a "Mark Sargent shill".

By the way, feel free to start your own threads on any subject (or register if that is needed to create a thread). The threads here range from flat earth to "my journal", on which I write whatever is on my mind.

Another guest poster said that on IFERS, that he is easy going and offers the contact details so that folks who want an interview can easily reach him.
But yes, I would agree.

You know what? To me Mark Sargent just seems to not take himself or the FET matter too seriously!
He decided to release that video series and he did it good and hence the listeners liked it!
It is easy to like them. What I think all former material lacks is a kind of structure, a golden thread of thoughts. They are often too long, jump around with the thoughts they like want to point out, messy, a lot of snippets from other sources, often you dont know what it exactly wants to say.
But are Sargents videos too good to be true?
I dont think so. A lot of people claim they are way too professional.
I have a freeware software where I can do similar things.
Lets analyse the typical flat earth clue video: You see different pictures fading in and being zoomed in and out a bit of twisting while zooming, next picture same effect and you have a voice over. And you have a title coming in with a nice effect and so on...
I know my software can do that too and I already made similar videos and used similar effects and it worked easy and fine and I am just a layman on that. The effects I see are basic video editing features. If Sargent really worked in the media design area it shouldnt be such a big thing to make it slightly better than me.
As a layman can copy that style with freeware software means. Not to mention that some professional video editing software often has huge libraries of effects that you apply just with a mouseclick.

The material that "My perspective" uploaded is from my perspective (haha no pun intended) way more difficult to put together. As he had to first create all these pictures to show what is wrong with the globe theory if you consider the rules of perspective (Compare to Mark Sargent pics - they could as well be taken from google and I think I saw a watermark on some of them, which would mean he took them from professional picture databases. They have tons of professional pictures that you have to pay money for to use them. Just because a picture is professional doesnt mean the whole video is difficult to put together. And: If there is a watermark on it it means he took the free preview picture. When you pay you certainly get the picture without watermark). But no one is flaming against My perspective that he must be a shill because his material is way too professional.

I once made a video where I wanted to explain a topic and I sat down and wrote a script to make sure I get all important points mentioned and mention them in easy sentences. I had to try a few takes until I figured out how to read it that it sounds natural and not scripted.
But it wasnt so difficult either.

So there is too much fuss about the style of the flat earth clue videos.
The only thing that is remarkable is that he said he did them in like ten days one after another.
That is quite a workload. But it is possible. You have folks that can get very ambitious and enthusiastic when they have an idea and want to get the project done.
The thing is you CAN do it in ten days. If you have the time. Video editing can be fun and capture you for hours. But as I know that it can easily capture me for hours once I start I think twice when I start to create a new video that needs some editing Time goes like sand through your fingers if you engage it such creative stuff.

The only thing Mark Sargent really did extraordinary well is slicing the topic up into reasonable parts, one video per part and each one not too long and made his mind up what he wants to say in the voice over and how to say it so that everyone can easily understand the point he wants to make.
This shows the ability of strategic thinking and the ability to see things from the perspective of the audience.
I think I remember Mark Sargent also said he was working in the fields of software training.
So it is natural to establish these abilities if you dont have them in the first place. You are paid for providing good seminars to the audience. And a good software seminar is when the listeners come out of the room and say, yes I am overally prepared to work with the software, I understood who to apply its basic features.
So the teacher has to sit down and think of an order of how to present the new software and how to explain it easily.
Same thing with flat earth clues.