6 thoughts on “Sargent responds to tough questions”

  1. My thoughts:

    First of all, I give Mark credit for at least attempting to answer the tough questions and face the fire.

    1) I have no issue with Mark having tech background. Millions of people have a tech background, including myself. It’s not a red flag for me. That said, perhaps Mark would be willing to have a private conversation about his tech background, specifically in the video game industry, an industry I spent several years in myself. I would assume his name would appear in the credits of whatever video games he worked on. I live in Colorado and would be happy to meet Mark for lunch and have a friendly exchange of ideas. So, if you’re reading this Mark, whaddya say?

    2) Mark happens to be from an area that is near a military base. I live near a military base in Colorado, hundreds of thousands of people live near one in San Diego as well as millions of other Americans, so this isn’t a red flag for me either.

    3) Mark sounds nervous in the interview, specifically the first 30 minutes to an hour. His back story is quite polished and at times it sounds like it’s well rehearsed. There are times where he stutters and stammers and my gut tells me not to trust him. Still, this could just be him being nervous at all the attention he’s received. It doesn’t always feel like a real person is being interviewed in a calm, relaxed conversation the way ab and guests speak, or the way Eric Dubay gives an interview. In other words, it doesn’t always “feel” like a real person vs a personality.
    Having said this, I think it’s important to not jump the gun and label him a shill too quickly. I think Eric makes this mistake as he showed by banning Unreal for challenging the readers on the silly Judy Wood theory. Shills expose themselves over time, there’s no need pull out the sword and cut their heads off from the get-go. We owe it to ourselves to try to remain open minded, not for Mark’s sake but for our own. If he’s a shill, it will become more and more apparent as he does more interviews and videos.

    4) Mark doesn’t provide as much technical analysis and real world evidence, like Eric does. He admits he brushes with broad strokes, so I give him credit for that. But he should recognize and acknowledge the dangers of this, in terms of how it would look to a newcomer to the subject that may not have the same type of patience that some of us do … there’s a responsibility there that he doesn’t seem to take too seriously. Anyone can make a Youtube video. I have thought about putting together a few myself, but never did because I can recognize that there are others who are more knowledgeable on the subject than I am and can eloquently explain things better than I ever could. At times I find myself thinking that he’s not qualified to even be giving these interviews, given that he’s only been at this for 9 months. But he speaks as if he has more knowledge than others on the subject and seems too happy/quick to embrace the role of “leader” which rubs me the wrong way.

    5) It would be great if Mark would explicitly let the listener know that he is speculating about certain aspects of the subject (the ice wall, for example). By not doing so, he comes off as someone trying to hijack the movement (intentionally or not). If Mark would be willing to edit the audio of his Clues pieces and make some updates, this would go a LONG way to establishing credibility.

    6) Mark’s explanations of how he made his videos are satisfying to me. They’re not high-tech, slick productions (certainly not as polished as Betsy McGee’s productions). They are simple slide shows with images that anyone can find on the internet.

    7) Mark is a newcomer to the subject (9 months), whereas Eric has been studying this for years. It would be great if Mark could show a bit more respect for Eric’s work (perhaps start by reading his book).

    8) While something doesn’t necessarily sit right with his “style” of speaking/interviewing, it’s nothing conclusive. At times, Mark sounds like your typical media personality and I’m cautious because of that. Still, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt (for now). I’d like to see Mark continue with his videos and address some of these questions. He should at least verbally take a back-seat and let the viewer know that he’s a rookie and not an expert.

    9) Mark’s speculations about an invisible Dome for which he has no real world evidence for are suspect. His insistence on using “Atomic Weapons” in rockets fired at this Dome is also troubling. He should address some of this stuff and not just sweep it under the wrong. Does he believe that Nuclear Weapons exist? Has he studied the evidence?

    10) Finally, it bothers me that Mark uses the word Clues in his documentary and this is a big issue. I’d like to hear his thoughts on 9/11, Simon’s research and the Cluesforum body of research. Mark says that he had never heard of September Clues which I find shocking. How can one come all the way to the Flat Earth question without ever coming across the Cluesforum research? Mark should show some good faith by registering at Cluesforum and spending a few months (years) reading some of the material over there. He should also consider changing the name of his documentary to “Flat Earth Questions” or something else. This would go a long way to showing good faith and helping us trust him.

    I will reserve judgement for now but I do think Mark deserves some credit for at least bringing the issue to the forefront with his videos, allowing researchers like myself to dig a little deeper. For that, I thank him.

    Oh, and one more thing – the woman giving the interview is fantastic. Great pacing and tough questions, kudos.

  2. Very interesting.

    re: NO HOLLYWOOD MOVIE about the moonlanding
    It occurred to me that Tom Hanks made Magnificent Desolation for IMAX theatres a few years ago. From what I can see on the the web, it looks pretty good and seems to me to essentially give away the farm by demonstrating how thorougly the moonlanding scenes can be faked. I wasn’t interested in seeing it because I couldn’t be bothered driving the 10 miles and paying for admission and parking. I had already concluded the landings were faked. Mark didn’t point to this movie. Neither did the interviewer.

    Very good conversation on that. It occurred to me for the first time that they should have used the nasa hats or shaved the heads brushcuts even for women since hairs could shed and get into equipment. Then Mark pointed that they have indeed gone with short hair for all of them now. www.bing.com/images/search?q=shuttle+astronaut+hairdos&go=Submit&qs=n&form=QBILPG&pq=shuttle+astronaut+hairdos&sc=0-18&sp=-1&sk=

    Very good point was made about the elevation as really high consistent with ice wall perimeter. I’ve never thought about that before quite in this way. I had heard that elevation was high but tying it into flat earth is new to me. I looked up elevation on Wikipedia– sure enough elevation maps exist. What struck me at the beginning of that Wiki article was “permanent population = 0″… despite “”5,000 temporary residents”. I thought about this further and it seems a bit odd that in today’s high tech world that we still don’t have a “permanent town” in Antarctica similar to the wild west days of America– with a saloon-type whorehouse, a fledgling industry in penguin meat, and “settlers”. Then it occurred to me that “if penguins can survive, why can’t settlers?”. We always see scenes of thousands of penguines and walrus… certainly man can survive like a penguin. Then it occurred to me that they say 98% is covered by ice– which means 2% is not– the northern “tip” of antarctica that stretches to Chile– so why didn’t the Chileans cross the straight and create a settlement town on the 2% dry land and eat penguin meat?

    1. Definitely up for a roundtable, let me know when.

      Mark’s latest interview:

      The amount of interviews he’s pumping out is a bit troubling. It’s also troubling to hear him say things like:

      “My model” – What model is that exactly?

      “I came up with…”


      He also talks about “the edge” as if it’s a fact that there is an edge. Of course there is exactly zero evidence that any such “edge” exists, whether it’s at ground level or a ceiling above.

      Mark’s wild speculations about how thick the earth is and what’s “underneath” the earth are a real turnoff, also supported by exactly zero evidence.

      Even the idea of an “enclosed world” is pure speculation. “This system probably sits on a much bigger system.” Really? Per what evidence?

      It’s also interesting that Mark formulates a bunch of speculation about Byrd and this one interview he gave which is more likely than not a bunch of propaganda. That Mark takes a television interview for fact rather than disinfo is suspect. Is he unfamiliar with how the media works? I can’t imagine how someone who understands NASA fakery and propaganda would suddenly take the word of a military man (Naval Admiral) from a television interview as the truth. If Byrd said he found Aliens in Antarctica, would Mark believe that story? Unfortunately, drawing conclusions from any of Byrd’s stories doesn’t hold much water, imo.

Leave a Reply