Chatting with a Flat Earth Debunker
An interview with Conspiracy Catz.
A few weeks ago, I interviewed the educator and YouTuber Conspiracy Catz.
Catz is a popular debunker, best known for his work challenging the Flat Earth.
It was fascinating conversation, so I decided to share it online.
We covered a number of topics including: the role of education in combating misinformation, the important distinction between Flat Earthers and Young Earth Creationists, and how he got started on YouTube.
Catz was a fantastic interviewee and you can find his channels here and here.
You can watch the interview in its entirety, here. Alternatively, you can scroll to the bottom of this page!
If you prefer to read, I’ve transcribed a large portion of the interview below (severely edited and abridged!). Enjoy.
Thom: What is the weirdest conspiracy theory you’ve come across online?
Catz: Oh, the weirdest one… I mean Peter and Pete have got to be the two that come up with [the weirdest ones]. It just seems every single week they try and top themselves with a weirder conspiracy. “Are clouds made of salt?’ was one, “photosynthesis isn’t real” is another one they’ve said. I could go on and on with those two.
T: Those were your first videos. How did you get onto Flat Earth from there?
C: This is a story. When I was teaching full-time, I had a particular class of kids that […] didn’t really have any interest in science. But after one lesson one of the kids came up to me. They’d seen a video of a Flat Earther on YouTube and thought it was hilarious […]. I thought that, maybe, that was a way I could get them a bit more engaged in science. Maybe, if I did an interview with the Flat Earther and we showed that interview in the lesson, we could talk about all the scientific reasons why they’re wrong. It might spark a bit of an interest.
T: Do you think it was a risk to introduce your kids to Flat Earth?
C: That’s a really valid point. In this instance, it was the kids that brought it to me. They’d seen the video. So, from my point of view, I was addressing it rather than introducing it […]. I’d certainly never do anything like that with a set of kids who were already engaged, already motivated, already had high aspirations. This was a bunch of kids who had none of that. Really, really disengaged and I was just trying to search for something outside the box to get them switched on. […]
“It was my first introduction to how dishonest that community could be.”
We had the interview. It was my first introduction to how dishonest that community could be. I told him exactly what I was trying to do […]. I’m not going to debate you or argue with you. I will present a point to you and you can respond in whatever way you want. Even if I think you’re wrong, I’m not going to say anything because we [will] leave that for the for the kids in the classroom […]. I even told him beforehand, by email, what I was going to say to him so he could prepare […].
Anyway, he recorded it and gave it to a big YouTube channel called Celebrate Truth. I think it had 4,000 subscribers at the time. He titled it as: ‘Science Teacher Smashed in Debate Against Flat Earther.’ So dishonest. So after that I thought: “I’m not having that.” So, I set up the Conspiracy Catz channel […].
T: Did it at least engage the class?
C: No. That was unfortunate. We watched the video and they just laughed about how silly the things he was saying were.
T: With regards to teaching, do you think Flat Earthers and anti-vaxxers are a failure of the education system?
C: I think when it comes to education about vaccines etc., you can split it into two branches. You can split it into […] the citizenship or the scientific [aspects]. When we’re actually at school, we [only] really learn about vaccines as an introduction […]. So, if you get people like Andy Kaufman pushing out serious misinformation, talking about a whole bundle of things, like exosomes or mRNA vaccines, […] it’s very easy for [people] to get a little bit confused. Unless they’ve got the mindset where they’re like: “Actually, I’m gonna spend a couple of hours really trying to research what the truth is about it so I can combat it,” I see why they just buy into what people are saying. They can be quite articulate […].
There’s very little benefit in teaching kids who are of that age such high-level stuff that they’re not going to fully understand. So, I’ll say no. It’s probably not fair. It’s probably more a failure of regulation of social media.
T: The worst offenders are often older people. Do you have any ideas how we can address this problem out of schools?
C: They’re so stuck in their ways aren’t they. You know, I think social media has got to shoulder a lot of the responsibility for what’s going on in terms of dragging people down these rabbit holes. I know that they’re tightening things up now. I know that they’re not publicizing and pushing these things as much, but we have got the problem now that there are people out there that have this sort of everybody’s against us mentality. Everything’s fake. You can’t trust anybody. I’ve spoken to countless people in comment sections and emails, in debates online etc. and there’s a brick wall there […]. I think it’s a psychological issue. You can reach one or two people, but it’s such a tough question.
T: You mentioned a bit about your motivations earlier. Was there any more to it than that?
C: My motivations have changed over time. Like I said, my original motivation was just to get the kids engaged with something science-wise […]. There was a little bit where it was a bit like “Screw you I’m gonna get you back.” […] But then, after I started to get to know the community and the characters a little bit more and engage with people more, that’s when it dawned on me: these people are genuine in their beliefs and ruining their lives. Then my motivations did change to try and deal with them in a in a slightly different way […].
“But then, after I started to get to know the community and the characters a little bit more and engage with people more, that’s when it dawned on me: these people are genuine in their beliefs and ruining their lives.”
My motivation is not to save the people who are already down that rabbit hole, because they need people in their own lives to bring them around. [My motivation is] to stop other people going down that route […]. If I can show how ridiculous their arguments are in a funny way, hopefully somebody will look at it and go: “Yeah, I was thinking about it but obviously it’s stupid.”
T: Do you think Flat Earth is pushed by mostly bad actors or genuinely misled people? What is the split between people who are knowingly dishonest and those who are pulling the wool over their own eyes? The mental dissonance is perhaps more apparent among Flat Earthers than anywhere else. It’s quite striking.
C: It really is, isn’t it. […] [For some members of the Flat Earth community], dishonesty comes from the fact that they’re too proud to admit that they actually know nothing about geometry or optics or trigonometry or gas pressure. But they claim they claim to be experts […]. In the back of the mind there will be something nipping away at them saying: “Actually, I don’t know.” That is where the dissonance comes in.
But then you cast your eyes to, for example, Nathan Oakley, who does it for a living. He’s very open that this is his job. He’s been admitting in the middle of a debate […]: “We’ve got to divert the conversation away from this lighthouse they are talking about because it’s perfect proof of the globe and we don’t want to go down there. It’s a trap. We need to talk about something else.” That is that’s as much of an admission as you can get. So, I think he is absolutely 100% dishonest.
Then you look at the Globe Busters. They’ve taken their entire content and put it behind a paywall. […]. And FE Core. They’ve done lots and lots and lots of different experiments and […] refused to release the data. Like the fibre optic gyroscope that measured the 15 degree per hour drift. They kept that secret until the documentary came out and busted it.
T: You’ve achieved what many debunkers haven’t, which is actually changing people’s minds. How did you pull it off and what can we learn from your technique?
C: I don’t think it was anything specific. I think it’s just a case of right place, right time. In Seek Truth Speak Truth’s position, he was always somebody that if you engage politely within the comments he would he would reply in kind and be polite back. A lot of people […] you can ask a polite question and be met with a barrage of abuse […]. Then I made the video. I know that he’s credited that as what changed his mind, but at that point I think he’d taken on so much information from so many people that it was just a case of like the straw that broke the camel’s back. I just happened to be the person there. But I don’t think he would have listened if we hadn’t had that polite discourse beforehand.
“I don’t think he would have listened if we hadn’t had that polite discourse beforehand.”
In terms of Ranty… I mean we had some battles in the past. It’s hilarious […]. Me and Ranty started a podcast together. We’d been doing it for about six months before he stopped being a Flat Earther. I said when I contacted him: “I wanna do this podcast. I don’t wanna fall out. I don’t wanna debate you on anything, but I wanna get people to come in with stories that we have different opinions on.” He’s quite into the paranormal and […] I’m obviously not. I thought, rather than slamming and trying to debunk the people telling the stories, why don’t I just see if I can offer some sort of scientific thing that may explain one part of the story and then he can believe it, a bit like Mulder and Scully. But doing that, I obviously got to talk with him and communicate with him over a long period of time […] People he had spoken to beforehand were literally just members of the Flat Earth community […]. When he came out and spoke to someone [else] he realized how abnormal the flat earth community were […].
But, in terms of his conversion, he did it all himself. He came to me and said: “I’m not Flat Earth anymore. Here’s my proof.” That was it. I had nothing to do with it […] other than spending some time with him.
T: Ranty’s proof was a photograph of Blackpool Tower and Dow Crag. The strength of the proof, coupled with Ranty, an ex-Flat Earther pushing it sent the whole community into a tailspin. Can you explain what it was like to watch that from the inside?
C: It’s been crazy. I know Ranty has had a couple of emails from people that used to subscribe to his channel that bought into everything he said, and they’ve emailed and said: “If it’s good enough for you; it’s good enough for me. I’m out.” [That has been] excellent so I’m really pleased he has managed to achieve that.
In terms of everything going into complete meltdown, I think the issue is that when […] Ranty was Flat Earther, all he ever watched was Flat Earth stuff. That’s it. That’s all they ever watch. He wasn’t interested in […] watching anything to do with science […]. So, when something came out that was considered to be a Flat Earth debunk, the only way he would watch it would be experiencing it through the Flat Earth debate team, or other Flat Earth channels […]. I think these people put so much faith in your Nathan Oakley’s or whoever, that when he comes out and says: “Oh this picture doesn’t show anything. I’ve debunked it don’t worry,” it’s almost a relief. Because Ranty has obviously not taken that spin these people can’t understand why. They’re like: “This picture doesn’t mean anything. You must be a liar. You must be a traitor.” In a world where you’ve got shills everywhere and he’s just another shell now. I think it’s a default position they take […].
T: Interest in Flat Earth is waning. I wonder if five years is the length of its lifecycle. Has Flat Earth reached the end of its life cycle or can Flat Earthers keep inventing things forever?
C: Well, it’s definitely the tactic that the Flat Earth debate team take. When I was on the scene, the big thing at the time was perspective […]. Then it moved to atmospheric pressure and we are back on the diffraction limit now. They are just milking a topic to absolute death. Then it is debunked and debunked and then they move on to another one […].
Another part of it I’ve not touched on is religion. I know for a fact that people […] come at it from it from a biblical perspective […]. From a religious point of view, it doesn’t really matter how many times you debunk and explain because this how is how God has created it none of us will ever understand.
T: Many people have related Flat Earth to a cult-like mentality, given that it narrows your social group and makes you reliant on powerful individuals who dictate the dogma. Do you think this is a fair assessment?
C: I think it’s definitely cult-like. I certainly don’t think that people like Nathan Oakley or whoever consider themselves to be cult leaders, or go out with any intention to create a cult […]. Yet when you go onto the platforms you do find that you are not welcome unless you have the same opinion. You are banned, you are chastised, you are gotten rid of. You do find that the people supporting them are constantly repeating almost word for word the same quotes and mantra […].
T: You had the opportunity to debate Kent Hovind, a famous American creationist. How was that experience?
C: He was a nice guy […]. He was polite and respectful. We got on really well off camera. But when the debate’s on, it’s a competition. The way it went was exactly how I expected it to go because he’s got this obvious faith that the bible says that the earth is six thousand years old and it doesn’t matter what science gets put his way because God has done something to explain that, even though we don’t know what it is. What did shock me though was his complete and utter lack of understanding of what evolution was. He’s done these debates for, what thirty or forty years? To not even know the entry-level basics of what evolution is. That surprised me […].
Maybe I’m hypocritical, and I probably am, but I don’t hold […] Young Earth Creationists in the same in the same view that I hold Flat Earthers. I just don’t see it being as damaging. I don’t know why […].
“All the governments of the world must have been on this for centuries in the making. You can’t trust anybody. You can’t trust your teachers, your doctors. Everybody around you is hiding something from you.”
I think the thing with Flat Earth […] is that if you are a Flat Earther you’re your life consists of thinking that all the teachers around you are liars the astronomers are liars meteorologists — liars, all scientists — liars. All the governments of the world must have been on this for centuries in the making. You can’t trust anybody. You can’t trust your teachers, your doctors. Everybody around you is hiding something from you. The damaging aspect of that to your mental health and the way that it takes over your life.
For example, Ranty talked about getting so obsessed with it all that he couldn’t get mortgage because he’d not been working enough. He’d been doing these observations. Seek Truth Speak Truth has spoken about how it ruined his relationship with his fiancé. He just lost her. Although he’s back with her now which is good. When you’re in that position, how can you how can you lead a normal life. If you have got any kind of susceptibility to mental illness or paranoia, it’s only going to make it far, far worse. It destroys your life if you go down that rabbit hole.
Whereas, from where I am standing, I think a Young Earth Creationist is someone who’s got faith in God . Their thing that the earth is only a few thousand years old is, to them, a beauty of God’s creation and I don’t think they necessarily walk around feeling paranoid […].
T: One argument I’ve read is that COVID is killing off Flat Earth. Briefly, you can’t believe in Flat Earth while at the same time believing vaccines or lockdowns are beneficial. If you believe an Illuminati-esque conspiracy is afoot, you have to buy into everything. Is COVID giving people the shake they need, or is it forcing people to double down?
C: There are people out there who’ve experienced COVID for themselves; who have family members who’ve suffered from it; Sadly, there’ll be people out there with family members who’ve died from it. Some people will still […] double down. Some people will realise: “Hang on this is real,” and maybe start to question other things.
For more, including Catz’s take on Beyond the Curve and Logan Paul check out the video below:
