u/Outrageous-Novel7839

I’ve seen this claim in flat Earth circles where people say the Davis Besse nuclear power plant can be seen from across Lake Erie, and that this should be impossible on a curved Earth.

The version I saw claims the observation is from roughly 27 miles away, usually from the Michigan side of Lake Erie looking toward the power plant in Ohio.

The argument is basically:

If Earth were curved, the plant should be hidden by curvature.
Since part of the plant is visible, Earth must be flat.

Is this bullshit?

From what I can tell, the cooling tower is very tall, the exact observer location and height matter a lot, and the lower part of the tower appears to be missing in the images people use for the claim. So it seems like seeing the upper part of a tall structure across water does not automatically prove the surface is flat.

I’m trying to understand whether this claim is actually valid, or if it leaves out important details like observer height, tower height, distance, refraction, and the fact that only part of the structure is visible.

I’ve been looking into the Tartaria claim, especially the argument that old maps showing “Tartary” prove there was a hidden global empire that was erased from history.

The part that seems to get skipped is that old maps often used broad regional labels. “Tartary” appears to have been used by European mapmakers as a large geographic label for parts of Central Asia, Siberia, and surrounding regions. That does not automatically mean it was one unified empire, one advanced civilization, or a worldwide power that was secretly removed from history.

To me, the conspiracy argument usually jumps from:

“Old maps say Tartary”

to

“Therefore there was a hidden advanced global civilization”

without proving the steps in between.

The questions I think matter are:

What did mapmakers at the time mean by Tartary?

Was it a political state, a region, or a broad outside label?

Do historical records from the region support the hidden empire claim?

Why do conspiracy versions usually ignore the difference between a map label and a government?

Are people confusing real history with modern internet mythology?

I’m not saying every old map is perfectly accurate or that history is never simplified. I’m saying the existence of the word “Tartary” on maps seems to prove that mapmakers used that label, not that there was an erased worldwide empire.

What is the strongest actual evidence people use for the hidden empire version, beyond old maps and photos of old buildings?

I’ve seen a claim going around that wrinkles or uneven texture on NASA’s SLS rocket prove it was fake, inflatable, CGI, or some kind of prop.

To me, this seems like a good example of people treating a normal visual detail as evidence of fraud because they do not understand what they are looking at.

The SLS core stage is covered in orange spray on foam insulation. It is not supposed to look like polished metal. Foam insulation can have texture, seams, uneven surfaces, lighting artifacts, and shadows that look strange in photos or video. None of that means the rocket is inflatable or fake.

The skeptical problem here is not just the rocket claim itself. It is the reasoning pattern:

1. Find an image that looks weird
2. Assume weird means fake
3. Ignore the known material and engineering context
4. Treat visual unfamiliarity as proof of deception

That logic shows up in a lot of conspiracy content. NASA claims, UFO videos, moon landing claims, flat Earth arguments, and even random viral “glitch” videos often use the same structure.

A better skeptical question would be:

What material are we actually looking at?
Is that appearance normal for that material?
Are there original sources or closer images?
Does the claim make a testable prediction?
What evidence would separate “fake rocket” from “normal insulation texture”?

I think this kind of claim is useful because it shows how misinformation can come from a tiny observation being stripped of context.

Curious how others here would explain this kind of visual misinformation pattern. Is there a name for this specific reasoning error, where “this looks strange to me” gets treated as positive evidence for fraud?

I make videos focused on science communication, testing claims, and debunking misinformation. In my head, those all fit under the same idea: take a claim, test it, and show what the evidence says.

But I’m wondering if viewers or YouTube see that as too broad.

My growth is really inconsistent. A couple videos have gained around 20 to 30 subs, several have gained 3 to 7, but most only gain 0 to 2. Over half my videos bring in no real channel growth.

For anyone who has dealt with niche confusion, would you keep science communication and debunking on the same channel, or narrow the framing more?

What would you focus on first: topics, titles, thumbnails, retention, or making the channel concept clearer?