[Paul]

yes, that’s what my post is about. Its wrong, but the program exists and the programmer is open to contribution to it being corrected.

[Paul]

I have found another video not mentioned that is closer to what I was thinking about, at least for the first half of its presentation.

The first 17 minutes is a relatively simplified approach to the introduction of the concept that carries the viewer carefully past the debunking triggers and establishes the idea using accepted science for the most part. It cover the concept’s basic rational’s for its existence, after which it gets into ‘a’ theory about the burning question of ‘where the mass comes from’, and it proceeds in tone as if that is the pin ultimate extension of the full concept, which it definitely is not. There are many theories that attempt to explain possible answers to that big question, so this particular video requires a lot more caution and context to this persons singular idea’s on that bigger question. But otherwise before that part, its not bad from my perspective to draw in the less technical viewer armed only with basic grade school indoctrination into tectonic plate theory.

[Paul]

Thank you Stephen. Its an honour to hear directly from the source. I’ve seen all of those video’s, (with the exception of the ones at the end not in English). They’re great and informative and convincing. But I’m referring to an approach that is designed specifically to appeal to the more broad audience of non PHD level understanding of these concepts. I referred to that sea spreading video because its a representation of half the discussion of earth spreading and its a fully endorsed mainstream theory, as well as explained with simple idea’s and images to gear to the mainstream non phd viewers. You can watch that initial establishing video without triggering the ‘debunking defensive response’ and you’re already educating people and getting them up to speed. It would be exciting to see an equivalent demonstration, (made easy to comprehend) referring to the other more challenging part of the explanation. Like the video I refer to, it would start with a short history of the development of the concept of subduction followed by the challenges to it, and that would lead into this alternative concept. In the absence of some considerable time spent demonstrating the ‘dismantling’ of subduction, which to most is considered ‘accepted science’, I’m assuming that’s the point where we lose the audience. I think that hurdle requires a longer and more simplified video that’s geared to a more broad audience. Its challenging enough to aim at seasoned experts and authorities, and get them to even ‘consider’ these concepts at great risk to their professional credibility, but if you draw in the unwashed masses, you’ll force those in control of the mainstream narrative to at least demonstrate enough respect to tackle the job of a reasonably thought out response, and even join a publicly demanded debate. And that’s where this concept would begin to really join the public discussion. And I hate to say it, but that’s exactly how we’ve witnessed this explosion of ‘flat earth’ discussions. Multitudes of spin off video’s from millions of non PHD types. I say pander to them and lets get this out in the open.