Start refuting Eric’s points

I’m still hoping some of the most ardent opponents of flat earth theory will start picking apart Eric’s 200 points. With this long interview, Eric spends too much time for me being sure that the Joos are running everything (not even a sprinkle of SMOM?). He also adds a dash of Joody Woods to increase the stink, but what of his other reasonable arguments against the ball? We can attack the person all we want, and the alleged feud with everything-is-possible (like Fetzer) Mark Sargent, but let’s get to refuting Eric’s calmly spoken points on why he disbelieves the earth is a sphere, a pear, or whatever NASA’s latest claims are.

 

Be the 1st to vote.

57 thoughts on “Start refuting Eric’s points”

  1. Which “reasonable arguments against the ball” are you referring to, Ab? All I’ve heard from this transparent con-artist Eric Dubay, including the present interview, are handwavy fallacies.

    As fakeologists, we’re all equipped to see through this phony’s attempts to inject the trivial pursuits of a madhouse into the fakery-busting community in order to lead us away from the hard-hitting research which has been doing real damage to the Empire of Lies. This flat-earth nonsense is a misdirection to put us off our game and bog us down in a different set of topics which are of no political consequence to the Powers That Be.

    However, Ab, for the sake of fakeology, if you’d care to specify which points made by Agent Dubay you find reasonable (I can’t imagine what they could be, but perhaps you’re seeing something I’m not), earnest fakeologists can set about refuting them.

      1. Ab, didn’t you read where I requested that you specify which arguments made by Agent Dubay you find reasonable? Please do so, if it’s not too much trouble. Since you’re already asking your readers to make the effort of framing an argument, I don’t recommend also imposing the requirement of digging through a mountain of crap at another site.

        Please commit yourself by posting at least one argument on your own site, something that stands out to you as one of Agent Dubay’s least fallacious arguments.

        1. My favorite that may or may not be on that list is the missing curve that I see over Lake Ontario, as is generally agreed to be 8″/mile squared.

          1. I’m not sure what you mean by that equation. A slope that varies as the square of distance makes a parabolic curve, not a circle or sphere. But that’s not important at the moment.

            As for seeing over the horizon across Lake Ontario, this is expected due to the very commonplace phenomenon of light refraction, which happens over the Great Lakes due to temperature inversion and the fact that warm and cool air have different densities. Refraction of sound waves also occurs under these circumstances, by the way. You can demonstrate light refraction for yourself with a glass prism or a glass or water. I hope the flat earthers haven’t persuaded you that the refraction of light is a hoax, because without it camera lenses wouldn’t work and most of those flat earth videos on Youtube wouldn’t be there.

            Since you brought up objects being hidden by the earth’s curvature, on a flat earth that wouldn’t happen at all. On a flat earth, the whole surface of the earth, except where blocked by mountains and such, all the way to the alleged ice wall of Antarctica, would be visible from any suitable vantage point like a tall building, which of course doesn’t happens.

            There are zero photographs in evidence that show more of the earth than would be visible on a sphere plus a bit extra due to expected atmospheric refraction. On the other hand, if the earth were flat, you’d be able to see a lot further than across Lake Ontario. You could look clear across the Mississippi watershed and the Great Plains to see the Rocky Mountains in the distance, which of course no one’s ever done.

          2. Eric has argued successfully against your refraction/inversion point. Listen to his many audios on that. Seeing to infinity is also a nonsense argument that he’s convinced me as correct.

          3. Eric has argued successfully against your refraction/inversion point.

            Perhaps, but what exactly was his argument? Let’s examine it.

            Seeing to infinity is also a nonsense argument that he’s convinced me as correct.

            The Rocky Mountains are not an infinite distance from the Great Lakes. They are only about 1,200 miles away, a distance easily crossed with a telescope when you’re looking at mountains over 10,000 ft. high.

  2. i could see NYC from top of Bear Mountain scenic overlook at a distance of almost 50 miles without body of water unless you count the hudson river, and i could see the entire buildings not just the top of the tallest one’s which shouldn’t happen anyways at that much of a distance this is both aided from those tourist binoculars for $.25 which are fixed on the ground and unaided with naked eye

    1. Well then find the formula that’s agreed upon that you like better and plug in the numbers and let me know how that works out for you.

    2. that is so true so the globe model drop does not even graph out to a sphere. Thanks for pointing that out, HOW Stupid is that, and whats funny is i mentioned the parabolic equation and even said it was logarithmic without picturing the OBVIOUS that it translates to a U so we should now introduce a new shape to the earth model discussions, that the earth is a U shape and we are living on the outside of the U and our one proof will be an equation. No other proofs necessary. Especially anything apriori, observable with the senses. It can be theoretical like string theory and quantum physics and relativity, not observable but provable in an equation. After all everyone knows that scientific method belongs in the past, all the smartest people are now theoretical astro physicists, like Degrass Tyson and Mucho Kaku and lets not forget Einstein where mass approaches infinity as the object approaches speed of light, provable in an equation. I mean observable science is so backward and 20th century. ITs like a black hole, i know you cant see it but i have an equations that proves its there, and it so dense that light gets sucked in and even gravity gets sucked in, SUCH NONSENSE

  3. At 9:45 in his video [above] Dubay casually slips in the name of Jarle Andhøy , a renegade yachtsman [allegedly] who was arrested for attempting to enter Antarctica illegally.
    I get the feeling that Andhøy is just another actor.
    January 31 2012
    www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/antarctica/9050999/Repair-man-accidentally-joins-South-Pole-expedition.html

    www.vargas12.com/2012/jarle-andhoy-arrestert-i-chile/
    April Fools Day 2012

    Chronicle of Andhoy here..
    www.southpolestation.com/trivia/10s/berserk.html

    Note the three “deaths” on the early 2011 “Berserk” expedition while….

    Jarle Andhøy and one of his crewmates, Samuel Massie, were driving ATVs towards the pole.

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jarle_Andh%C3%B8y
    Just another routine psy-op. What’s the message? Don’t look here? Keep out?

  4. Eric Dubay might be reading from a script during his interviews, instead of giving free form responses like here at fakeologist.com audio chat. Is that something a genuine researcher would do? What about myself? Have I ever read from a script? For the opening of K Ham radio, yes, I read that. Otherwise, I have disclosed every single time I have read something to the audience. Otherwise, I say it as I am thinking it. I feel it is dishonest to read something prepared ahead of time and act like you are just having a casual discussion. What sorts of people would read form a script and not disclose it to the audience?

    I noticed something during Eric Dubay’s interview with Veritas Radio, the ufo dude. In the youtube video The Zionists, Freemasons, and NASA’s Biggest Secret at about 6:25 Dubay says:

    “Even some of the craters, as they call them, on the moon, that poch marks, that’s the, nobody knows exactly what they are.”

    Eric said the word poch. The word was supposed to be ‘pock’. ‘Poch marks‘ is even awkward to say. ‘Pock marks’ is the correct term. If you ever had chicken pox, your mom might have told you to “stop picking at that pock mark”.

    How could Eric Dubay mistake saying ‘poch‘ for ‘pock’? My guess is that he is reading from a script. The lower case letters, h and k, do look alike. Easy to mistake if you were getting bored of all the reading you had been doing for these interviews. Eric, you need reading glasses. If you keep making mistakes like this everyone will know your a cointelpro agent.

    1. I’ve never thought he was reading from a script. He may have talking points, but that can’t be used against him as anyone who wants to spread a message coherently knows.

      1. I think K. has put her finger on a very interesting point here. To me Eric’s intonation does sound very monotonous and flat. That doesn’t necessarily mean anything by itself but taken with his very clear mispronunciation of “pock” it does make me think that some sort of script might be in play. “Pock” is a difficult word to mispronounce as “poch” as K. elegantly lays out. If he was speaking impromtu, I think he would have self-corrected immediately as he would have immediately noticed his mistake. That leaves two options – either he has jotted down a script/some talking points he drew up himself and is reading them off, or he is reading from a full-blown script prepared by a third party. If they are talking points he drew up himself, fair enough, but again, why doesn’t he correct himself. A lot of thought would have gone into the points and I think it is scarcely credible that he would mispronounce such a basic word – especially since he used to be a teacher of English as a Foreign language according to his own biography. This leaves the third option – the script he is reading from is pre-prepared. But that would mean that all the questions have been scripted ahead of time and that the whole interview is pre-scripted and Eric is reading off e script with little knowledge or passion, not caring or knowing what “pock” actually means. Very curious.
        This might seem to be a lot of speculation over the mispronounciation of a single word but how can someone who has taught English for many years and written and edited several books make such an elementary mistake and not correct himself.
        Curiouser and curiouser – well-spotted K.!

          1. It is fascinating how hard these points are to refute. I am open-minded as to the shape of the earth but I can think of a couple of counter-arguments to some of the points, particularly to the fact that Eric maintains there is no Southern Pole Star. I have never been to Australia ( or the southern hemisphere for that matter) but if someone paid the costs I would travel down there and try to replicate this image www.britannica.com/science/astronomical-map/images-videos/Star-trails-over-banksia-trees-in-Gippsland-Vic/154321
            If I could replicate it, it would be an interesting argument for the rotundity of the earth.

          2. These pole star arguments are the weakest points in the flat earth piffle. There happens to be a bright star close to the northern spinning point. And that one isn’t even fixed. There’s no bright star close to the southern spinning point. But the spinning of the stars is clearly visible. Clockwise in the southern hemisphere, counter-clockwise in the northern hemisphere. Only a spinning ball earth model is congruent with those phenomena.

          3. Ab, let’s say that you have an uncle living up in Alert, in Northern Canada. On December 24, he will be immersed in total darkness for the entire day (and night, of course…). Your uncle won’t see even a glimpse of the sun that day.
            www.timeanddate.com/sun/canada/alert?month=12
            Yet, on the very same day, your sister vacationing in Ushuaia (southernmost tip of Argentina) will enjoy 17+ hours of sunlight – and will see the sun setting as late as 22:12 (or 10:12pm).
            www.timeanddate.com/sun/argentina/ushuaia?month=12

            So, I’m wondering: just how does that work out in the pancake-earth model?

          4. Simon,

            there are several models of the motions of the sun on a planar Earth. The Book of Enoch describes the motion of the sun. This could be correct.

            The point remains that if we are physically UNABLE to demonstrate that the Earth curves the way the spherical model says that it should, then that model is DISPROVED. see howtotakecareofyourpenis.wordpress.com/sphericity/ and the discussion here with Cluseau with respet to refraction.

            The continuous focus on the firmament is a DISTRACTION from making the obvious physical observations of our everyday experience.

      1. Ab,

        You misunderstand what the definition ‘non-tidal’ means.

        Let’s ask a sailing website, meaning the people who live and die by the tides.

        “Some bodies of water (the Mediterranean, Baltic, Black Sea, Caspian Sea, and Caribbean) don’t respond strongly to tidal forces. The reasons for this are a bit complex but basically it is due to their size and geographic nature. These areas are described as Non-Tidal. Although they do actually have small tides they are not strong enough to be taken into consideration when navigating.”

        ‘Non-tidal’ basically means that even though there is a tide, it is so small that ships do not have to worry about it’s effect on navigation.

        ALL bodies of water have tides. Smaller bodies of water may have tides so small as to be undetectable due to weather influences.

        aegeansailingschool.com/sailing/tidal-or-non-tidal-whats-it-all-about/

        Eric Dubay is still wrong about tides.

    1. Tides are really very strange and probably the area of greatest mystery. The explanation of tide is said to be “the greatest triumph” of the Newtonian model. It is said that although the sun exerts 175 more gravitational force on the Earth than the Moon, the Moon has more influence on tidal activity because it is closer. This because the tide is caused by the DIFFERENCE in the strength of the gravitational fields on each side of earth… i.e the DIFFERENCE in gravitation effect between the side facing the moon or sun and the side opposite it. The calculation of this effect yields that moon creates a difference of 2.3 MICRO newtons and the sun creates a difference of 1.1 MICRO newtons… i.e. a one millionth of a newton. These incredibly tiny force differentials are said (but never demonstrated) to result in tides of up to 30′ in Alaska twice a day, for example. But the tidal variations defy the model in further unexplained ways. For example, while there is a 30′ tide in Alaska and in the North of Australia, the tides in Southern Australia are much smaller, with several southern regularly experiencing ‘neap” tides.. non variation.

      Much of the plane T is inexplicably subject to only a single tide each day, even though the Newtonian model clearly requires that there should be two.

      The other COMPLETELY unexplained phenomena associated with tides is that of the ‘barometric effect”. On any given tidal cycle, high tide corresponds to the lowest atmospheric pressure, while low tide corresponds to the highest atmospheric pressure. Since the atmosphere SHOULD be subject to the same gravitational effects as the oceans, then this barometric effect is contradictory. The “air ocean” should also be affected by the “gravitational difference” which affects the oceans and therefore high tide should correspond to HIGH barometric pressure, and low tide should correspond to LOW barometric pressure.

      1. The reader of this post might be getting confused about tides. Fear not.

        Just know that tides on oceans are predictable and observable regardless of the reason. There are tide charts written up for decades in advance. Large bodies of fresh water also have observable movement, go and check it out for yourself.

        I grew up king salmon fishing on the Straights of Juan de Fuca in Puget Sound. Not knowing the tides can be deadly in that environment. Knowing the power of tides, we always assumed that the same tidal force on oceans would act on any large body of water; same earth, same force.

        Fast forward to today. I see that Eric Dubay says lakes don’t have tides. All this time I thought it was common knowledge that most people understood ALL bodies of water have tides. I am surprised to learn that many here at this forum are not aware of the tide phenomenon on bodies of water. I now realize that I had a specialized reason to learn about tides: king salmon fishing in the ocean.

        Turns out lake tides are not well known. This is the nature of cointelpro; they take a phenomenon that is not well known and exploit our ignorance on that phenomenon.

        The only defense is knowledge.

        1. Khammad, NO ONE is arguing that there are no tides… I think you are being mischievous.

          You are accusing Eric Dubay of being COINTELPRO on the basis of his statement that lakes do not have tides. He may well be COINTELPRO, but you need something better. You then post a link which SPECIFICALLY highlights that there are no tides in the Great Lakes…. it says at MOST 5cm.. . the great lakes are huge, why is the “tidal” activity so small?

          The point of these discussions is that diurnal tidal activity, the barometric effect and the great lakes are INCONSISTENT with the model that the motions of the sun, moon and earth result in tides as described to us by Walt Disney.

          1. Is Eric Dubay cointelpro?

            All we have is circumstantial evidence (thanks Chris) that starts to add up.

            Frank, for this point it does not matter why there are tides.

            Eric Dubay says there are no tides on lakes. He is wrong. Lakes have measurable tides.

  5. Refraction occurs when the atmosphere exhibits “layering” in temperature. The curved earth refraction explanation runs into several difficulties which, in my view, clearly eliminate it.

    Firstly, especially over water, the temperature layering will invert as day turns into night and visa versa. This means that light travelling from a point will either bend down, go straight or bend upwards depending upon the circumstances. This means that objects that should not be seen should regularly come in and out of view as the temperature alters diurnally. In the case of the observations which i make at various times during the day and night should disappear and reappear….but this does not occur. Port Arlington is always visible.. see howtotakecareofyourpenis.wordpress.com/sphericity/

    The second problem with the refraction argument is probably more significant. On windy days, which is most days in Geelong, turbulent mixing eliminates the possibility of temperature layering in the part of the atmosphere immediately above the the surface of the water that we are making our observations in.

  6. My thinking is that moving into discussions about astronomical observations is just too early to concern ourselves with. The movement of the stars has been successfully modelled by people such as Ptolemy so I dont see any reason for us to get too tangled on the rights and wrongs of which one is real. We simply cannot establish this with our own five senses. If a model is plausible, then we can only look for disproof.

    However, the sphericity or otherwise of our plane T can be established or not. The only argument against the observation of flatness is REFRACTION.

    It the REFRACTION argument ONLY which defends the spherical model.

    I, for one, am going after it.

  7. Ask any amateur astronomer you know about how a setting star will stay visible for a short while after its calculated position, based on its previous course and speed, puts it below the horizon. Likewise, a rising star becomes visible a bit early, before it’s actually above the horizon.

    Both of these are due to atmospheric refraction. Or, if you think atmospheric refraction is a hoax, simply call it an unknown phenomenon whereby stars just below the horizon are visible.

    If this effect happens with stars, there’s no reason it shouldn’t also happen with buildings.

    On the other hand, if the earth were flat, literally everything on earth would be above the horizon. Flat earthers should think through the consequences of that, before basing too much of their argument on what’s visible in the distance.

    1. Atmospheric refraction is not a hoax, it is a measurable phenomenon. However, it is not an occurrence which leads to only one result… i.e. that light will travel in the curve of the earth. If there is no temperature gradient and no layering then light will still travel in a straight line. This is a COMMON occurrence. In other circumstances the light will be bent upwards. Under either of these last two circumstances then over the horizon observations should not occur. However, as you point out, stars are ALWAYS visible ‘below” the horizon. This should NOT be the case and the variable circumstances of atmospheric refraction should result in variable observations.. not CONSISTENT observations

      The establishment of the relevant rate of atmospheric which exists at the time of making an observation is therefore the key to unravelling this alleged conundrum.

      1. As mentioned in my previous comment, for our present purposes it really doesn’t matter if you reject atmospheric refraction as the reason for the visibility of stars over the horizon.

        Regardless of what causes this visibility, the effect is real. Therefore, since we have a consistently observed, though perhaps unexplained, process causing over-the-horizon visibility of stars, and since there is no reason to assume buildings are somehow immune to this process, we conclude that buildings can also be visible over the horizon.

        Then, when we compare our conclusion with reality, lo and behold, as expected, we see buildings over the horizon across Lake Ontario. However, we don’t see the 6,500 ft. peak of Mt. Mitchell some 500 miles further south – nor did we expect to, on a spherical earth.

        1. the reason for not always seeing distant objects is more likely to be because of visibility.

          What is of more interest is that we can ALWAYS see Port Arlington from North Shore beach, a distance of 23km from a standing height of 1.7m above sea level. Sphericity requires that I be 40m above sea level to make this observation.

          Since I can ALWAYS see this beach, atmospheric refraction does NOT explain this observation.

          Let’s now turn our attention to the irregular observation of San Clemente Island from San Diego. I quote “Here in San Diego, we rarely can see San Clemente Island, about 125 km offshore. The top of the island should just be visible above our horizon with normal refraction, but it’s concealed by “airlight” during the day. Even in the clear air of a “Santa Ana,” which causes looming and raises more of the island above the apparent horizon, it’s often hard to make out.
          But just after sunset, the island is often visible, if you know where to look. The air between you and the island is only dimly illuminated after sunset, but the sky behind the island — i.e., the air beyond the horizon that is still in direct sunlight — is still fairly bright. Then the silhouette of the island is striking, even if it had been invisible a few minutes before sunset. ”

          If we do the arithmetic of this island, we find that observers in San Diego have to be 760 metres in the air if there is NO refraction. The interesting part of all of this is the time before sunset is one of those times when the temperature gradient, and therefore refraction, is at a minimum.

          The corollary of this model is that on cooler, breezy or windy days, when atmospheric layering is at a minimum because of air mixing, and therefore refraction is at a minimum. then the spherical model dictates that San Clemente Island should NOT be visible with a telescope. If the planar model holds, then San Clemente Island SHOULD be visible.

          I don’t know what the reality is, but i am guessing that San Clemente Island is easily visible with a telescope on cool, breezy days.

          1. the reason for not always seeing distant objects is more likely to be because of visibility.

            It’s clearly not a question of visibility, because one can see stars through the space where Mt. Mitchell should appear to an observer in Toronto, assuming a flat earth. Mountains don’t become transparent with distance.

            Since I can ALWAYS see this beach, atmospheric refraction does NOT explain this observation.

            You’re arguing a point that isn’t in dispute. Perhaps atmospheric refraction is not the explanation. The relevant point is that amateur astronomers routinely observe stars below the horizon – always, under all atmospheric conditions clear enough for viewing – even if their explanation of how they’re doing it is wrong. Your seeing the beach doesn’t suddenly require us to abandon the spherical earth.

        2. Hi Cluseau,

          i can’t reply to your post, so I am replying the one above it. I dont follow what you are saying at all. Star light reaches the atmosphere and then has thin atmosphere and then perhaps 20km of thicker atmosphere. this light does not have to travel through atmosphere at up to a few hundred metres above sea level for hundreds of kilometres.

          If we are seeing starlight which has travelled through hundreds of kilometres of atmosphere at sea level ish, then this will require some explanation… because I would suggest that is NOT possible using the current paradigms

  8. Ab, will you please answer – intelligently – to my USHUAIA / ALERT question?
    Or will you just let this idiotic “anounceofsaltperday” Goldbog-peddling-clown freely spam his shite on your site ?

    1. Simon,

      You, of course, will not say what you think is happening. You are giving the impression that you accept the existing paradigm of a moon orbiting the earth orbiting the sun.

      This was disproved by Airey, Michelson Morely, Michelson Gale and Sagnac. You acknowledge that Einstein was a fraud, that nuclear weapons cannot work and that relativity is a fail. These experiment clearly demonstrate that the Earth is NOT moving. Your reputation in the area of physics is further diminished by your nonsensical view that rockets can’t work in a vacuum. The gases propelled at a higher speed than the rocket is travelling will always push the rocket the other way as this is conservation of momentum.

      What is a more interesting question is how does the atmosphere of the earth even exist if it is surrounded by a vacuum?

      How is it that you hold these contradictory views and feel free to call me an idiot? Its simple.. you are full of yourself.

      How do you explain that we cannot measure curve, nor does any civil engineer apply it?

      Glad that you mentioned dallasgoldbug… he is willilng to discuss his work here. Are you willing to participate?

    2. Sorry Simon I’m not answering quickly enough to your schedule. I don’t have an answer, just like I don’t have answers to many of the debunks and the debunks of the debunks. I’ve heard the reason there are 17 hours at the tip is there’s nothing obstructing the sun over the endless oceans around the tip. I haven’t found anything over at Eric’s IFERs forum (where he addresses the tide issue) either. If the round earth model is so convincing, then knocking off his 200 proofs should be a piece of cake. Countering his debunking of the debunking thread should also be easy.

      I’m not convinced of any model, and probably never will be. As for Frank, I’d rather he spend efforts here then spewing his Goldbug nonsense too. I have told him to cease, so let’s hope he listens.

      1. I will not cease my interest on DGB without a full and frank discussion in this forum, and Ed has kindly made himself available for that purpose. As discussed there are 3 options:

        1. Put up with it
        2. Apologise and I go away
        3. Ban me

      2. @ab

        I’m not convinced of any model, and probably never will be.

        I agree with you

        @Khammad

        A couple of month’s ago you decided to attack JLB and in not such a nice way. Something happened we did not expect to happen: JLB replied in an absolute bloody marvellous beautiful way. He brought up some points and challenged you and Simon Shack, please prove me wrong. JLB must have hit you very hard. He forced you to think about the ball earth model and you come to realize: the heck, he is right, there is something wrong with the model, we have learned. You realized to that you were not capable to answer his challenge. As you were forced to think about this ball earth model, you realized that the current model is wrong, and you came up with an another model. A while ago in a chat with “ab” you came up with the idea : we do live on a “ball earth” model, but much greater.( how much 10% , 20% or are you a proponent from the so-called expanding earth model?). Which made the situation much more worse, because that is EXACTLY what JLB proved to be not correct and he challenged you to prove him wrong. Which you cann’t, because you don’t have the know-how. And then stating to “ab” in a chat with “ab we live on a much greater “ball earth ” model. As Unreal an I gave a small comment you decided to tackle me. To me you stated: oh no, the landmasses are much more up on to the north, there are still several blind spots etc. Saying this, writing that, was a complete contradiction: conclusion: you don’t know either. Your reply to me, I never read such a BS and I really do regret that I gave a reply to your BS. Read your posting again. Far more worse not a single proof of what you have stated. I say to you. JLB must have hit you very hard, he forced you to think about the current “ball earth” model. You came to the conclusion yep there is something wrong, that is why you did not answer him and came up with a greater “ball earth” model. For which there are no proofs either. I say to you.: You don’t know to. If yes, answer JLB’s questions. I say, you cann’t and never will be able to.

        1. If yes, answer JLB’s questions. I say, you cann’t and never will be able to.

          What are those questions? Let’s have a look at them.

      3. Ab, thanks for admitting that you have no answer (whatsoever) to offer regarding my ‘USHUAIA-ALERT’ point. In view of this fact, don’t you think that your (apparent) request for me to tackle – or ‘knock off’ – the “200 proofs” published on Dubay’s website is a bit unreasonable?

        See, in my world, whenever a given theory can be ‘knocked off’ with one single / insuperable argument (by highlighting, in this case, the crucial / fundamental problem with the sun’s motion around the theorized pancake-earth) – I find it quite tedious and unnecessary to spend more time on it.

        Here’s what Dubay claims:
        “The Sun and Moon luminaries revolve around the flat Earth once every 24 hours illuminating like spotlights the areas over which they pass.”
        “http://ifers.boards.net/thread/311/flat-earth-debunking-videos

        Well, that’s a damn funny sort of spotlight which, in my USHUAIA-ALERT graphic (at the “Ushuaia 10:12pm mark”), would shine its noon-sunlight right overhead Australians, while also shining its light on Ushuaia, Argentina – yet keep Alert, Canada in complete darkness!

        You say that you’re “not convinced of any model, and probably never will be.”

        I say: very well, Ab – but does that mean you are unwilling to/ or incapable of dismissing any model – if it can be shown to be fundamentally flawed / and utterly absurd? If so, I can only hope you still place high value in the noble ‘art’ of critical thinking. After all, isn’t this (i.e. critical thinking) foremostly what fakeologist.com is all about?

        I dearly hope this FE farce will soon come to an end.

        *****
        Short sidenote to Khammad: I have never claimed that earth is larger than claimed. Anyhow, my upcoming TYCHO-SSSS model will clarify in exhaustive manner my personal understanding of our so-called ‘solar system’. And no (for those who may wonder), it doesn’t include the absurd notion of earth spinning at the hypersonic speed of 107.000km/h around the sun.

    3. Simon: I will field that question for Ab. It appears you have presented a straw-man argument… the information on the links you provided do not match the data you filled in on the map…

      CANADA:
      Daylight
      10:29 AM – 1:18 PM
      2 hours, 49 minutes
      YOUR WORDS, SIMON: Ab, let’s say that you have an uncle living up in Alert, in Northern Canada. On December 24, he will be immersed in total darkness for the entire day (and night, of course…). Your uncle won’t see even a glimpse of the sun that day. <~~ THAT IS MORE LIKE CLOSER TO 3 HOURS DAYLIGHT… NOT TOTAL DARKNESS, RIGHT?
      www.timeanddate.com

      ARGENTINA:
      Daylight
      6:29 AM – 8:11 PM
      13 hours, 41 minutes
      YOUR WORDS, SIMON: Yet, on the very same day, your sister vacationing in Ushuaia (southernmost tip of Argentina) will enjoy 17+ hours of sunlight – and will see the sun setting as late as 22:12 (or 10:12pm). <~~ NO… THAT IS NOT 17+ HOURS OF SUN… THAT IS NEARLY 14 HOURS AT BEST.
      www.timeanddate.com

      FURTHER… when you analyze what you are looking at on the map (disregarding the misleading information)… the path of the sun is on the ring directly above Argentina, which would account for the longer daylight… and is farthest away from Alert, Canada, which would account for the short duration of daylight. It is completely consistent with the flat earth model.

      The only thing you have evidenced to be fundamentally flawed Simon, is your version of truth… and i find that quite interesting.

      1. Wanda, while I haven’t looked up the details of Simon’s argument, its logic is insightful and correct. While you’re waiting for a more complete reply, here’s a simplified version based on my understanding:

        From late autumn to early winter north of the equator, daylight lasts appreciably longer than 12 hours in extreme southern latitudes. So, during this time of year on a pancake earth, daylight covers more than 180 degrees of the surface of the earth near the periphery of the pancake. Under these conditions, when it’s daytime at a given location in the extreme south, it’s also daytime on the opposite side of the pancake – including when it’s night near the north pole.

        The foregoing situation – where two points on a flat surface are illuminated, yet the point midway between them is in darkness – is impossible using a single “spotlight” source of light. Therefore, toss out Agent Dubay’s pancake.

        1. Correction: “daytime at a given location in the extreme south” should read “daytime at some locations in the extreme south”

      2. Wanda,

        Please look again at the links I provided. You have not been paying attention, have you? My map clearly indicates that I am referring to the daylengths of DECEMBER 24

        USHUAIA, Argentina – December 24
        sunrise4.53 / sunset: 22.12 / total hours of sunlight :17:19:28 (i.e. MORE THAN 17 +1/4 hours – on Dec 24)
        www.timeanddate.com/sun/argentina/ushuaia?month=12

        ALERT, Canada – December 24
        sun : DOWN ALL DAY (i.e. ZERO SUNLIGHT – on Dec 24 and, in fact, for ALL of December)
        www.timeanddate.com/sun/canada/alert?month=12

        The daylengths you have been looking at are the ones for TODAY – October 13…

        Next time you wish to accuse me of ‘presenting straw-man arguments’ (or any such horrible things), please think twice before posting.

        A due retraction on your part would be appreciated.

        Thanks

        *******
        As for your ‘argument’ that:

        “…the path of the sun is on the ring directly above Argentina, which would account for the longer daylight… and is farthest away from Alert, Canada, which would account for the short duration of daylight. It is completely consistent with the flat earth model.”

        Now, THAT is a truly fallacious / misleading argument, Wanda – my whole point being that, at 10:12pm on Dec 24, the sun is FAR more distant from Ushuaia than it is from Alert. Look again.

  9. K,
    cite the references for us to check. The citation that you provided is an highly unconvincing 5cm written by someone that already had a preconceived idea.

    I am unconvinced that 5cm represents a tide, but thats ok, Lets see the references.

    The discussion on tides should focus on the causality. i.e. are they caused by planetary motion?

    I have no problem with your attempts to discredit the man, but as I regularly point out to you .. and as Ab has pointed out to you.. you are shooting the messenger.

    Does the MESSAGE have any value?

  10. We should also remember that we have no proof, that the so called space vacuum even exists, if you were born in early 1900, the prevailing theory which was long established even before, was that outside of the atmosphere is ether, some kind of force that holds everything fixed. Not saying that this was necessarily correct either but the space vacuum thoery’s introduction was important in many respects.
    1. Possibility of space travel – NASA’s bread and butter – also mentioned in the protocols
    2. Einstien’s relativity model to upend and invert established physics in the 1900’s – there can be no denying the fact that he was heavily promoted by PR agents inside and outside of academia.
    3. As within, so without, similar to the masonic concept of as above so below linking the Atomic Model to the Universe model where there is very little solid matter, mostly just empty space.

    These points were just from the top of my head, I’m sure there are others

    the only thing that is known is that humans have watched the stars for a very long time, long enough to identify the 22,000 year precession cycles, the understanding that there are various ages based on constellations that attain prominence.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

wp-puzzle.com logo