1. mineben256

    mineben256 New Member

    So, after looking into some flat earth claims that where the Arctic Circle lies proves the FE, I came across an excellent piece of information that is easy to understand yet undoubtedly deals a blow to the Flat Earth theory.
    [​IMG]
    It's quite simple: the moon appears upside down in the Southern Hemisphere compared to the Northern hemisphere.

    This cannot be explained on a flat Earth.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  2. Chew

    Chew Senior Member

    It can be explained on a flat earth but only if the Moon was much farther (80 times farther) than the flat earthers claim it is. But then that would lead to a whole new slew of inconsistencies and so far none of them have been able to address the existing slew of inconsistencies of their most accepted model of the flat earth (specifically the Moon circles over a flat earth at an altitude of 3000 miles).
     
  3. Whitebeard

    Whitebeard Senior Member

    Of course hardcore flat earthers and other deep rabbit hole dwellers don't think the moon exists at all,

    from - http://www.revisionism.nl/Moon/The-Mad-Revisionist.htm

    But there again some folks think David Icke IS the son of god.
     
    • Funny Funny x 3
  4. Hofnarr

    Hofnarr Member

    ..the moon does not exist...

    So, supposedly, the "moonhologram" exists since 1850..
    But what about the inca
    moon goddess mama-quilla? where does she/it come from?

    Next Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mama_Killa
    edit: getting the ext.quotes right....
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2016
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  5. Gridlock

    Gridlock Active Member

    Last edited: Mar 4, 2016
    • Like Like x 2
  6. Whitebeard

    Whitebeard Senior Member

    .... err may be because photography didn't exist until around 1820, and as has been discussed elsewhere lunar photography can be tricky even these day due to issues such as contrast, exposure and focus. Add in the fact that until the 1890's and the development of fast film and rapid shutter release exposures could take over an hour and I'm suprised that there are lunar photographs as early as 1852.

    But lets say for a moment that the moon IS a hoax from the 1850's....

    Then what the heck is shown in these paintings?

    [​IMG]
    Joseph Vernet, Night: Seaport by Moonlight, 1771, (Louvre gallery)

    [​IMG]

    James Arthur O'Connor
    Moonli
    ght Scene (C. 1820) - Crawford Gallery, Cork


    http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/s...0022-WZ-PYR.tif&CNT=1&HEI=371&QLT=85&CVT=jpeg
    The Four Times of Day: Evening
    1739-41, Nicolas Lancret (National Gallery - London)

    etc etc etc...
     
    • Like Like x 4
  7. Whitebeard

    Whitebeard Senior Member

    Like The Antikythera Mechanism...



    (from - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6191462.stm )
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    ...which shows that the ancient Greeks not only saw the moon, but understood something about its phases, orbit and it relation to other heavenly bodies.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  8. solrey

    solrey Senior Member

    Then there is the purely lunar Hijri calendar that is still used in the Islamic world.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_calendar

    http://www.webexhibits.org/calendars/calendar-islamic.html
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  9. Whitebeard

    Whitebeard Senior Member

    and the fact that the 5000 year old Recumbent Stones type monuments found in Northern Scotland and the West of Ireland are all aligned with the moon rise and moon set on the winter solstice.
    Again showing that observation and understanding of the moons orbit and cycles was understood long before modern science got involved.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  10. Benji

    Benji New Member

    It's just as explainable on the flat earth model as it is on the globe. On FE, the moon travels in a circle around the earth. If you are "inside" that circle when you look up (e.g. north of the equator), it looks a certain way. If you are on the "outside" of that circle (or south of the equator) then when you look up you will see the upside down version of what's seen on the inside of the circle. You can demonstrate this yourself by holding a quarter above your head and moving from one side to the other.
     
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  11. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Can you draw a FE diagram that shows the position of two people and the moon such that they see it as rotated 180 degrees?
     
  12. Z.W. Wolf

    Z.W. Wolf Active Member

    The typical reply is: "Paste a flat picture of the moon on the ceiling of your living room. Look at it from one side of the room, now move to the other side and look at it again. It's upside down!"

    This is why they insist that the moon is also flat. But of course, in that case it would appear oval shaped from most spots on the FE. There's also the question of exactly where this flat moon is in relation to the FE and its relation to the "firmament" - the dome.

    Some flat earthers have traded pictures of the moon in the northern and southern hemisphere and have dismissed the whole notion that it is "upside down" in the southern hemisphere. The complicating factor is field rotation, which they have never heard of and don't understand when it is explained to them. For instance, they might compare a rising full moon in the northern hemisphere to a setting full moon in the southern hemisphere; and everything in between.
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2016
    • Like Like x 4
  13. Benji

    Benji New Member

    Sure:

    20160420_111316.
    20160420_111335.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 20, 2016
  14. Marin B

    Marin B Active Member


    That revisionism site is satire. Or at least I sure hope it is!
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    So (besides the moon not looking flat) people to the "east" and "west" of the moon on a FE would also see 180 degree flipped version of the moon (which is not obvious from your diagram as you use a symmetrical face).

    Unfortunately it's so ludicrous that I feel it's not worth debunking. Who seriously gives this explanation?
     
  16. Benji

    Benji New Member

    The simple fact is that someone posted "proof" that the moon can't appear upside down in the southern hemisphere on the flat earth model when I showed quite simply that it can. You asked for a diagram and I gave exactly what you asked for. It doesn't have to even look flat or symmetrical for my diagram to work. My point is that the original post here is not proof that the earth isn't flat. I'm altogether aware that it's not proof that it is flat, either.
     
  17. huwp

    huwp Member

    So how does this concept account for the moon setting? If this diagram were true, the moon would never set, but instead would move away horizontally across the sky getting smaller (and more oval) as it does.

    Or in this milieu, is it sufficient to explain one thing at a time and never mind if the explanations contradict each other?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    It kind of is, as it contains the implied (nearly obvious) condition that the moon is a sphere - which it has to be as it looks round from everywhere in the world.
     
  19. Benji

    Benji New Member

    The moon being a sphere (or any other celestial object being spherical) does not necessitate the earth being a sphere. It might be a logical conclusion, but it is by no means empirical evidence.
     
  20. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    The point was that if the moon was a sphere (which we can prove by it always appearing circular), you would see different parts of it from different parts of the flat earth. But you don't. That's pretty empirical.

    20160421-092605-9rkf6.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Winner Winner x 1
  21. Z.W. Wolf

    Z.W. Wolf Active Member

    A theory has to account for all facts not just the confirming facts.

    This video shows why a spherical moon circling above a flat earth cannot work. We would see the moon cycle through all its phases in one day. Also, different parts of the moon would be visible at the same time from different parts of the earth. (If the video starts at beginning go to 1:54.)

     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2016
    • Like Like x 2
  22. Z.W. Wolf

    Z.W. Wolf Active Member

    A theory has to fit all the facts, not just the confirming ones.

    This is why a flat moon circling above a flat earth cannot work.

    - At any one moment no more than 50% of the moon's surface is visible. But long before the space age, more than 50% of the moon's surface was mapped. This article explains how that was possible. Libration - a wobble from side to side, and a "nod" up and down, shows us hidden features "around the corners" on the spherical moon.

    http://earthsky.org/space/how-much-of-the-moon-can-we-see-from-earth-lunar-libration

    A flat disk could not have more features "around the corners."

    - A flat moon would look like an oval from most spots on earth at any one time. The farther away it was the more oval it would be. Anyone should have an intuitive feeling for that from life experience.
    [​IMG]

    A flat disk moon would only work if a particular observer were in a privileged spot on the earth in which the flat disk moon would turn its face toward that spot and that spot alone as it traveled across the sky. I think this is what flat earthers are imagining when they look up at the moon - that the moon is showing them its full face at all times - without realizing that they would have to be in a privileged spot for it to work.


    Neither a flat nor spherical moon circling above the earth would ever set. The perspective argument flat earthers make is only convincing on the most superficial level. If you actually make a model of the flat earth you will see that a straight line can be drawn between any spot on the earth's surface and the moon at any time.

    The moon is supposedly 3,000 miles above the surface and the flat earth is 16,000 miles (or so) in diameter. That is a ratio of only 5.34 to 1. If you made a table top model of this system, if the earth were 36 inches in diameter, the moon would be 6 3/4 inches above the surface. You could stretch a string between any point on the surface of your model earth and the moon in any part of its path. Light travels in a straight line. So how could the moon ever be out of your line of sight?

    If it disappeared due to atmospheric extinction, it would just fade out while still high above the horizon.
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2016
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  23. DarkStar

    DarkStar Active Member

    Another factor.

    If the moon or sun were just 3000 or 4000 miles away the parallax from different locations would be fairly enormous.

    For an object 4000 miles away you'd get about 8.8° parallax for every 1000km. It would be unmistakable.

    GeoGebra calculator: https://www.geogebra.org/m/WDcnZwqY

    This would be completely unequivocal and trivial to observe by people living at even slightly different latitudes. No solar/lunar position calculator would be even close to accurate.


    With sun 149.6 million km away you get just 0.0001981409° of parallax (or 0.713307 arcseconds) for that same 1000km.

    GeoGebra calculator: https://www.geogebra.org/m/XgmCSV9B

    Guess which one is more accurate?
     
    • Like Like x 4
    • Agree Agree x 1
  24. Rory

    Rory Senior Member

    It's sure come to something when we're quoting ancient sources to show that people before 1850 also "had the moon".

    I'm surprised no one's mentioned the Bible: over 40 mentions in there, apparently.

    Benji, I'm not actually a hundred percent against your diagram here, and I think much of the opposition to it seems to have missed the point, that all it's intended to do is counter the OP, rather than prove anything else, and shouldn't be countered with other arguments, although related.

    Still, looking at your drawing, I'm curious as to why people who are looking at an elliptical moon are seeing it as a circle?

    I'm assuming you meant to draw it as a flat circle. Is that right?

    If so, then your people should be seeing an ellipse.

    Also, if it's flat, like a coin, they should be seeing an edge.

    Or maybe you did mean to draw an ellipse? In which case they would be seeing an even more stretched ellipse.

    Or perhaps you meant to draw a sphere? In which case they would be seeing something altogether different.

    Can I suggest a new diagram please? And maybe one that shows how the moon would look from 4 directions, rather than 2?
     
  25. Inti

    Inti Active Member

    More evidence that the moon is a a sphere is the shape of the craters. Around the rim, they appear elliptical, and become more circular the closer they are to the disks centre. And we can see that ourselves with any low cost telescope, so we don't have to rely on those conspirators at Nasa.

    [​IMG]
    And if course, there the obvious shape and gradation if the shadow around the sphere when it is side-lit. Fairly compelling to anyone willing to look, which excludes most FE true believers

    Dubay quotes Rowbotham, his Victorian guru, as attributing all these observed details. to pareidolia:

    Dubay misses a weak trick by not mention Lowell and his martian canals here.

    Comically, he also claims that
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2016
    • Like Like x 1
  26. Inti

    Inti Active Member

    I'm not sure if this helps:

    [​IMG]
    http://roundearthsense.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/146-ball-earth-model-claims-moon.html

    it was part of my reply to this claim by Eric Dubay:
    http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html

    I didn't take account of which way up the moon looks from different hemiispheres when i drew it, though.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  27. 0x90

    0x90 Closed Account

    This commonly-cited explanation is flawed and incomplete, primarily because it depends on arbitrary orientation of the views involved. To demonstrate, let us imagine three observers standing on the earth, at around the equinox, and at the same longitude, but different latitudes:
    1. One at 45°N.
    2. One at the equator.
    3. One at 45°S.
    Each will be given a camera, which will be set level with his/her horizon, pointing due east, and will photograph the rising full moon just as it clears the horizon. When we compare the three photos, we will find that as compared with that of the observer at the equator, the moon's disc in the northern observer's photo will appear to have been rotated 45° clockwise with respect to the horizon, and vice versa in that of the southern observer.

    Using the globe model, it is easy to visualize why this is by imagining a single video camera affixed to a train car that travels between the northern and southern observers; were this train to travel around 3000 miles per second, here is roughly what the film would show:


    45n-to-45s.


    Unlike the globe model, the flat model can provide no coherent explanation for this apparent rotation, which can be confirmed by anyone, anywhere, with no special training or equipment.

    Also worth mentioning is that a single observer can confirm this independently, from one single position, since over the course of the night, his longitude will travel through 180°. Were the earth instead to stand still, we could use a similar train to more easily visualize the movement of his camera; in this case, it travels from his evening position at 45°N, up over the north pole, to his morning position at 45°N on the opposite longitude. Just as with the previous example, he will observe an apparent 90° rotation of the moon over this time, albeit clockwise, as opposed to what is shown above for the south-bound train.

    Furthermore, note that these observations clarify not only the apparent rotation of the moon, but also lay bare in precisely which way the "two people looking at a figure on the ceiling" explanation misleads: by neglecting the fact that frame of reference matters.

    Provided that we take the hook, we may not notice the fact that when looking at the ceiling, we are free to rotate our view to produce any result we like; if we wish the two views to be mutually inverted, as suggested by Benji, we need only make sure to set the up vector of each camera opposite that of the other. And if we wish them to match, we need only align the camera up vectors; it is a perfect confirmation bias trap.

    However, we are no longer free to make this mistake, once the horizon enters the picture; instead, since we then see that the rotation is occurring with respect to the horizon itself, and that it would be futile to attempt to get round it by rotating the camera, it becomes inescapable that either:
    1. Each observer sees a custom-rotated version of the moon, or
    2. Each observer's horizon is rotated with respect to the moon.
    Whereas the latter is simply self-evident in the globe model, the former cannot be explained, irrespective of the model, by anything but the purest solipsism.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  28. Z.W. Wolf

    Z.W. Wolf Active Member

    Thanks for the post. In the case of the single observer watching the moon seemingly rotate during the night, this effect has a name: field rotation.

    Everything in the sky "rotates" during the night. It might be easier to visualize a constellation like Orion rather than the moon. In the northern hemisphere, Orion is in the southern sky and looks (more or less) like this.

    [​IMG]


    Orion is on the celestial equator and this is what he looks like with the celestial equator marked in red.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
    If you're not familiar with the celestial equator, first imagine in this illustration that the CE is a bicycle tire and the line from the north pole is the axle. The tire rotates from east to west. Now imagine this is a line on a clear plastic sphere. The sphere is rotating around the earth. That's the celestial sphere.


    Apropos to our issue of field rotation, imagine the celestial equator as a line across the night sky. Point to the east (your left) and draw your finger across the southern sky along that line all the way to the west (your right). Now imagine holding a model of Orion in your hand and make the same movement. It's easy see why Orion makes this seeming clockwise movement.

    Or just try it in the room you're sitting in. Hold your right hand out in front of your left shoulder with the thumb down. (You're looking at the back of your hand.) Move your arm in a wiping motion to your right. You'll end up with your thumb pointing up.

    If you're on the earth's equator (perhaps in Ecuador), Orion comes up due east, passes straight over head and sets due west. His bow comes up first and goes down first. Easy. What comes up first goes down first. (Try the hand trick again, but this time wipe your hand directly over your head to see what I mean.)

    Getting back to the moon, it shouldn't be surprising that a rising moon, in the northern hemisphere, looks like this:

    [​IMG]

    And a setting moon looks like this:

    [​IMG]

    You can see that it has "rotated" in the same direction (clockwise), and pretty much to the same degree that Orion rotates.

    But of course the moon doesn't actually rotate like this. We are moving with the earth's surface and it's our point of view that changes. Much like looking at something from a merry-go-round.
     
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2016
    • Winner Winner x 1
  29. Z.W. Wolf

    Z.W. Wolf Active Member

    To help people who aren't too familiar with the terms we've been using here, this old Air Force instructional film is the best thing I've found. The celestial equator is defined at 4:18 for instance, but I think you should start at the beginning.



    One correction. Only the stars were thought to be on the celestial sphere. The planets, the moon and sun were thought to have their own spheres inside the celestial sphere. We still use the abstract concept of the celestial sphere.
     
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2016
    • Useful Useful x 1
  30. Fajar

    Fajar New Member

    I have a question regarding to the moon rotation. Standard science says that moon is circling the earth every 30 days, so basically every month moon will alyas be in between earth and sun.

    My question, why we don't experiencing solar eclipse every month? I'm not saying that it should be a total eclipse, since the theory says the moon’s orbit is inclined to Earth’s orbit by about 5 degrees. But some part of earth should be covered by moon's shadow during the daylight (partial solar eclipse). Can anyone explain this?
    Thanks
     
  31. Landru

    Landru Moderator Staff Member

    http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/ab...-do-we-not-have-eclipses-every-month-beginner

    I simply asked your question in Google. In the future you should start by doing that.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  32. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Moderator Staff Member

    5 degrees may not sound very much, but when you consider how small the moon is and how far away from the Earth it is, it's quite a lot.

    The diameter of the moon is a little over 2,000 miles, but it is 240,000 miles away, in other words it is over 100 times further away than it is wide.

    It's easy to forget that, because diagrams of the Earth and Moon often show them much closer together than they really are. In actual fact they don't look like this:

    [​IMG]

    but like this:

    upload_2016-12-30_17-17-2.


    So you can see that the angle doesn't have to be very much at all for the shadow to miss the Earth entirely. (In fact the angular diameter of the moon as seen from the Earth is only about half of one degree.)
     
    • Informative Informative x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  33. 0x90

    0x90 Closed Account

    Considering it from the sun's point of view, the thing that might strike one as incredible is that eclipses happen as frequently as they do:

    inclination.
     

    Attached Files:

    • Like Like x 5
    • Agree Agree x 2
  34. ZoRay

    ZoRay New Member

    Sorry MineBen but you haven't given this much thought.

    If you and I are standing face to face (you are looking north and I am looking south) on a level surface in a room and look above at an assymetrical object centered directly between us, what you see as the top pointing south, I will see as the bottom pointing south and vice versa.

    Try it. Do some experiments.

    Science is based upon the scientific method; if you can't produce a working model of your theory, it has to be discarded.
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2017
  35. rumbleh

    rumbleh New Member

    Looking at blue and red pins on earth's surface, I presume that is the height of observer.

    Try to do the same drawing, using a real scale person. The lines will be drawned over the earth.

    [​IMG]
     
  36. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Moderator Staff Member


    Your drawings are not anything like to scale. The moon is about a quarter of the diameter of the Earth, and 30 Earth diameters away from it.

    [​IMG]

    We're talking about observers in the northern and southern hemispheres, not right at the north and south poles as in your diagram. You can easily see the moon from both northern and southern hemispheres at the same time.
     
  37. David Ridlen

    David Ridlen Member

    • Like Like x 1
  38. Alan Steffens

    Alan Steffens New Member

    I feel this way about the entire subject of flat earth.

    Honestly, if someone's grasp of scientific concepts is so poor already, what makes us think that we can change their mind by offering further scientific explanations?

    [...]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 31, 2017
  39. Whitebeard

    Whitebeard Senior Member

    Its not really a case of changing the minds of the hard core flat earthers. More a case of pointing out their errors, mistakes and - lets be honest about this - lies, so that others don't follow them into the rabbit hole.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  40. David Ridlen

    David Ridlen Member

    FE is associated with a steadily growing anti-'gubment' trend, equating science with corporate conspiracy/brainwashing among the poorly educated. My FE debunk vids do receive occasional "thank you! I/my sister/etc was getting sucked into this' comments from people on the fence. Solid threads, videos or comments will be conveniently linked in various discussions, so the same point is not typed out repeatedly.

    Belligerent fundamentalists may resist all reason. But a less rigid mind may change over time in the face of accumulated logical points they eventually admit to themselves they cannot refute.
     
    • Like Like x 5