[3DGeek]

- Moon in southern hemisphere is upside-down. How can it be on a flat earth?

This is explained in the Wiki. In FET this is explained by the different observers standing on either side of the moon. On one side it is right-side up, and on the other side it is upside down.

Imagine a green arrow suspended horizontally above your head pointing to the North. Standing 50 feet to the South of the arrow it is pointing "downwards" towards the Northern horizon. Standing 50 feet to the North of the arrow, looking back at it, it points "upwards" above your head to the North. The arrow flip-flops, pointing down or away from the horizon depending on which side you stand.

OK that doesn't work.   Explain to me how the moon is rotated 90 degrees at the equator (Nairobi, Kenya - where I spent many of my school years, 60 degrees here in Austin, Texas (where I happen to live) and around 40 degrees in the UK (where I used to live).  When I visited South Africa, the moon was almost completely upside-down.

People from all along the same longitude line can see the moon at the same time - and the rotation angle is precisely what you'd expect it to be for a round earth.

Your explanation would also require the moon to be a flat disk, parallel to the surface of the Earth - but then it would appear as an ellipse in the sky - not the perfect circle it actually is.

You can't get away with a handwavy explanation like that - it simply doesn't match actual observations.

You can't even claim that these observations are wrong without flat out calling me (who has seen this phenomenon first hand over decades of moon watching) a liar...and I assure you that I am not.

[WaterBell]

Plus there are plenty of moon pictures that are from amateurs. No way ALL of them have been created by a conspiracy to maintain the lie about the moon not being a sphere.

[neutrino]

Nothing really works in Flat Earth Theory.  There is so much ‫obvious evidence, still they deny all of it. It's not a theory it's a faith.

[juner]

Nothing really works in Flat Earth Theory.  There is so much ‫obvious evidence, still they deny all of it. It's not a theory it's a faith.

Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim?

[SorryNotSorry]

Nothing really works in Flat Earth Theory.  There is so much ‫obvious evidence, still they deny all of it. It's not a theory it's a faith.

Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim?

How about gravity? In order for a flat earth model to be rail gravity would have to be a lie since you would experience a different force depending on where you are. The idea that a disk is being perpetually propelled upward at a constant 9.8/ms^2 is insane, what is providing that force?

[neutrino]

You want stone cold facts?
- During lunar eclipses (which occur2-5 times a year visible from all over the hemisphere) the Earth shadow cast on Moon is round. What shape casts round shadow in all angles? Right - a sphere



- Sinking beyond horizon ship. Don't tell me your perspective bullshit. Even no a single vide on YT proving this nonsens, but tens videos prove the opposite.







Look at this photo: and follow the line of the turbines on left. No bending light, no nothing. Just the curvature makes the farthest "touch" water



- Seismic waves create P-wave shadow zones during earthquakes which are symmetric and perfectly fits spherical earth, but not  any other shape.



- Stars moving. How could you explain different directions of stars spinning in northern and southern hemispheres?



- Moon in southern hemisphere is upside-down. How can it be on a flat earth?



These are just what popped into my mind. If you need more, I'll write you a bunch of others as well. And there is no relying on NASA images. Simply testable by anyone.

All planets are spherical and somehow Earth is magically flat? WTF?

Junker, as per your request. None of this was explained.

[neutrino]

Oh and the explanation of the Moon upside-down in spherical earth is quite obvious.



Also any explanation of flat earthers to Venus transition?

[JoeTheToe]

Orbital rocket technologies are highly controlled. SpaceX is not independent. It's a government contractor and its employees are under direct government supervision and control for permission to develop/access these technologies. Do you really think the military would let technology which can easily be used as the vehicle for an ICBM be available as public knowledge?

Congratulations, this argument is known as "moving the goalpost". First you asserted that all rocket technology is classified military tech. When the commercial firm SpaceX  was brought up, you modified your argument to be "classified military tech and also anything affiliated with government projects even if they also launch purely commercial satellites." Classic FE tactic.

As for tech that ICBMs use - this tech has literally been public knowledge since 7th-century China. You've been confused about what an ICBM is before. It stands for "Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile". It is just one type of weaponized ballistic missile, on a continuous spectrum with Battle Range Ballistic Missile on the lower end, and includes things like Theater range Ballistic Missile.

Ballistic Missiles have literally been used since the dawn of civilization. Trebuchets are a Ballistic Missile system.

Let's break it down, to give you some future clarity when using ICBMs to somehow try to debunk a globular earth (or prove that ICBMs don't exist? Something like that?). Here we go:

• Inter-Continental: Can reach another continent. In other words, has enough range to cross an ocean or sea.
• Ballistic: Moving only under the force of gravity. Free-falling. (Or in this specific context, following a parabolic trajectory governed solely by gravity.)
• Missile: An object forcibly propelled. In this case, by a Newtonian rocket engine.

If you read "ICBM" backwards, you get a better idea:

• A rocket forcibly propels a payload (e.g. a bomb) off the ground, eventually reaching a pre-calculated angle, direction, altitude, and speed.
• The rocket then stops and detaches from the payload.
• The payload then falls back to Earth on a predictable and pre-calculated parabolic path, hopefully to the intended target.

I had a friend in middle school that literally harnessed ICBM technology, and I'm pretty sure he wasn't working for the military, or part of a grand global conspiracy. He fired a payload (a plastic figurine with a parachute) at a crudely "calculated" angle and known burn duration, to deliver it to a target. (Granted the figurine wasn't really ballistic once the parachute popped, but not too different than passive aerodynamic steering/braking tech.) The rocket technology used was identical in concept to ICBMs - an impressively large newtonian rocket accelerating an aerodynamic cylinder, fitted with a rounded conical nose and stabilization fins. The only difference was choice of propellant for practical safety, economic, and scale concerns. And also size, range, and purpose.

Ballistic missiles by definition do not enter Earth orbit, even if they may extend beyond low-Earth orbit for very long distances. That would be extremely impractical, and require additional fuel and significant leap in technological capability, to de-orbit on target. There are/were fractional-orbit missile systems, and orbital missile systems are certainly possible if not existing. But "ballistic" is not part of their name. A ballistic missile is literally just lobbing a bomb from the ground, to the ground. (Though that may some day be expanded to include a bomb that eventually falls ballistically after using rockets to de-orbit from an orbital launch platform.)

[JoeTheToe]

Look up the chapter "Perspective at Sea" in Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.

Except for the fact that it is utterly nonsensical. Rowbotham's fundamental mistake was in trying to superimpose first-person "perspective lines", onto side elevation views. That's not how "perspective" works, it is literally a meaningless concept, a fictional construct. Furthermore:

• "Perspective lines" are an abstract first-person perspective notion, not a concrete thing that can be diagrammed from a side view.
• "Perspective lines" and "horizon" have nothing necessarily to do with each other. Imagine an artist drawing a cube oriented randomly in the sky, using three-point perspective. None of the three "vanishing points" would be on the "horizon line".
• A "Vanishing point" is just that - an imaginary inferred point at which two or more parallel lines appear to converge to, from the literal visual point of view of an observer (or camera). It is not a specific point at some specific or arbitrary distance on an imaginary plane, that can be diagrammed independently of an observer.

Using the same nonsensical, invalid mashup of first-person perspective lines and vanishing points - overlaid onto side-view elevations, we get rubbish like:



If you disagree with this critique of Rowbotham's "explanation", please explain Rowbotham's nonsensical explanation of perspective and vanishing points, in a way that makes sense, using contemporary language not littered with bullshit. I've asked you this for ten years, and have yet to even get a response period. I've read Robatham's explanation many times and can only conclude that the man's sheer ignorance was only exceeded only by his confidence and flowery prose - the Dunning Kruger Effect on full display. Those types seem to make the best dictators and cult leaders. He obviously has you snowed, nearly 200 years later.

[TomInAustin]

Orbital rocket technologies are highly controlled. SpaceX is not independent. It's a government contractor and its employees are under direct government supervision and control for permission to develop/access these technologies. Do you really think the military would let technology which can easily be used as the vehicle for an ICBM be available as public knowledge?

Congratulations, this argument is known as "moving the goalpost". First you asserted that all rocket technology is classified military tech. When the commercial firm SpaceX  was brought up, you modified your argument to be "classified military tech and also anything affiliated with government projects even if they also launch purely commercial satellites." Classic FE tactic.

As for tech that ICBMs use - this tech has literally been public knowledge since 7th-century China. You've been confused about what an ICBM is before. It stands for "Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile". It is just one type of weaponized ballistic missile, on a continuous spectrum with Battle Range Ballistic Missile on the lower end, and includes things like Theater range Ballistic Missile.

Ballistic Missiles have literally been used since the dawn of civilization. Trebuchets are a Ballistic Missile system.

Let's break it down, to give you some future clarity when using ICBMs to somehow try to debunk a globular earth (or prove that ICBMs don't exist? Something like that?). Here we go:

• Inter-Continental: Can reach another continent. In other words, has enough range to cross an ocean or sea.
• Ballistic: Moving only under the force of gravity. Free-falling. (Or in this specific context, following a parabolic trajectory governed solely by gravity.)
• Missile: An object forcibly propelled. In this case, by a Newtonian rocket engine.

If you read "ICBM" backwards, you get a better idea:

• A rocket forcibly propels a payload (e.g. a bomb) off the ground, eventually reaching a pre-calculated angle, direction, altitude, and speed.
• The rocket then stops and detaches from the payload.
• The payload then falls back to Earth on a predictable and pre-calculated parabolic path, hopefully to the intended target.

I had a friend in middle school that literally harnessed ICBM technology, and I'm pretty sure he wasn't working for the military, or part of a grand global conspiracy. He fired a payload (a plastic figurine with a parachute) at a crudely "calculated" angle and known burn duration, to deliver it to a target. (Granted the figurine wasn't really ballistic once the parachute popped, but not too different than passive aerodynamic steering/braking tech.) The rocket technology used was identical in concept to ICBMs - an impressively large newtonian rocket accelerating an aerodynamic cylinder, fitted with a rounded conical nose and stabilization fins. The only difference was choice of propellant for practical safety, economic, and scale concerns. And also size, range, and purpose.

Ballistic missiles by definition do not enter Earth orbit, even if they may extend beyond low-Earth orbit for very long distances. That would be extremely impractical, and require additional fuel and significant leap in technological capability, to de-orbit on target. There are/were fractional-orbit missile systems, and orbital missile systems are certainly possible if not existing. But "ballistic" is not part of their name. A ballistic missile is literally just lobbing a bomb from the ground, to the ground. (Though that may some day be expanded to include a bomb that eventually falls ballistically after using rockets to de-orbit from an orbital launch platform.)

Very well said.   I would hope Tom comes back to discuss.