[CableDawg]

There is plenty of evidence that the earth is round.  There is also plenty of evidence that NASA is to be trusted.  So why should anyone discard that evidence in favor of believing that the earth is flat?  What is your best, most incontrovertible evidence that the earth is flat and NASA is lying?  Remember to cite your sources.

Hi, friend.
I think of it in this way. A computer programmed to do a certain function would perform it with whatever data we feed in. Even if the data is wrong, the machine would process and give a logical answer (according to what we fed in). What if we were wrong in our assumptions? We were taught from childhood that earth is round. Don't you think we have already accepted that without questioning?
Could you please mention a few evidences you speak of? Which doesn't have any assumptions behind them and would appease a straight forward logic? The FES apparently doesn't approve of photographic evidence (Thanks to photoshop and similar software). I'm not yet convinced of both theories, to be honest.

Hello Rain,

From my perspective as an avid watcher of the skies (day, night and the transitions) there are a few observations that are easy to replicate but don't mesh with the FE scheme of things. Earth Shadow, explained here (http://www.atoptics.co.uk/fza60.htm) can be observed most clear days either as the sun sets or rises, something it doesn't do on the FE. Sunsets over the sea, clearly dipping below the horizon when it shouldn't and the accompanying clouds lit from beneath when the FE wiki says it (the sun) stays at a constant height that  would make those stunning red sunsets impossible. Also noctilucent clouds, night shining very high clouds illuminated by the sun over the horizon (see  https://cloudappreciationsociety.org/find-a-cloud/#p=1&t=cloud92&i=0). There are many more if you would like to look at these sites and take yourself out to observe. And Neptune. I have and taken the photo's but just not as good as the ones on the links, anyway hope this is of some interest in your search, good luck.

Why do you day red sunsets wouldn't be possible? The light from the sun would still have to travel through the same amount of atmosphere horizontally whether it was "setting" beneath the horizon or extremely distant.

One thing I dont understand is how the sun is said to be what illuminates the moon but ive seen the moon out same time as sun very close in proximity and you would think light from sun would hit it from the back. Also would the light be able to illuminate a spherical moon so evenly? Doesn't it revolve around earth as we rotate, shouldnt we see multiple phases in one night?

You've seen the moon out at the same time as the sun but FE theory dictates that the sun and moon are exactly opposite of each other.  How do you believe the moon could be visible during the day considering this?  How is a disc with a diameter of 32 miles clearly visible from thousands of miles away?  How could this disc be seen as a disc when being viewed in an oblique way?

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

I don't know. Never claimed to know, and I don't think "flat earth theory" is the end all of celestial movements. There is still a lot of explanation needed for anyone to take it seriously. Either way, that doesn't fix the holes I see in the heliocentric theory. I can only hope to ever know for sure, beyond a reasonable doubt, the shape of the world we live on.

[BlueMoon]

I don't know. Never claimed to know, and I don't think "flat earth theory" is the end all of celestial movements. There is still a lot of explanation needed for anyone to take it seriously. Either way, that doesn't fix the holes I see in the heliocentric theory. I can only hope to ever know for sure, beyond a reasonable doubt, the shape of the world we live on.

What holes are there in heliocentric theory?  Have you ever looked for answers?  Would you even believe those answers if you heard them, or is your mind already made up that heliocentric theory is flawed beyond repair?  Because when I am uncertain of something, I look it up first, rather than decide that it's wrong.  And I have never found anything that would lead me to distrust the RE model. 

[geckothegeek]

I don't know. Never claimed to know, and I don't think "flat earth theory" is the end all of celestial movements. There is still a lot of explanation needed for anyone to take it seriously. Either way, that doesn't fix the holes I see in the heliocentric theory. I can only hope to ever know for sure, beyond a reasonable doubt, the shape of the world we live on.

I have yet to see much, if any thing, to take seriously about flat earth. "Flat Earth Maps" ,or the lack of "Flat Earth Maps" , for a start.

It may come as a complete surprise to the so-called "flat earth believers" ,but that 99.9999nth part of the world knows for sure,, beyond a reasonable doubt, that  the shape of the world is the globe on which we live.

The difference between "round earthers" and "flat earthers" seems to be that "round earthers" are not afraid when they are uncertain of something, to look up things,or find out how to look up things, but "looking up things" is something "flat earthers" never do because their minds are made up and they are certain the earth is flat simply because if they look out their windows the earth looks flat. That is about as far as they go. Oh, yes ! They must look up things written in 1850 as the source of all truth.

If you don't take flat earth seriously , it can be fun and entertaining.  My guess is that is why at least some persons enjoy this website.

[geckothegeek]

There is plenty of evidence that the earth is round.  There is also plenty of evidence that NASA is to be trusted.  So why should anyone discard that evidence in favor of believing that the earth is flat?  What is your best, most incontrovertible evidence that the earth is flat and NASA is lying?  Remember to cite your sources.

Hi, friend.
I think of it in this way. A computer programmed to do a certain function would perform it with whatever data we feed in. Even if the data is wrong, the machine would process and give a logical answer (according to what we fed in). What if we were wrong in our assumptions? We were taught from childhood that earth is round. Don't you think we have already accepted that without questioning?
Could you please mention a few evidences you speak of? Which doesn't have any assumptions behind them and would appease a straight forward logic? The FES apparently doesn't approve of photographic evidence (Thanks to photoshop and similar software). I'm not yet convinced of both theories, to be honest.

Hello Rain,

From my perspective as an avid watcher of the skies (day, night and the transitions) there are a few observations that are easy to replicate but don't mesh with the FE scheme of things. Earth Shadow, explained here (http://www.atoptics.co.uk/fza60.htm) can be observed most clear days either as the sun sets or rises, something it doesn't do on the FE. Sunsets over the sea, clearly dipping below the horizon when it shouldn't and the accompanying clouds lit from beneath when the FE wiki says it (the sun) stays at a constant height that  would make those stunning red sunsets impossible. Also noctilucent clouds, night shining very high clouds illuminated by the sun over the horizon (see  https://cloudappreciationsociety.org/find-a-cloud/#p=1&t=cloud92&i=0). There are many more if you would like to look at these sites and take yourself out to observe. And Neptune. I have and taken the photo's but just not as good as the ones on the links, anyway hope this is of some interest in your search, good luck.

Why do you day red sunsets wouldn't be possible? The light from the sun would still have to travel through the same amount of atmosphere horizontally whether it was "setting" beneath the horizon or extremely distant.

One thing I dont understand is how the sun is said to be what illuminates the moon but ive seen the moon out same time as sun very close in proximity and you would think light from sun would hit it from the back. Also would the light be able to illuminate a spherical moon so evenly? Doesn't it revolve around earth as we rotate, shouldnt we see multiple phases in one night?

You've seen the moon out at the same time as the sun but FE theory dictates that the sun and moon are exactly opposite of each other.  How do you believe the moon could be visible during the day considering this?  How is a disc with a diameter of 32 miles clearly visible from thousands of miles away?  How could this disc be seen as a disc when being viewed in an oblique way?

The only FE idea I have seen why the moon is visible under the FE model  (whether it deserves to be called a theory is questionable)
is because the moon is "self-illuminating".........Something to do with "moonshrimps".....  BTW the flat earth doesn't rotate. It is stationary. Everthing else , including the sun ,   the  mooon and the stars (not certain if planets exist according to some flat earthers) rotate above the flat earth.

Be patient, FE will come up with an answer. Maybe the moon glows because of friction when the "aether" blows across the "atmoplane."

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

It may come as a complete surprise to the so-called "flat earth believers" ,but that 99.9999nth part of the world knows for sure,, beyond a reasonable doubt, that  the shape of the world is the globe on which we live.

They don't know for sure. At one point everyone knew the Earth was flat. Not just morons either, society's best and brightest. Ancient civilizations like the Mayans, who by all accounts were extremely precise and advanced in the field of astronomy, believed the earth to be flat.

The point is, people believe what they are taught and told. It's the nature of the dissemination of knowledge. To look back in hindsight at ideas that were accepted in the past, and think you would have any inclination to doubt them, then you are just lying to yourself.

[BlueMoon]

It may come as a complete surprise to the so-called "flat earth believers" ,but that 99.9999nth part of the world knows for sure,, beyond a reasonable doubt, that  the shape of the world is the globe on which we live.

They don't know for sure. At one point everyone knew the Earth was flat. Not just morons either, society's best and brightest. Ancient civilizations like the Mayans, who by all accounts were extremely precise and advanced in the field of astronomy, believed the earth to be flat.

The point is, people believe what they are taught and told. It's the nature of the dissemination of knowledge. To look back in hindsight at ideas that were accepted in the past, and think you would have any inclination to doubt them, then you are just lying to yourself.

Sure, they thought the earth was flat.  There wasn't much point in thinking otherwise.  That doesn't mean they were right.  That was the time before accurate weather forecasts, seismology, and tectonics. 
The circumstances today are different.  We have satellites visible above our head that can't be explained with a flat earth, and the images that they take conclusively refute it.  We have many space agencies, formed for a variety of reasons, that put those satellites into space.  One of them in particular, NASA, has put twelve men on the moon, with the help of many subcontractors.  The others have provided evidence third party evidence.  It doesn't matter what the majority opinion is; the earth is round, and that's that.  To say otherwise is to spit in the face of our best and brightest. 

[Woody]

It may come as a complete surprise to the so-called "flat earth believers" ,but that 99.9999nth part of the world knows for sure,, beyond a reasonable doubt, that  the shape of the world is the globe on which we live.

They don't know for sure. At one point everyone knew the Earth was flat. Not just morons either, society's best and brightest. Ancient civilizations like the Mayans, who by all accounts were extremely precise and advanced in the field of astronomy, believed the earth to be flat.

The point is, people believe what they are taught and told. It's the nature of the dissemination of knowledge. To look back in hindsight at ideas that were accepted in the past, and think you would have any inclination to doubt them, then you are just lying to yourself.

Can you make any assumptions as to why people believed the Earth was flat?

We will start off with people in general not traveling that far away from where they were born.

Education really was not available to the masses until relatively recently.  Things like books where not widely available and only a minority could read them.

Travel across the Earth until relatively recently in human history was not very common.

Seems when education and traveling long distance became more common the belief in a flat Earth became less common.

The only time I know of in recorded history when an organization tried to suppress knowledge about the shape of the Earth was the Roman Catholic Church.  It was not done to hinder science, but out of the belief it was heresy to suggest the Earth was not the center of the universe. 

[Rounder]

It was not done to hinder science, but out of the belief it was heresy to suggest the Earth was not the center of the universe.

Isn't that the very definition of "hindering science"?

[rabinoz]

Travel across the Earth until relatively recently in human history was not very common.

Seems when education and traveling long distance became more common the belief in a flat Earth became less common.

The only time I know of in recorded history when an organization tried to suppress knowledge about the shape of the Earth was the Roman Catholic Church.  It was not done to hinder science, but out of the belief it was heresy to suggest the Earth was not the center of the universe.

From what I have read of early "Church"[1] the "shape of the earth" was never an "article of faith" in the Catholic Church, and in the first couple of centuries there was plenty of discussion, with the "official position" being that the earth was a globe, though this was not enforced.

The Geocentric vs Heliocentric argument was certainly a different matter. The earth being the centre of the universe was an "article of faith" (as Gailieo found!) not officially removed till into the 1800's, though it was unofficially accepted much earlier.
As Woody said "It was not done to hinder science, but out of the belief it was heresy to suggest the Earth was not the center of the universe".

This reference is worth a look at:

The flat-earth myth and creationism
The idea that Christians once commonly believed in a flat earth for theological reasons is a myth. The story was invented to promote the claim that Christians have widely resisted scientific advancement due to doctrinal constraints. A major motivating factor behind propagating this myth has been to bolster the Darwinian worldview and to further the goal of displacing the biblical worldview. No evidence exists to support the common claim that scientists were once persecuted for opposing the flat-earth belief or advocating the spherical earth view, which has been commonly accepted for millennia.

from: http://creation.com/the-flat-earth-myth-and-creationism

I don't necessarily accept everything on that site, but that reference is worth looking at.


[1]  meaning Roman Catholic - though I guess there the Coptics from very early days and Orthodox from a bit later.

[RoEa]

This thread is getting out of hand. Perhaps even this forum.

I have a simple thought experiment.

Imagine I have gun - two bullets.

If I were to shoot a round earther they would expect to suffer serious damage if not die as a result of the bullet damaging them.
If I were to shoot a flat earther they would not know what to expect as obviously guns don't work as science and technology is all wrong as the people who work in those fields are all part of some great consipiracy.  They might come up with a theory that they were hit by an air blast/sound wave as since they could't have possibly seen the bullet travelling as fast as it does and so obviously the bullet doesn't exist as you can't see it in motion. Thus they were injured by air/sound.

Ladies and Gentlemen of the flat earth forum this (see thought experiment above) is the pure absurdity of the evidence put forth by the flat earthers. God fucking damn they are some stupid people. God save the Queen and have mercy on their souls. (Not religous but seems appropriate.)

[Tom Bishop]

[How are they obviously space ships in orbit around a globe?

There are many observations that can be made with binoculars, a relatively cheap telescope, and using some math.

The ISS can be viewed with the naked eye, binoculars, and telescopes.  With binoculars I have been able to make out the solar panels.

Figuring out where satellite dishes are pointed will give evidence of space travel.  The dishes are directional antennas that are pointing towards a satellite in geostationary orbit, so were are told.  It is not that complicated to figure out where two or more dishes receiving a signal from the same satellite are pointed.  Where the imaginary lines intersect or get close to intersecting(if you are not too meticulous gathering the data) is evidence where the signal is coming from.

Iridium flares can be observed.  They first started becoming visible around the late 1990's.  You can find plenty of sources to tell you when and where to look.

You can take long exposures of the night sky where geostationary satellites are said to be.


You can try things like this:
http://makezine.com/2009/07/22/catching-satellites-on-ham-radio/

IMHO if the search for truth is TFES objective they really do not seem to be trying too hard to seek out that truth.  My guess one reason not doing two or more of the above is that it will offer evidence that space travel happens, those pictures from space agencies are real and that is damning evidence against the Earth being flat.

Nothing about that tells us that they are obviously space ships in orbit around a globe earth.

I assume you still have access to the telescope you used for the Bishop Experiment. You have access to the internet since you can post in these forums.  You got all the tools you need to find out the how, when and where to observe the ISS.  Something is up there, moving faster then any plane I have seen.  Viewing it through my binoculars I could make out the general shape and solar panels. 

Figuring out where satellite dishes using the same satellite are pointed can give you a pretty good idea of the altitude of the source of the signal.  Same reason why almost since radio was invented the source of the signal could be located.  If you are really meticulous and exact you should get a very good estimate of the location the satellite signal is coming from.  Is there a flaw in my logic?  Satellite dishes using the same satellite need to be set at different elevations and directions in different locations.  If you get LOP's that show an altitude in the atmosphere then you have evidence that space flight is a lie.

Find reports for the Iridium flares prior to the late 90's?  Reason I am using the Iridium satellites is they are usually the brightest things in the night sky. 

You can combine the long exposure pictures with the SatTV suggestion.  Do they at least reasonably coincide?  Is there any documentation prior to spaceflight observations of these things not moving in the night sky?

You can not track a satellite and at least note the amount of time you were able to track it?  You can not do this?  https://amateurgeophysics.wordpress.com/earth-orbiting-satellites/the-doppler-shift-of-satellite-radio-beacons/

If I wanted to prove space travel is impossible I would not just say it is.  I would look for ways to prove to myself or others I am right and if within my means would do so.  The above are the cheapest and relatively easiest ways I could think of to gather data and evidence.

Edit: If you can determine that something man made is up there then at the very least it should help to refine the FE model.  Like the altitude of what I will call the can not pass line.  Not 100% sure where space starts on the FE model.

Again, none of that tells us that they are obviously space ships in orbit around a globe.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

This thread is getting out of hand. Perhaps even this forum.

I have a simple thought experiment.

Imagine I have gun - two bullets.

If I were to shoot a round earther they would expect to suffer serious damage if not die as a result of the bullet damaging them.
If I were to shoot a flat earther they would not know what to expect as obviously guns don't work as science and technology is all wrong as the people who work in those fields are all part of some great consipiracy.  They might come up with a theory that they were hit by an air blast/sound wave as since they could't have possibly seen the bullet travelling as fast as it does and so obviously the bullet doesn't exist as you can't see it in motion. Thus they were injured by air/sound.

Ladies and Gentlemen of the flat earth forum this (see thought experiment above) is the pure absurdity of the evidence put forth by the flat earthers. God fucking damn they are some stupid people. God save the Queen and have mercy on their souls. (Not religous but seems appropriate.)

Why not just point the thing at yourself instead of turning it on anyone in the first place. Your God awful ability to wrangle horrible metaphors together won't be missed.

[Woody]

[How are they obviously space ships in orbit around a globe?

There are many observations that can be made with binoculars, a relatively cheap telescope, and using some math.

The ISS can be viewed with the naked eye, binoculars, and telescopes.  With binoculars I have been able to make out the solar panels.

Figuring out where satellite dishes are pointed will give evidence of space travel.  The dishes are directional antennas that are pointing towards a satellite in geostationary orbit, so were are told.  It is not that complicated to figure out where two or more dishes receiving a signal from the same satellite are pointed.  Where the imaginary lines intersect or get close to intersecting(if you are not too meticulous gathering the data) is evidence where the signal is coming from.

Iridium flares can be observed.  They first started becoming visible around the late 1990's.  You can find plenty of sources to tell you when and where to look.

You can take long exposures of the night sky where geostationary satellites are said to be.


You can try things like this:
http://makezine.com/2009/07/22/catching-satellites-on-ham-radio/

IMHO if the search for truth is TFES objective they really do not seem to be trying too hard to seek out that truth.  My guess one reason not doing two or more of the above is that it will offer evidence that space travel happens, those pictures from space agencies are real and that is damning evidence against the Earth being flat.

Nothing about that tells us that they are obviously space ships in orbit around a globe earth.

I assume you still have access to the telescope you used for the Bishop Experiment. You have access to the internet since you can post in these forums.  You got all the tools you need to find out the how, when and where to observe the ISS.  Something is up there, moving faster then any plane I have seen.  Viewing it through my binoculars I could make out the general shape and solar panels. 

Figuring out where satellite dishes using the same satellite are pointed can give you a pretty good idea of the altitude of the source of the signal.  Same reason why almost since radio was invented the source of the signal could be located.  If you are really meticulous and exact you should get a very good estimate of the location the satellite signal is coming from.  Is there a flaw in my logic?  Satellite dishes using the same satellite need to be set at different elevations and directions in different locations.  If you get LOP's that show an altitude in the atmosphere then you have evidence that space flight is a lie.

Find reports for the Iridium flares prior to the late 90's?  Reason I am using the Iridium satellites is they are usually the brightest things in the night sky. 

You can combine the long exposure pictures with the SatTV suggestion.  Do they at least reasonably coincide?  Is there any documentation prior to spaceflight observations of these things not moving in the night sky?

You can not track a satellite and at least note the amount of time you were able to track it?  You can not do this?  https://amateurgeophysics.wordpress.com/earth-orbiting-satellites/the-doppler-shift-of-satellite-radio-beacons/

If I wanted to prove space travel is impossible I would not just say it is.  I would look for ways to prove to myself or others I am right and if within my means would do so.  The above are the cheapest and relatively easiest ways I could think of to gather data and evidence.

Edit: If you can determine that something man made is up there then at the very least it should help to refine the FE model.  Like the altitude of what I will call the can not pass line.  Not 100% sure where space starts on the FE model.

Again, none of that tells us that they are obviously space ships in orbit around a globe.

I do find it odd that things doppler shift work on a RE and not on a FE.  That there are natural objects broadcasting rather strong radio signals in your model.

Triangulation does not work in the FE model.

That you are unable to use triangulation from satellite dishes along with long exposure pictures to determine if they match up.

Research into astronomy seeing if any thing appeared at regular predictable times prior to the late 90's that looked like Iridium Flares or if any observations were made of stars or some other heavenly body not moving in the night sky.  Is that something that can be done only for the RE model or can it happen on a flat Earth to?

You see no way as any of this gathering evidence of the existence of spacecraft?

Do you think only one thing lead to the RE model?  It was many, many observations and experiments combined over a long time.

[Unsure101]

spotlight sun

Hang on, Tom said the sun is a globe in FE theory. This would explain how the moon is illuminated.
Then again, if the sun is a globe (and not a disk or focal point as eluded to in other threads) in order to not illuminate all of the FE it must emit "bendy light" except for where it illuminates the moon.
More magic?

[rabinoz]

spotlight sun

Hang on, Tom said the sun is a globe in FE theory. This would explain how the moon is illuminated.
Then again, if the sun is a globe (and not a disk or focal point as eluded to in other threads) in order to not illuminate all of the FE it must emit "bendy light" except for where it illuminates the moon.
More magic?

There is point that I cannot get explained anywhere! and that is how the phases of the moon are explained on the FE model.
We are told that the earth is illuminated by a 32 mile diameter sun about 3,000 miles high acting like a spotlight.

The Phases of the Moon When one observes the phases of the moon he sees the moon's day and night, a shadow from the sun illuminating[1] half of the spherical moon at any one time. The lunar phases vary cyclically according to the changing geometry of the Moon and Sun, which are constantly wobbling up and down and exchange altitudes as they rotate around the North Pole. When the moon and sun are at the same altitude one half of the lunar surface is illuminated and pointing towards the sun, This is called the First Quarter Moon. When the observer looks up he will see a shadow cutting the moon in half. The boundary between the illuminated and unilluminated hemispheres is called the terminator.[2] The diagram on the right is how I interpret the geometry at the time of a full moon. Note that the distances are to scale, but the object sizes are exaggerated (though the sun and the moon are to scale with each other). The sun and moon are placed 180° apart on the equator as they must be for a full moon.

Now, could someone please explain:

• How the moon gets any illumination from the sun at all[3]. Are we to postulate a "special ray of light" from the sun, just to illuminate the moon? With the geometry on the right the viewer directly under the moon would see a half-moon, the other view (the moon should be on the horizon) would see closer to (but not quite) a full moon.
  
• How everyone (anyone actually) that can see the moon sees it full - as we know happens if real life?
  
• How everyone (anyone actually) that can see the moon sees it the same size - as we know happens if real life?

I drew the diagram as well as I could from the Wiki description. If my geometry is wrong can someone explain it better.

[1] A "a shadow from the sun illuminating", a shadow illuminating, really? Some better wording is surely called for!

[2] The Wiki also says the moon "wobbles" up and down, but I fail to see how a "wobble" can help with the moon some 12,000 miles from the sun.

[3] Remember we are assured that "a natural shadow from the sun illuminating half of the spherical moon at any one time." So, presumably the moon gets its illumination from the sun.

[Tom Bishop]

The diagram on the right is how I interpret the geometry at the time of a full moon. Note that the distances are to scale, but the object sizes are exaggerated (though the sun and the moon are to scale with each other). The sun and moon are placed 180° apart on the equator as they must be for a full moon.   

Now, could someone please explain:
How the moon gets any illumination from the sun at all[3]. Are we to postulate a "special ray of light" from the sun, just to illuminate the moon? With the geometry on the right the viewer directly under the moon would see a half-moon, the other view (the moon should be on the horizon) would see closer to (but not quite) a full moon.
How everyone (anyone actually) that can see the moon sees it full - as we know happens if real life?
How everyone (anyone actually) that can see the moon sees it the same size - as we know happens if real life?

The sun shines light from all directions on its surface. It's not a lamp. It's light is limited in its duration across the earth's surface because of the not-perfectly-transparent atmosphere, and its decent into the surface is an illusion of perspective.

The sun and moon at a level of about 3000 miles above the earth are not within the atmosphere of the earth, and so the light between those two objects is unimpeded.

[1] A "a shadow from the sun illuminating", a shadow illuminating, really? Some better wording is surely called for!

[2] The Wiki also says the moon "wobbles" up and down, but I fail to see how a "wobble" can help with the moon some 12,000 miles from the sun.

[3] Remember we are assured that "a natural shadow from the sun illuminating half of the spherical moon at any one time." So, presumably the moon gets its illumination from the sun.

In the sentence "When one observes the phases of the moon he sees the moon's day and night, a shadow from the sun illuminating half of the spherical moon at any one time."  it clearly says that the sun is the thing doing the illuminating in that sentence. The words sun and illuminating are directly next to each other, while shadow and illuminating are not. We've explained this to you several times now.

[andruszkow]

The diagram on the right is how I interpret the geometry at the time of a full moon. Note that the distances are to scale, but the object sizes are exaggerated (though the sun and the moon are to scale with each other). The sun and moon are placed 180° apart on the equator as they must be for a full moon.   


Now, could someone please explain:
How the moon gets any illumination from the sun at all[3]. Are we to postulate a "special ray of light" from the sun, just to illuminate the moon? With the geometry on the right the viewer directly under the moon would see a half-moon, the other view (the moon should be on the horizon) would see closer to (but not quite) a full moon.
How everyone (anyone actually) that can see the moon sees it full - as we know happens if real life?
How everyone (anyone actually) that can see the moon sees it the same size - as we know happens if real life?

The sun shines light from all directions on its surface. It's not a lamp. It's light is limited in its duration because of the non-transparent atmosphere and its decent into the surface is an illusion of perspective.

The sun and moon at a level of about 3000 miles above the earth are not within the atmosphere of the earth, and so the light between those two objects is unimpeded.

[1] A "a shadow from the sun illuminating", a shadow illuminating, really? Some better wording is surely called for!

[2] The Wiki also says the moon "wobbles" up and down, but I fail to see how a "wobble" can help with the moon some 12,000 miles from the sun.

[3] Remember we are assured that "a natural shadow from the sun illuminating half of the spherical moon at any one time." So, presumably the moon gets its illumination from the sun.

In the sentence "When one observes the phases of the moon he sees the moon's day and night, a shadow from the sun illuminating half of the spherical moon at any one time."  it clearly says that the sun is the thing doing the illuminating in that sentence. The word sun and illuminating are directly next to each other, while shadow and illuminating are not. We've explained this to you several times now.

Good thing you edited out the "are you stupid?" comment, it might have shown your true colors.

How does it answer the question on how the full moon appears to be full for everybody though, from the peremiter of the night shadow to people standing directly beneath it?

[Tom Bishop]

How does it answer the question on how the full moon appears to be full for everybody though, from the peremiter of the night shadow to people standing directly beneath it?

I believe that perspective behaves differently than is assumed by classical Ancient Greek perspective over very large distances. When the moon sets you are not looking at its "side". There are no real world examples to tell us the truth of perspective at large scales, and it is a matter left to assumption.

Imagine that we have a giant solved rubix cube:



When the rubix cube is 10 feet above you imagine that we are looking at its white underside. It is directly over you and we can only see white. Now imagine that the rubix cube starts slowly receding away from you into the distance. You will quickly see one of colors sides of the cube as it recedes and changes angle. It will get far enough that the white bottom of the cube will go away and you will only see it from the colored side.

Now imagine that we have a giant rubix cube 30,000 feet above you. It is directly over you. When the rubix cube recedes away from you into the distance, it will take much longer for you to see the colored side of the rubix cube, and for the white bottom to go away.

We assert that the sun and moon are at such a great distance in the sky that they hardly change angle at all when they move over the observer's limited viewing area.

[UnionsOfSolarSystemPlanet]

How does it answer the question on how the full moon appears to be full for everybody though, from the peremiter of the night shadow to people standing directly beneath it?

I believe that perspective behaves differently than is assumed by classical Ancient Greek perspective over very large distances. When the moon sets you are not looking at its "side". There are no real world examples to tell us the truth of perspective at large scales, and it is a matter left to assumption.

Imagine that we have a giant solved rubix cube:



When the rubix cube is 10 feet above you imagine that we are looking at its white underside. It is directly over you and we can only see white. Now imagine that the rubix cube starts slowly receding away from you into the distance. You will quickly see one of colors sides of the cube as it recedes and changes angle. It will get far enough that the white bottom of the cube will go away and you will only see it from the colored side.

Now imagine that we have a giant rubix cube 30,000 feet above you. It is directly over you. When the rubix cube recedes away from you into the distance, it will take much longer for you to see the colored side of the rubix cube, and for the white bottom to go away.

We assert that the sun and moon are at such a great distance in the sky that they hardly change angle at all when the move over the observer's limited viewing area.

The illumination of the Moon in your model requires too many assumption and complication.
Tell me how this model isn't simpler: