[Zack Bimmel]

One of the pleasures of vacationing down under, for those of us living in the North-East of the USA, is viewing the night sky with the constellation called Southern Cross as a dominant feature. But there is more to learn about the night sky down under. Below I visit two cities of the South, Buenos Aires at 35 deg South and 58 degrees West and Cape Town at 34 deg South and 18 deg East. My choices are not quite arbitrary. Firstly, although these two cities are 5 time zones apart there are a few hours during which it is night in both simultaneously at this time of the year (June). Secondly, they are both large cities so there is a good chance that we can find an FE enthusiast in either one who can confirm or refute my observations.

So, what do we observe in Buenos Aires, Argentina ? Watching the movements of the stars for some few hours you find out that they move on concentric, circular arcs in exactly the same way as stars move around the North Star in the Northern Hemisphere. The center point for this circular motion is located exactly due south and 35 degrees above the horizontal. There is actually a star close to this center point; it is called Sigma Octantis. Unfortunately, it is barely visible to the naked eye even on a clear night. Anyway, all stars move around this "South Star" in clock-wise direction when looking south. If we were to go further south Sigma Octanis appears higher and higher in the sky and once we reach 90 deg south latitude it would be directly above us.

Now, for people in Cape Town the story is exactly the same. They find, if the night is  clear enough, Sigma Octantis exactly to their south and 34 deg above the horizon. All other stars again move around it on concentric, circular arcs in clock-wise direction when looking south and at the same distances as those observed by the Buenos Aires people.

From the point of view of FE theory we have now three problems :

1. Why are there stars which can only be seen by an observer located south of the equator, and other stars can be seen only by an observer north of the equator ?

2. People living south of the equator observe that stars move in clock-wise direction when looking at the star about which all other stars rotate. Why is there such a star in the first place ? Furthermore, I thought we all live on a flat plane and all stars are moving in a counter-clockwise direction about an axis pointing vertically upwards and being located at the north pole. And now there is a second such star ? And things move around in an opposite direction ?

3. A line drawn from Buenos Aires due south and a line drawn from Cape Town due their south are not parallel but form an angle of about 58 + 18 = 76 degrees (remember the 5 time zone in between those two cities ?). So, how can both lines point to the same star Sigma Octantis simultaneously ? Or in other words : let's install a video camera in each city and aim each one directly south and upwards by 35 degrees and start recording at the same time. Both would show Sigma Octanis smack in the center of their respective pictures and other stars are moving around on circular arcs. And we all could watch that via the internet in real time.

Any FE folks want to give it a stab ? I know for RE folks this is all not the slightest problem hence no need to talk about their ideas.

[Tontogary]

One other thing that would be observed is that if the observations are taken at the same time UTC, the long axis of the southern cross would be in the same orientation, for example,

If the observations were taken at 03:00 UTC, the the picture of the horizon to the south would look the same, with the long axis pointing at say 11 O’clock (i have not calculated this, just using it as a representative example) the axis would be the same orientation from both locations, which would be interesting to try to work out why that is on widely spaced locations on the earth.

Any FEers up for a bit of photography? Pretty cheap experiment to do i am sure....

[Tom Bishop]

Who are you guys talking to? You pretty much joined the the Flat Earth Society when you registered on the forum. You are the "FE enthusiasts." Do you see me making a ton of threads obsessed with the subject? You clearly seem way more interested in some of these topics than I am.

My advice is to research what the YouTube community has to say about the Southern Stars, and what Lady Blount's Bi-Polar model says.

[Tumeni]

FE counter-enthusiasts, I think you mean ...

[Tontogary]

Who are you guys talking to? You pretty much joined the the Flat Earth Society when you registered on the forum. You are the "FE enthusiasts." Do you see me making a ton of threads obsessed with the subject? You clearly seem way more interested in some of these topics than I am.

My advice is to research what the YouTube community has to say about the Southern Stars, and what Lady Blount's Bi-Polar model says.

It sounds good to me, but.....
I have a sneaky suspicion if the observations show results that are not in line with FE thinking they will be discounted, but we can certainly give it a go, we now need a couple of people in southern latitudes who can help make the observations.
Western Australia and New Zealand are good vantage points, as are Western Australia and South Africa.
All we need is some volunteers and we will be set to go.

I do however draw the line at relying upon You tube for research...............

[AATW]

My advice is to research what the YouTube community has to say about the Southern Stars, and what Lady Blount's Bi-Polar model says.

The trouble with the former is that any idiot can upload stuff to YouTube. Which doesn't mean that nothing on YouTube is valid, but it's hardly peer researched scientific publications, it needs to be treated with extreme caution. The trouble with the latter is she has been largely forgotten by history and her ideas not accepted by any serious scientist.

[Zack Bimmel]

Who are you guys talking to? You pretty much joined the the Flat Earth Society when you registered on the forum. You are the "FE enthusiasts." Do you see me making a ton of threads obsessed with the subject? You clearly seem way more interested in some of these topics than I am.

My advice is to research what the YouTube community has to say about the Southern Stars, and what Lady Blount's Bi-Polar model says.

Thanks Mr. Bishop for your suggestion. Truth to be told, the first information concerning stars moving on circular paths came from a YouTube video which was taken at a location north of the equator. I became interested in that topic because I wanted to build a simply contraption to track the sun during the course of a day to orient a solar panel for maximum energy output. A good friend, born and raised in Australia, told me though that down-under you have to rotate the opposite way. So things evolved from there.

Anyway, I think my proposed experiment though has merits. I think Lady Blount would be quite happy to have an experiment which confirms some of her thinking. And if not, she would take that as opportunity to enhance her knowledge. But if I would do the experiment people would just say that I might have faked everything To avoid that, somebody else - totally unrelated to me - should take the lead and run with it.

[MCToon]

Who are you guys talking to? You pretty much joined the the Flat Earth Society when you registered on the forum. You are the "FE enthusiasts." Do you see me making a ton of threads obsessed with the subject? You clearly seem way more interested in some of these topics than I am.

My advice is to research what the YouTube community has to say about the Southern Stars, and what Lady Blount's Bi-Polar model says.

I've read the parts of Lady Blount's book concerning the southern stars.  Here's a link:
https://archive.org/stream/lady_blount_and_albert_smith-zetetic_astronomy/lady_blount_and_albert_smith-zetetic_astronomy_djvu.txt

This provides a solution to the southern stars.  However, this model's ability to predict star movement is likely not going to stand up to scrutiny.  Ignoring that for now we are presented with an unavoidable problem to the well known flat earth maps with the north pole in the center and Antarctica as an ice wall.  There now must be two poles, when looking south in Sydney, Santiago, or Johannesburg they all must face the same direction.  This requires two poles.  The flat map must be adjusted.  There are some maps that provide this in a way, for example:



Ignoring the obvious warping of the continents, this, however, brings up other problems.  These problems are more significant than the map we just discarded.  For example, flights from the est side of the Americas to the east side of Asia or Australia are significantly different.  A more difficult problem is the sun's movement, it cannot any longer just travel in circles above the flat earth, it must pass horizontally across it and then teleport to the other side, or something, else I'm not considering.

So, bringing up a two-pole model is a convenient way to brush aside problems of southern star observations, but brings up more problems than it solves.

[Westprog]

Who are you guys talking to? You pretty much joined the the Flat Earth Society when you registered on the forum. You are the "FE enthusiasts." Do you see me making a ton of threads obsessed with the subject? You clearly seem way more interested in some of these topics than I am.

My advice is to research what the YouTube community has to say about the Southern Stars, and what Lady Blount's Bi-Polar model says.

This is what I find interesting about the whole FE thing. This is a very typical response. The FE community isn't interested in this stuff.

There's a completely different set of stars in the Southern hemisphere? Whatever. It's explained somewhere, probably. There's a YouTube video. Who cares?

The reality of the Flat Earth is the starting point, not the conclusion. If there are so-called facts that seem to contradict that, then there is obviously some explanation for it.

[Tom Bishop]

The FE community isn't interested in this stuff.

Spoiler:

You are the FE community.

[rabinoz]

Who are you guys talking to? You pretty much joined the the Flat Earth Society when you registered on the forum. You are the "FE enthusiasts." Do you see me making a ton of threads obsessed with the subject? You clearly seem way more interested in some of these topics than I am.

Frankly, I'm not all that concerned with trying to convince "fully indoctrinated Flat Earthers".
As with others who believe in widespread conspiracies to cover up any contrary evidence, such people will only convince themselves, as a couple that I know have.

I'm more concerned with presenting sound evidence that the 102 Guests (as of now) might see to balance all the misleading FE material on YouTube and elsewhere.
Quite a few newcomers have come here and to the "other site" after first hearing of the flat earth on YouTube.

So, certainly, I am "clearly seem way more interested in some of these topics than" you are.

If you are unable to answer the experimental and other evidence from quite a number of very competent people posting anti-flat earth material here it doesn't bother me in the slightest.

As for me personally:

• I see the stars rotate (well they appear to move very slowly at about) about the South Celestial Pole.
• I see the direction and appearance of the sun and moon rising and setting.
• I see a sharp and close ocean horizon.

And I see so much more that no flat earth model comes anywhere near explaining.

[Tom Bishop]

I don't know what to tell you, Rabinoz. You are the guy who comes back here every day, totally interested in the subject, and wanting to see it move forward, asking for explanations or evidence for this and that. You aren't logging on here every day "for the guests." You obviously have an avid interest. On my part I am merely providing an educational service to the community by reposting the talking points, as I have been doing for years.

You are the person who is obsessed with the subject, having multiple accounts and having adopted multiple aliases on multiple Flat Earth forums. You are the FE community. There isn't another secret FE community. The community's lack of being what you want it to be is your fault. When you point a finger you have three pointing back at you.

[rabinoz]

I don't know what to tell you, Rabinoz. You are the guy who comes back here every day, totally interested in the subject, and wanting to see it move forward, asking for explanations or evidence for this and that. You aren't logging on here every day "for the guests." You obviously have an avid interest. On my part I am merely providing an educational service to the community by reposting the talking points, as I have been doing for years.

You are the person who is obsessed with the subject, having multiple accounts and having adopted multiple aliases on multiple Flat Earth forums. You are the FE community. There isn't another secret FE community. The community's lack of being what you want it to be is your fault. When you point a finger you have three pointing back at you.

I have one login name "rabinoz" at TheFlatEarthSociety.org an on TFES.org as do you, nothing more so I don't know where you get "adopted multiple aliases on multiple Flat Earth forums" from.

I have never suggested "another secret FE community", though there is a very different and much more aggressive (on the part of some at least) FE community "on" YouTube.

OK, you're "merely providing an educational service to the community by reposting the talking points, as you have been doing for years".
I've no problem with that and I hope you keep doing it.  I would far rather you had a well-defined flat earth model.
And I'm trying to point out where the flat earth cannot explain what I and others see as the real earth. If your flat earth cannot stand up to that, it doesn't deserve to exist.

You say, "When you point a finger you have three pointing back at you", but the only finger I would point is that there is no coherent flat earth "model", fine I'm accusing no-one anyway.

We have all these people claiming that the earth is flat, but it seems that "the earth is flat" is their only common ground.
Their is no accurate flat earth map, not even an agreed "basic continental layout" with agreed motions of the sun etc nor even any way to find accurate distances.
But people have been navigating the earth for many centuries and have measured these things down to  poing where we can pre-determine course and distance quite accurately.

I can, and have, determined the distance between remote points in central Australia, then driven them, so know that map, signed road distances, "GPS" distances and measured distances agree to the accuracy of my car's odd (and I know that is within 1%). I know that distances on at least the "old ice wall map" are vastly out.

Yet flat earthers seem to regard all this as fake and part of some great conspiracy.

So, while I know that I cannot convince anyone of the fallacy of a flat earth, I might just stop one or two falling into what I see as that trap.
The only way anyone will be convinced one way or the other is to convince themselves as a couple I know have, one by his own careful "curvature measurements" the other by finally realising that his efforts at making an accurate FE map were impossible.

To this end I am all for you and other flat earthers presenting your best and most supported evidence along with rational explanations.

In a sense it is almost impossible to debunk the FE as presented because there is no coherent theory and no firm layout to this flat earth.

[Tom Bishop]

The Round Earth Theory has had thousands of years of development with millions of dollars of public funding. The Flat Earth Theory is a relatively new theory that receives zero funding, with hundreds of people like you complaining and refusing to participate. What are you expecting to see?

No one likes a complainer.

[Tontogary]

The Round Earth Theory has had thousands of years of development with millions of dollars of public funding. The Flat Earth Theory is a relatively new theory that receives zero funding, with hundreds of people like you complaining and refusing to participate. What are you expecting to see?

No one likes a complainer.

But didnt the bible say the earth was flat? Or scriptures? Etc etc? In which case the FE hypotheses has been around for a lot longer than the RE, and still there is not a coherent idea of what is happening with the sky and stars.

I also have not seen REers asking for money and refusing to do experiments, *claiming they are not interested or dont have the time) there has been one on going to prove the horizon is not at eye level, and others trying to get a consensus on making distances fit a plane surface, and apart from the Bishop experiment, and links to some You tube videos, and references to EnaG, I dont see a lot of FE observations, or willingness to do very much other than complain there is not enough time or money to do any experiments.

[inquisitive]

The Round Earth Theory has had thousands of years of development with millions of dollars of public funding. The Flat Earth Theory is a relatively new theory that receives zero funding, with hundreds of people like you complaining and refusing to participate. What are you expecting to see?

No one likes a complainer.

Many are participating with measurements and observations which you choose to ignore.

[hexagon]

I never heard about funding for projects regarding "round earth theory", never I came across a colleague doing research on "round earth theory", I also never found a physics or astronomy book about "round earth theory" and as far as I know there are no courses or lectures on "round earth theory" at any university.

It's sounds to me like something made up to justify the term "flat earth theory", analogous to terms conflicting models like "geocentic" and "heliocentric".

But maybe the experts here can point to any funded projects on "round earth theory".   

[AATW]

The Flat Earth Theory is a relatively new theory that receives zero funding, with hundreds of people like you complaining and refusing to participate. What are you expecting to see?

No it isn't. The Flat Earth Theory is a very old theory which was rejected a long time ago because it was found not to match observations.

What I was expecting to see was some kind of coherent FE model or at least some sign you're working towards one.
Now fine, you don't have funding and so on. But Bobby isn't being funded, or sponsored. He just took it upon himself to make some equipment and do his own experiments.
He has proven conclusively that your assertion that the horizon rises to eye level is false. If you dispute his findings then you are free to repeat his experiments, or devise your own.
You're an empiricist aren't you? What empirical measurements have you actually made yourself?
You seem far too reliant on, and willing to accept the written accounts of, some Victorian dude who has found no acceptance in the scientific community and has been largely forgotten by history.
And you're far too dismissive of anything which contradicts those accounts and far too unwilling to do any experiments yourself.

Is it so unreasonable to expect some effort from you guys to test your assertions?

[Westprog]

The Flat Earth Theory is a relatively new theory that receives zero funding, with hundreds of people like you complaining and refusing to participate. What are you expecting to see?

No it isn't. The Flat Earth Theory is a very old theory which was rejected a long time ago because it was found not to match observations.

What I was expecting to see was some kind of coherent FE model or at least some sign you're working towards one.
Now fine, you don't have funding and so on. But Bobby isn't being funded, or sponsored. He just took it upon himself to make some equipment and do his own experiments.
He has proven conclusively that your assertion that the horizon rises to eye level is false. If you dispute his findings then you are free to repeat his experiments, or devise your own.
You're an empiricist aren't you? What empirical measurements have you actually made yourself?
You seem far too reliant on, and willing to accept the written accounts of, some Victorian dude who has found no acceptance in the scientific community and has been largely forgotten by history.
And you're far too dismissive of anything which contradicts those accounts and far too unwilling to do any experiments yourself.

Is it so unreasonable to expect some effort from you guys to test your assertions?

Yes, it is - because there's a fundamental difference between how FE people think and the people who come on here to understand and argue with them. The process of becoming a FE advocate involves a road-to-Damascus conversion, where they realise that they are being lied to. That can happen instantly or can take a while. Once the process is over, there's no need for any further investigation. If you've put the cheese in the fridge, you don't think of new ways to verify that the cheese is in the fridge.

The only purpose for experiments, arguments, etc., is to confirm the Truth. Any experiment or observation that doesn't serve this aim is irrelevant. It's not of any interest. Arguments that confirm the Truth are useful. Even when multiple arguments contradict each other, that doesn't matter.

So, to return to the topic at hand - nobody involved in FE theory is going to go to the kind of trouble Bobby Shafto or Tontogary have gone to recently. They aren't interested in why the Southern Hemisphere has different constellations. It doesn't particularly fit in with any given theory, so what's the point of the observation?

Look at SiDawg's detailed explanation of how perspective works. It ended up being moved to another forum because nobody cared enough to argue against it. I found it fascinating, but I'm interested in how stuff works. People who are interested in how stuff works tend to assume that FE advocates must be interested too. They aren't.

So we can continue to ask for explanations as to the sky in the South having different constellations, but don't expect any response except "Whatever. I can't see why you people care about this stuff."

[Tom Bishop]

So, to return to the topic at hand - nobody involved in FE theory

You mean... you, who is so obsessed with the topic that you come here every day?

is going to go to the kind of trouble Bobby Shafto or Tontogary have gone to recently.

Yeah, why are you guys putting the work all on Bobby?

They aren't interested in why the Southern Hemisphere has different constellations. It doesn't particularly fit in with any given theory, so what's the point of the observation?

What do you mean I'm not interested? I am interested in what you, the Flat Earth community, have to say, and what you research. Yet every time I log onto the forum I see that you have not researched anything. What's up with that?

People who are interested in how stuff works tend to assume that FE advocates must be interested too. They aren't.

You are the FE advocate. You are coming here in desire of answers, explanations, research. That is your desire. That is what you want. It is not my fault if you refuse to contribute. I'm putting in my 2%.

If wishes were fishses, we would have a lot of fish.