I began by saying, and THIS IS IMPORTANT, so PAY ATTENTION - "First, assume that the moon, as drawn, is showing the face that would be seen by all viewers". What I meant there is that, since we are dealing with a two dimensional illustration, for the sake of my argument it becomes necessary to mentally place the moon deeper into the illustration in the Z axis, thereby creating a "virtual" 3D illustration, so that the viewers in the illustration have essentially the same view of the moon as drawn that you and I have.
I get it, it appears that you're not getting it. I'm simply trying to show that flat earthers would never see the moon as "upside down", when compared to that seen by another viewer, from anywhere on their "flat earth". That should be obvious to anyone who gives it a modicum of thought.
As for "seeing the backside of the moon" I've consistently been trying to deal with a two dimensional representation of the moon, the face we see, disregarding its third dimension for the purposes of this discussion. The amount of miscommunication here seems gargantuan. This is almost like kibitzing with an FEer.
I know, and you're the one playing the part of the FEer.
You keep demanding more proofs and taking materials out of context, without providing anything of you own. You're the one who complained I used a playing card to represent the Moon and then had me make a 3D cylinder for no good reason, only to come back and say "I've consistently been trying to deal with a two dimensional representation of the moon, the face we see, disregarding its third dimension for the purposes of this discussion".
I mean really, make me build a model in 3D than come back and say YOU'RE the one whose been "trying to deal with a two dimensional representation of the moon".
8!tc4, please!
Still haven't heard you tender a guess at to which set of pics are from the FE model and which are from the RE model, BTW. But hey, that's a classic FE debate tactic, too - Avoid answering the questions that challenge your point ... by ignoring them.
I've understood that we can model the Moon as a 2 dimensional surface oriented so that all observers can only see one face. You're the one who wanted it mounted so one person would see the value and the other would see the picture, which doesn't happen in either model or in real life.
You're the one who keeps dis-believing all the evidence that I've put forth that this could work over a flat surface, but provided nothing to show it can't.
You're the one who is having trouble unfolding the RE mechanics of an orbit to visualize what amounts to a race track over FE.
Also, pushing the moon in the Z direction causes it to rotate on it axis (in reality it's the Earth rotating, the Moon essentially stays still over the course of a day) so it's continues to present only one side. This is the best 3D rendering I can do:
You should also note that the Moon also flips between rise and set. The red/green edge rising first out of the horizon, is the edge that will lead the moon setting on the other horizon. Go out and watch it tonight.
Nothing is wrong with anyone's understanding of how the works on RE. You're just not getting how it works when FE peels it out into basically what amounts to an overhead race track. (Which we can model as a below a blimp racetrack)
Imagine you're up in the Goodyear blimp over a stretch of racetrack, so high you're almost looking straight down on at the cars roofs, can't really see the sides at all. You watch the Number 6 car take the lead, but the people in the MetLife blimp, on the other side of the track, see the Number 9 car pulling ahead. How is this possible? Because the direction you are facing makes a difference.
On FE the image could flip, just not for the same reason as on RE. Still, on FE with it's fake horizon and with the inverted bowl effect (which exists on RE as well), the act of passing under the zenith and turning around could create a similar effect.
This Moon flipping thing between North and South, by itself, could be consistent on a FE (flat plane) model.
It's not consistent with the common FE model of a Moon 3000 miles away though. The Moon still needs to be much more distant and must remain tidally locked (in FE case the o part of the 6/9 always facing the North Pole and 1 side always facing Earth. (Not sure why the Moon would be tidally locked of on Fantasy Earth though, since gravity isn't really supposed to be a thing there.)
Still, the only argument I'm making is:
If taken alone, that is not considering the other factors that make FE Moon conjecture laughable, the inversion of the image between North and South points in the FE model is consistent enough not to falsify the FE conjecture (i.e. it could be consistent with an FE model).