[Ratboy]

I have to credit Macarios for the excellent diagram in "walking a straight line" to show how the angles of the rising sun and setting sun during the equinox do not correspond to what is observed if the world was indeed flat.

But now here is what I think is a further kicker.  The moon is more complicated by a further degree.  A full moon travels over the tropic of Capricorn and a new moon over the tropic of Cancer during the June solstice and the full moon travels over the tropic of Cancer and the new moon over the tropic of Capricorn during the December soltice.  And the other phases of the moon move between them. 

Anyway, if you are a Zenetic researcher like Rowbotham and you never leave England you could argue that the same side of the moon always faces England (it turns as it travels so the "man in the moon" is always facing England).  However, if he would have left England and traveled to say Moscow or Beijing, he would have noticed that the same side of the moon always faces those cities as well.  And if he would have traveled to Sydney, he would have seen the same moon.  And on any given night it always looks to be the same diameter regardless of if it is rising, setting, in Australia or in Paraguay.

So how can a flat earth model explain the appearance of the moon with the same face always towards us, plus all the arguments made about the flat earth sun?  If you looked at the sun with a telescope & filter or those screen projectors, you would see it looks the same in the morning and when setting as well (the sun spots are in the same place for example) , but everyone knows what the moon looks like so it is easier to use it as the example. When I see a car coming I see the headlights, when it is across from me I see the doors and when it leaves I see the tail lights.  I do not always see the headlights.  And if you are at NASCAR, not everyone sees only the headlights regardless of where the car is or where in the stands you are sitting.

[AATW]

As I've said in several other threads, if they want to end all the argument they could just go and do some observations of the moon (or sun) from a few different locations with known distances between them, do some triangulation and determine how close the moon is. If the moon is as close as they suppose then the locations don't have to be that far apart.

Also, is the moon self-illuminating or not? Some of the FE say yes it is in which case how come you can see shadows on craters. You can clearly see in this image that the moon is being lit by a light source



So if it is being lit by a light source, presumably the sun, then how can the sun's light be powerful enough to shine sideways on to the moon and then reflect to earth and not powerful enough that we can see the sun at all at night.

[Ratboy]

Yes, AllAroundTheWorld, I too said somewhere here that all you have to do to settle the self illuminating moon argument is to point a telescope at it and look.  Someone else (and REer) said that since moonlight is toxic (makes meat rot and stuff) it would be dangerous to focus the light onto yourself so the FEer would not do that.

This morning I realized that being a good Zenetic researcher, a person like Rowbotham could watch the sun on a nice English summer day and see it rise in the north east and set in the north west coming around England in a nice arc. Just by looking, you would think it is circling the north pole.  It is too cold to bother looking in the winter.  If Rowbotham had lived in Aukland, he would never think the sun circled the north pole since on a nice NZ summer day you can see the sun rise in the south east and set in the south west coming around in a nice arc.  He would have concluded it circles the south pole.  If he had lived near the equator, well even if the earth was flat, he would have joined the Egyptians in believing the sun comes up in the east, goes over the earth and then drops down in the west, and goes underground over the night to come up again.

[AATW]

It's worth noting at this point that Rowbotham also wrote:

During a partial solar eclipse the sun's outline has many times been seen through the body of the moon. But those who have been taught to believe that the moon is a solid opaque sphere, are ever ready with "explanations," often of the most inconsistent character, rather than acknowledge the simple fact of semi-transparency. Not only has this been proved by the visibility of the sun's outline through segments, and sometimes the very centre, of the moon, but often, at new moon, the outline of the whole, and even the several shades of light on the opposite and illuminated part have been distinctly seen. In other words we are often able to see through the dark side of the moon's body the light on the other side

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za63.htm


Always amuses and bemuses me that some FEers cling stubbornly to his writings and treat them as gospel. Rowbotham writing guff like the above and claiming it is "proven" should be a clue that maybe, just maybe, he wasn't the best scientist of all time and some of his other claims should be regarded with scepticism.

[ShowmetheProof]

"Nothing could possibly for a moment prevent such a conclusion being at once admitted, except the pre-occupation of the mind by a strabismic presumptuous hypothesis, which compels its votaries to yield assent to its details, even if directly contrary to every fact in the natural world, and to every principle of mental investigation."-Rowbotham
I like the "even if directly contrary to every fact in the natural world, and to every principle of mental investigation."