*

Offline Woody

  • *
  • Posts: 241
    • View Profile
Re: Round Earth Debunk: Strawberry moon !
« Reply #20 on: July 05, 2016, 09:29:07 PM »
The truth is on here's measurements is a really good demonstration of the FE method in practice.

Made a very imprecise measurement.

Someone demonstrates a more precise method and shows where the method used by the FE'er is flawed.

More precise method show the size does not appear to change.

The one image that does appear to change size fits with what is known about refraction.

Rebuttal is to question something very well known and documented and not acknowledge the moon in the picture does not appear to change size.

This is how a person continues to believe the Earth is flat. 

Re: Round Earth Debunk: Strawberry moon !
« Reply #21 on: July 05, 2016, 10:10:03 PM »
The truth is on here's measurements is a really good demonstration of the FE method in practice.

Made a very imprecise measurement.

Someone demonstrates a more precise method and shows where the method used by the FE'er is flawed.

More precise method show the size does not appear to change.

The one image that does appear to change size fits with what is known about refraction.

Rebuttal is to question something very well known and documented and not acknowledge the moon in the picture does not appear to change size.

This is how a person continues to believe the Earth is flat.

Are you fucking kidding me? It wasn't intended to be a "precise" measurement because, quite literally, you can see without it that the moon appears flattened closer to the horizon.

That is an apparent change in size.

My measurement wasn't intended to be precise, nor was it imprecise, just because CertainlyARepshillian projected disingenuous doubt on my method you willfully surrender all of your own logical faculties and agree with him.

I swear some of you are the embodiment of see no evil.

Re: Round Earth Debunk: Strawberry moon !
« Reply #22 on: July 05, 2016, 10:20:10 PM »


I don't know, I'd say, about this much.

First of all, you were super imprecise with your "outline" of the lower moon.

1. Use a thinner line, so you can be more precise.
2. Don't fill it in with a green color. The filled in color just hides the lack of precision.

Second of all, you chose a moon that was partially behind the horizon. A significant chunk of the bottom is being obscured. And yet you still outlined it with an ellipse...

I cut out the bottom moon and overlayed it directly over the top one. This shows how imprecise you were.



Notice several discrepancies between the overlay and the moon below it:
1. Bottom: The moon is partially obscured by the horizon, obviously.
2. Top right: The moon is partially obscured by the moon above it, obviously.
3. Bottom right: Here is where the shape does actually change slightly. This is an expected result of refraction very near to the horizon.

Or, if you prefer a table of measurements:

I labelled the moons 1 (bottom) to 8 (top). If there is a dash (-), it means that diameter was partially obscured, so I couldn't measure it.

moon    horizontal diameter    vertical diameter
1           -                                  -
2           59 pixels                   -
3           59 pixels                   53 pixels
4           59 pixels                   55 pixels
5           60 pixels                   55 pixels
6           59 pixels                   56 pixels
7           59 pixels                   55 pixels
8           59 pixels                   -

Remarkably consistent! The only outlier is #3. It's vertical diameter is slightly less than the others. This is consistent with what we expect from refraction: the size in the vertical direction will appear slightly smaller. (i.e. it will appear slightly squashed). #2 would also probably have a smaller vertical diameter, but since it is partially behind the horizon, we can't precisely measure it.

Are we to assume that the moon is actually flat where it meets the horizon? Is that what you're saying, that it was illogical to project the ellipse to the part obscured by the horizon? Anyone can do it themselves, in photoshop. My measurement wasn't imprecise, it was a simple illustration meant to draw attention to something that no one was acknowledging. The moon changed in apparent size through the night.

I didn't think appropriate to spam the forum with endless tables and rows of numbers as those who wish to obfuscate do. You can clearly see that the vertical and the horizontal are distorted, disproportionately, when the moon is in different positions in the sky. You can feign ignorance if you'd like but I'm amazed at how well you have been convincing people to doubt their own eyes and minds.

*

Offline Woody

  • *
  • Posts: 241
    • View Profile
Re: Round Earth Debunk: Strawberry moon !
« Reply #23 on: July 05, 2016, 11:07:44 PM »
The truth is on here's measurements is a really good demonstration of the FE method in practice.

Made a very imprecise measurement.

Someone demonstrates a more precise method and shows where the method used by the FE'er is flawed.

More precise method show the size does not appear to change.

The one image that does appear to change size fits with what is known about refraction.

Rebuttal is to question something very well known and documented and not acknowledge the moon in the picture does not appear to change size.

This is how a person continues to believe the Earth is flat.

Are you fucking kidding me? It wasn't intended to be a "precise" measurement because, quite literally, you can see without it that the moon appears flattened closer to the horizon.

That is an apparent change in size.

My measurement wasn't intended to be precise, nor was it imprecise, just because CertainlyARepshillian projected disingenuous doubt on my method you willfully surrender all of your own logical faculties and agree with him.

I swear some of you are the embodiment of see no evil.

He measured it.  It shows in the photo the moon stays pretty much the same size.  If you are saying we should just trust our senses, totes reply shows we should not.  Are eyes play tricks on us.  Then things like refraction, in this case only slightly altering the apparent size should be considered.

You ignore the size change is really small.  My first thought was to measure the size even before totes did.  I saw a flaw in your method just as he did. Your image seemed to be an attempt to make it look like the apparent change was much larger than it actually is. 

It is well known the moon can look larger near the horizon:


Which is larger?

Using our eyes it certainly seems the further one on the horizon.  Measuring them tells us they are the same size.

Your reply to Totes again demonstrates FE methodology and reasoning.  Ignore measurements that refute your claim.  The moon may appear to look a different size in the picture but measurements say otherwise.  Your rebuttal is not to make more precise measurements or question the method and offering  a better one.  You just suggest that posting facts in a table format makes things less clear.  When such things are used regularly to help make things more clear, easier to reference and a fast way to present data.

As for clearly seeing that the vertical and the horizontal are distorted. The table of measurements show that is not clear.  Unless your only argument is what our eyes tell us and not measurements.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Round Earth Debunk: Strawberry moon !
« Reply #24 on: July 05, 2016, 11:42:09 PM »

Are we to assume that the moon is actually flat where it meets the horizon? Is that what you're saying, that it was illogical to project the ellipse to the part obscured by the horizon? Anyone can do it themselves, in photoshop. My measurement wasn't imprecise, it was a simple illustration meant to draw attention to something that no one was acknowledging. The moon changed in apparent size through the night.

I didn't think appropriate to spam the forum with endless tables and rows of numbers as those who wish to obfuscate do. You can clearly see that the vertical and the horizontal are distorted, disproportionately, when the moon is in different positions in the sky. You can feign ignorance if you'd like but I'm amazed at how well you have been convincing people to doubt their own eyes and minds.
Can't you ever accept a plain simple fact!

The moon does not change size appreciably[1] from rising to overhead to setting!
Excuse me for SHOUTING, but sometimes it's hard to get a simple message across.

You completely ignored this bit. So I will try again.

According to the Flat Earth the distance to the moon should vary from about 3,000 miles when overhead to  something like 9,000 miles when "setting" (it depends on where the observer and moon are).

The apparent size of the moon when setting should therefore be about one third the size it is when overhead. Not only that, this change should occur gradually over the whole time, not in the last few minutes before setting.

If there is a slight change just as it sets it is due to your favourite refraction - yes it is real and very well documented as you very well know.

I have taken my own photos, while much higher resolution than those and the size of the moon changes very little! That is a fact.

The first photo is a bit of an odd man out as the camera settings were a little different and while it still show as 1600 mm in the EXIF information, I suspect it might be 1774 mm (the next step).
The following photos were taken (not all on the same day) recently and show the moon at quite different altitudes:


(0) Date: May 22, 2016 at 17:43 EAST
Moon at Alt 2.3°,  Az 107.5°, size  0.56°
   

(1) Date: May 24, 2016 19:36 EAST
Moon at Alt 6.3°, Az 107.7°,  size  0.52°
   

(2) Date: May 24, 2016 at 20:16 EAST
Moon at Alt 14.5°, Az 103.6°,  size  0.52°
   


(3) Date: May 24, 2016 at 20:57 EAST
Moon at Alt 23.1°, Az  99.6°,  size  0.52°
   

(4) Date: May 25, 2016 at 06:46 EAST
Moon at Alt 26.5°, Az  262.1°,  size  0.50°
   

(5) Date: May 24, 2016 at 22:16 EAST
Moon at Alt 37.8°, Az  92.7°,  size  0.52°
   


(6)Date: June 21, 2016 at 23:12  EAST
Strawberry Moon+1 at Alt 67.1°, Azm 70.8°, size 0.53°
   

(7) Date: May 19, 2016 at 22:08 EAST
Moon at Alt 71.5°, Azm 0.1°,  size  0.52°
   

(8)Date: June 20, 2016 at 23:38 EAST
Strawberry Full Moon - at Alt 80.2°, Azm 23.4°, size  0.52x°


I suppose I did not need to show so many photos, but some are completely unable to accept the most solid evidence!

The moon stays (almost) the same size from rising (well 2.3°) to virtually overhead (at an Altitude of 80.2°).

Now please explain how this is possible with the flat earth model!

Sometimes I think the Flat Earth (and Mr TheTruthIsOnHere you sound like a Flat Earther, you argue like a Flat Earther, so to me you are a Flat Earther) approach to contrary evidence is:
   or is it?    or

Re: Round Earth Debunk: Strawberry moon !
« Reply #25 on: July 06, 2016, 12:41:51 AM »
Does the moon change apparent size and shape or not. That's the only question. That's the only thing we're debating right now.

Does it, or doesn't it. Not whether or not it is a neglible amount or not. I didn't pull no tricks woody. I made an ellipse same size as the moon appearing mostly over the horizon, then duplicated that ellipse to the furthest away, mostly complete moon. Feel free to do it yourself. Be careful to pick 1px stroke instead of 2px though, unless you want to be called a hack lol...

So, does it, or doesn't it appear smaller and distorted near the horizon?

*

Offline Woody

  • *
  • Posts: 241
    • View Profile
Re: Round Earth Debunk: Strawberry moon !
« Reply #26 on: July 06, 2016, 01:20:05 AM »
Does the moon change apparent size and shape or not. That's the only question. That's the only thing we're debating right now.

Does it, or doesn't it. Not whether or not it is a neglible amount or not. I didn't pull no tricks woody. I made an ellipse same size as the moon appearing mostly over the horizon, then duplicated that ellipse to the furthest away, mostly complete moon. Feel free to do it yourself. Be careful to pick 1px stroke instead of 2px though, unless you want to be called a hack lol...

So, does it, or doesn't it appear smaller and distorted near the horizon?

What are you trying to argue here?  Seems we are all agreeing the moon can appear to slightly different close to the horizon. 

How I am reading your post is you seem to be claiming those differences are greater than they actually are.  Yes, sometimes just using your eyes the apparent changes seem greater.  When measurements are taken it proves those changes are slight are non-existent.


Re: Round Earth Debunk: Strawberry moon !
« Reply #27 on: July 06, 2016, 02:02:27 AM »
Measuring pixels in Photoshop is far from scientific. Slight != Non existent.

You said the moon appears bigger at the horizon. This photograph proves otherwise. One is an optical illusion and, if this photo is authentic, one is reality.

I'm not trying to argue. But don't yall say something doesn't appear to change in size then when proven it does, back track into a flurry of extra curricular bullshit

Offline model 29

  • *
  • Posts: 422
    • View Profile
Re: Round Earth Debunk: Strawberry moon !
« Reply #28 on: July 06, 2016, 03:18:06 AM »
Ah, refraction. The answer to all life's mysteries.
It is pretty obvious.  Notice the shoreline structures and landslide

*

Offline Woody

  • *
  • Posts: 241
    • View Profile
Re: Round Earth Debunk: Strawberry moon !
« Reply #29 on: July 06, 2016, 03:32:42 AM »
Measuring pixels in Photoshop is far from scientific. Slight != Non existent.

You said the moon appears bigger at the horizon. This photograph proves otherwise. One is an optical illusion and, if this photo is authentic, one is reality.

I'm not trying to argue. But don't yall say something doesn't appear to change in size then when proven it does, back track into a flurry of extra curricular bullshit

Using number of pixels of a photo taken from the same location with the same camera, lens, and settings is adequate to measure apparent size of the moon.

The moon appearing larger near the horizon has been observed and documented for thousands of years. Like most illusions it requires the proper visual cues.  So it does not always appear bigger.  It has been measured by many people throughout history showing it only appears larger at certain times. The moon can also appear larger with other visual cues.




When the angular diameter of the moon is measured during one evening there is no significant change.
The maximum change is over a month and the difference does not generally exceed around 3.5 arc-minutes or around .06 degrees. 

It is easily verifiable.  It can be done by anybody who has something to measure with and method to ensure some type of accuracy.  You can use a coin and string.  Close one eye hold the coin out so it almost blocks the moon from view.  You should just see the outer edge of the moon.  Use the string to measure the distance from your eye.  Then repeat throughout the night.

Of course there are more accurate methods.

And the above illustrates what I am talking about when I say FE's basically perform poor experiments, deny evidence or simple continue to try and find flaws with a method without offering a counter method.
You can not deny the angular diameter of the moon is rather easily measured. Yet you seem to want to continue questioning it. 

Are you saying the moon's apparent size changes throughout the night beyond what myself and others are claiming?

Are you saying in certain conditions refraction does not make the moon appear different?

Are you saying optical illusions do not answer why the Moon sometimes appears larger on the horizon?

Also you did not prove it appears to change in size.  What you did with your photo is make a really bad measurement.  You must admit it was sloppy work and not accurate.  If you noticed totes cropped the 2nd moon and placed it on the other moon.  It did not show a rather significant difference like your photo depicted.

I am guessing totes has access to a program better than something like MS paint.  Which explains why he can do things more accurately.

If you can do something similar as totes and show the moon's apparent size changes in the photo then I will say you have an argument.  Then we need to account for all the other measurements that have been taken over a long period of time.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Round Earth Debunk: Strawberry moon !
« Reply #30 on: July 06, 2016, 03:47:10 AM »
Does the moon change apparent size and shape or not. That's the only question. That's the only thing we're debating right now.

Does it, or doesn't it. Not whether or not it is a neglible amount or not. I didn't pull no tricks woody. I made an ellipse same size as the moon appearing mostly over the horizon, then duplicated that ellipse to the furthest away, mostly complete moon. Feel free to do it yourself. Be careful to pick 1px stroke instead of 2px though, unless you want to be called a hack lol...

So, does it, or doesn't it appear smaller and distorted near the horizon?

I know you were answering Woody and not me, but

Stop stupid nit-picking! According the "Flat Earth Theory" the size should change massively - by a factor of around THREE depending on the location of the observer!
But this change should be gradual over the whole night and not restricted to just at moonrise or moonset.

With the Globe earth the distance from the observer to the moon is about the radius of the earth less when the moon is overhead than when it is on the horizon.

That would cause a change of typically (6,371/(384,400) x 100% = 1.657%.

There can be a slight change when very close to the horizon due to refraction (and no matter what YOU say it IS real). usually this "squashes the moon's vertical size a little - as seen it that series!

BUT the distance from the earth to the moon varies considerably over the cycle, with the mean perigee distance = 363,296 km and the mean apogee diatance = 405,504 km.

So the moon's apparent size should change slightly during the night and change considerably over the cycle.

Offline CableDawg

  • *
  • Posts: 201
    • View Profile
Re: Round Earth Debunk: Strawberry moon !
« Reply #31 on: July 06, 2016, 06:42:41 AM »
Does the moon change apparent size and shape or not. That's the only question. That's the only thing we're debating right now.

Does it, or doesn't it. Not whether or not it is a neglible amount or not. I didn't pull no tricks woody. I made an ellipse same size as the moon appearing mostly over the horizon, then duplicated that ellipse to the furthest away, mostly complete moon. Feel free to do it yourself. Be careful to pick 1px stroke instead of 2px though, unless you want to be called a hack lol...

So, does it, or doesn't it appear smaller and distorted near the horizon?

Since you're arguing from a standpoint of "apparent size" as being a valid indicator of actual size please do let us know where in the world we can find the following giants.





I only ask this of you because, apparently, these giants can only exist in your world and I thought you could possibly guide us to them.

Re: Round Earth Debunk: Strawberry moon !
« Reply #32 on: July 06, 2016, 07:22:28 AM »
Are you fucking kidding me? It wasn't intended to be a "precise" measurement because, quite literally, you can see without it that the moon appears flattened closer to the horizon.

Here is the problem. You made an imprecise measurement, and then drew a conclusion that required precision. You are of course correct in that "you can see without it that the moon appears flattened closer to the horizon", if you look very carefully. No one is arguing this. It's just that your measurement exaggerated the difference in size. (see below)

Are we to assume that the moon is actually flat where it meets the horizon? Is that what you're saying, that it was illogical to project the ellipse to the part obscured by the horizon?

Not at all. It is entirely logical to project an ellipse over the part obscured by the horizon. The problem is that the best fit ellipse is somewhat arbitrary. It is difficult to get a good estimate for the height of the ellipse since the bottom is obscured by the horizon and distorted by refraction.

I decided to make some outlines too! This time I used the high resolution version of the image. (I stupidly used the low resolution version last time.) Hopefully this clears everything up.

Green: Outline done by hand, very slowly, as best as I could. (Bottom left is missing because I can't distinguish the border between the first and second moons.)
Red: Your projected ellipse. (I used the outer edge of your outline.)
Blue: My projected ellipse. (Height is admittedly somewhat arbitrary.)
Yellow: The ellipse outline of the top moon that you compared it with.



Your outline (red) wasn't so bad. Perhaps I was a bit harsh. However, you definitely missed with the width. The actual width of both moons is almost identical. The difficult part comes when estimating the height of the ellipse. I tried several different times (blue), and each time got a slightly different height, despite it looking spot on every time. The problem is that the top part is fairly elliptical, but the bottom part is not, due to being obscured by the horizon and the distortion from refraction. Your outline (red) definitely looks like it is shorter than it should be though.

So, what conclusions can we draw from this?

1. The width stays relatively constant. Your original overlay definitely exaggerated the width difference.
2. The height difference is significant, but the degree is hard to tell. Your original overly probably exaggerated the height difference.
3. The difference in height of the other moons is small, but measurable. It decreases slightly as it nears the horizon. 6% decrease from moon #7 to #3.

So the only real measurable change in size/shape is a slight decrease in height as it nears the horizon. As has been stated numerous times, this is completely predicted by standard refraction. Score one for round earth.

On the other hand, the flat earth theory predicts a much more noticeable change is size, if the moon is indeed moving away from us: 50% decrease in both width and height between 6pm and midnight near the equator. This clearly doesn't happen. Flat earth theory is wrong. Sorry.

I am guessing totes has access to a program better than something like MS paint.

Yep! I use GIMP. It is an excellent free alternative to Photoshop. An edge detection filter is especially helpful for this kind of stuff.

rabinoz: Thanks for providing further evidence that it stays the same size.
CableDawg: That really isn't relevant to this discussion.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2016, 08:02:39 AM by TotesNotReptilian »

Re: Round Earth Debunk: Strawberry moon !
« Reply #33 on: July 06, 2016, 02:50:18 PM »
Stop stupid nit-picking! According the "Flat Earth Theory" the size should change massively - by a factor of around THREE depending on the location of the observer!
But this change should be gradual over the whole night and not restricted to just at moonrise or moonset.


On the other hand, the flat earth theory predicts a much more noticeable change is size, if the moon is indeed moving away from us: 50% decrease in both width and height between 6pm and midnight near the equator. This clearly doesn't happen. Flat earth theory is wrong. Sorry.



What part of flat earth theory makes that prediction?

*

Offline Rounder

  • *
  • Posts: 779
  • What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
    • View Profile
Re: Round Earth Debunk: Strawberry moon !
« Reply #34 on: July 06, 2016, 02:55:02 PM »
What part of flat earth theory makes that prediction?

The part where the moon is 3000 miles away at its zenith and three or four times that far away at the time it "appears" to set, once ignore you the never-observed atmospheric magnification effect.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2016, 04:42:23 AM by Rounder »
Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice

Re: Round Earth Debunk: Strawberry moon !
« Reply #35 on: July 06, 2016, 07:21:44 PM »
On the other hand, the flat earth theory predicts a much more noticeable change is size, if the moon is indeed moving away from us: 50% decrease in both width and height between 6pm and midnight near the equator. This clearly doesn't happen. Flat earth theory is wrong. Sorry.
What part of flat earth theory makes that prediction?

I calculated 50% based on a 4000 mile equatorial radius, and 3000 mile height of the moon. Since flat earthers can't even present a map to test, that's the best I can do.

The distance to the moon when it is directly overhead is 3000 miles (obviously).

Six hours later when it is about to set, it is:

sqrt(40002 + 40002 + 30002) = 6400 miles away.

A little over twice the distance, which should result in it appearing about half the size. Technically it doesn't completely prove that the earth isn't flat. However, it does prove that the moon is much farther away than 3000 miles, which is a rather vital part of the "flat earth theory".
« Last Edit: July 06, 2016, 07:27:20 PM by TotesNotReptilian »

Re: Round Earth Debunk: Strawberry moon !
« Reply #36 on: July 06, 2016, 08:58:58 PM »
On the other hand, the flat earth theory predicts a much more noticeable change is size, if the moon is indeed moving away from us: 50% decrease in both width and height between 6pm and midnight near the equator. This clearly doesn't happen. Flat earth theory is wrong. Sorry.
What part of flat earth theory makes that prediction?

I calculated 50% based on a 4000 mile equatorial radius, and 3000 mile height of the moon. Since flat earthers can't even present a map to test, that's the best I can do.

The distance to the moon when it is directly overhead is 3000 miles (obviously).

Six hours later when it is about to set, it is:

sqrt(40002 + 40002 + 30002) = 6400 miles away.

A little over twice the distance, which should result in it appearing about half the size. Technically it doesn't completely prove that the earth isn't flat. However, it does prove that the moon is much farther away than 3000 miles, which is a rather vital part of the "flat earth theory".

I've never seen any flat earth theory proponent say that the moon, or the sun should look half the size when they set.

EDIT:
I also stand by my original illustration and outline of the moon, btw.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2016, 09:02:17 PM by TheTruthIsOnHere »

Re: Round Earth Debunk: Strawberry moon !
« Reply #37 on: July 06, 2016, 09:07:40 PM »

I've never seen any flat earth theory proponent say that the moon, or the sun should look half the size when they set.

EDIT:
I also stand by my original illustration and outline of the moon, btw.

Barring yet to be otherwise observed magnification/refraction, the moon would be significantly smaller at the horizon. Far more than what is truly observed. And it'd be much flatter than what is truly observed as well.
Occasional poster, frequent observer.
Round Earth.

RE is a complex theory of simple answers.
FE is a simple theory of complex answers.


Also ignoring intikam.

Re: Round Earth Debunk: Strawberry moon !
« Reply #38 on: July 06, 2016, 09:42:08 PM »
I've never seen any flat earth theory proponent say that the moon, or the sun should look half the size when they set.

Harsh truth time: that's because most flat earthers don't think through the implications of their own theories.

Stuff looks smaller when it gets farther away. This is just common sense. Either they ignore this rather obvious fact, or they try to get around it by blindly believing Rowbotham's laughably stupid "magnification" theory, which has been thoroughly debunked multiple times on this forum.

I also stand by my original illustration and outline of the moon, btw.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Round Earth Debunk: Strawberry moon !
« Reply #39 on: July 06, 2016, 09:52:31 PM »
On the other hand, the flat earth theory predicts a much more noticeable change is size, if the moon is indeed moving away from us: 50% decrease in both width and height between 6pm and midnight near the equator. This clearly doesn't happen. Flat earth theory is wrong. Sorry.
What part of flat earth theory makes that prediction?

I calculated 50% based on a 4000 mile equatorial radius, and 3000 mile height of the moon. Since flat earthers can't even present a map to test, that's the best I can do.

The distance to the moon when it is directly overhead is 3000 miles (obviously).

Six hours later when it is about to set, it is:

sqrt(40002 + 40002 + 30002) = 6400 miles away.

A little over twice the distance, which should result in it appearing about half the size. Technically it doesn't completely prove that the earth isn't flat. However, it does prove that the moon is much farther away than 3000 miles, which is a rather vital part of the "flat earth theory".

I've never seen any flat earth theory proponent say that the moon, or the sun should look half the size when they set.

EDIT:
I also stand by my original illustration and outline of the moon, btw.
Well try it with a 6,250 mile (10,000 km) equatorial radius.
Then the observer could easily be not on the equator, but at either 45° or more North or South Latitude.

Then the Wiki says of the sun (and the same should apply to the moon):
Quote from: the Wiki
Magnification and Shrinking
Q: If the sun is disappearing to perspective, shouldn't it get smaller as it recedes?
A: The sun remains the same size as it recedes into the distance due to a known magnification effect caused by the intense rays of light passing through the strata of the atmolayer.
Shall I go on?