I'd be interested  in seeing clear evidence of what you are talking about, and how exactly you feel this is impossible on a flat disc.

By the way,

Are you aware that flat earthers are open to question about maps?

Are you aware that our proofs are based on the earth on not on the sky? Lack of curvature: http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/f9-flat-earth-proofs

.
This post, above, didn't make sense to me before when I read it the first time. Going back now and reading it again, it seems the extra word: "...based on the earth on not on the sky?", made it confusing and not worth replying to.

Now it appears what you were trying to write was the following:

Are you aware that our proofs are based on the earth, on not on the sky?

In other words, you put "on" where you meant to insert a comma. I suppose.

So then you want to rule out half the evidence available to us (the sky) and that would be why? -- because, perhaps, the evidence in the sky is too irrefutable and easily verified? Perhaps. That would make your motive understandable, I suppose.

And then you claim to have "proofs" but fail to deliver any. Maybe you should take a class in Geometry and another one in Scholastic Logic, before you throw around claims of proving anything!

In any event, the site you refer to, flatearthtrads.forumga.net, is pretty pathetic, and about 8 months old. They have something like 10 members or less, and one post every what, week or two? Most members have never posted and most threads have very few views and no replies. So it's pretty dead over there. But I guess it's the kind of place you like to visit and even cherry-pick from, no?

Oh, I should also say they claim to be followers of Bishop Williamson but can't seem to manage any posts where +W has voiced support for their odd theory of flat-earthism. I have never heard +W say anything about "flat earth" except in jest. Maybe he doesn't want to make someone feel bad or whatever. Maybe he thinks it's not a battle worth trying to fight because it doesn't have any immediate consequence. I don't know what his intentions are unless he explains himself. But it's a crying shame that a website like that is dragging his good name into a controversy where he has not made his voice heard, so they're implying to speak in his name and in his absence. There's a term for that, you know, and it's not very flattering, to say the least.

(It's called detraction.)

They post videos of perhaps well-meaning you-tubers but these video makers have very little knowledge about how to sight level lines or how to determine if your viewfinder is level from left to right, nor do they appear to have any ability to sight or measure angles. In other words, they're not credible in their topic. More pathetic-ness, piled higher and deeper. But they're eager to jump to conclusions anyway.

What are you talking about? I'm game...

.
Binoculars use two lines of sight to allow us to discern which objects in view are closer to us or further away. They do this because there is one direction viewing in the left lens a given object at a fixed distance, and a different direction viewing the same object at the same distance in the right lens. Effectively, your left eye's angle of view differs from your right eye's angle of view, by some amount, and this amount of difference varies according to how far away the object is.

Tomorrow, Monday April 3rd, the moon will enter its first quarter. If you are in the USA or Canada, you can go to the following website
http://www.almanac.com/astronomy/moon/calendar/CA/Santa%20Monica/2017-04
and you can enter the name of your city, and state or province, press ENTER, and the site will display the month of April in a calendar which shows the time of day in your city when the moon will be at exactly one quarter illuminated by the sun. Today, Sunday April 2nd, at 2:00 pm in the Pacific Daylight Savings Time Zone, the moon appears at 37% illuminated according to the Old Farmer's Almanac. In the past hour the same site has increased from 37% to 39%, so this figure is a changing feature for the day in progress, apparently.

They don't go into detail on this rapid change, but that 37% to 39% becomes 50% by mid-day tomorrow, so perhaps it was 35% early this morning and then in the afternoon today it's going to update to 40% or even more, so the moon's illuminated portion can increase to 50% by 20 hours from now. When the moon appears to earth as 50% full that is when we say it is a "quarter moon" because only half the moon is visible and half of that half (1/2 x 1/2 = 1/4) is a quarter. Effectively, the moon is a sphere with half of it being illuminated by the sun but we can only SEE half of the moon at one time, the other half being the far side of the moon, and only half of the part we can see is facing the sun. We are seeing one-fourth of the moon illuminated, and one-fourth equals one quarter.

We are seeing one-fourth of the moon illuminated when the moon appears as a "quarter moon."

Of course, if you are wont to deny that the sun's light shining on the moon makes it appear to us on earth as a quarter moon, or you would say something like, "the moon's light comes from inside the moon," then you can ignore this exercise because whatever else you have to say won't matter in this discussion. Some flat-earthers claim they can see starlight shining through the moon and therefore "it must be very thin, like about 3 inches thick," and that since it's so thin it can't be a sphere or a globe, implying that since the moon is flat, the earth must be flat as well. Similarly, there are flat-earthers who have made known their odd belief that there is a dark region all around us where we can't see parts of the sky because "everything in the dark section is behind the horizon." If this is the sort of comments you are prone to make then you should just skip this thread and go post on flatearthtrads.forumga.net because they're desperate for contributions since they only get one or two views each day. By the way, if you are wont to believe that it is something that emerges from our eye that goes to the object in view (moon) that enables us to see things, or that reality is in the mind or that truth or reality is in your eye and not in the thing you are looking at (the moon), then you can likewise give up on this discussion and head on over to some other forum of your liking.

Therefore, provided that you are willing to at least entertain for the moment that it's the SUN shining on the MOON and us looking at the MOON from EARTH that's the reason that we see a quarter moon -- that is, the moon as a globe, or spherical object, with light shining on its right side, while being almost entirely dark on its left side (in the northern hemisphere, obviously, USA or Canada), with the line separating the light side and dark side going somewhat vertically from the top of the moon to the bottom -- then we can move on to the next aspect of this observation, which is:  measurement of the angle between two different lines -- our line of sight toward the sun and our line of sight toward the moon. 

The link I provided above gives the time of day from the Los Angeles area as 11:40 am, when the first quarter moon will occur. That is the preferred time to make the observation I will describe below. It is of no great consequence if the observation is made in my area later in the day, for example one or two o'clock in the afternoon, or even until sunset, which occurs here at 7:16 pm. The time of the observation should be noted, however, so it can be used in the analysis that follows.

At 11:40 am tomorrow, I won't be able to see the moon yet because it will be lower than the horizon. We are in Daylight Savings Time, which has advanced our clocks one hour so by Standard Time (which is the time used for astrological position of the moon and sun) it will be 10:40 when the quarter moon occurs, and the moon won't be rising until after 12:00 pm, an hour and 20 minutes later. Therefore the first moment I can make my observation will be after 1:00 pm PDT (UTC -7). In other words, I'll be almost 2 hours late at best. But it won't really matter that much for our purposes.

The video you posted there has erroneous panels for each item, from beginning to end. It is a compendium of false premise, incorrect thinking, lack of reason, illogical conclusions and lies.

Do you want examples? It would take me hours to list them all.

Take minute 2, for instance. It says,

"As you travel Southwards [sic] from the North Pole, Polaris and its surrounding stars decline in the sky due to perspective, so at the North Pole Polaris is situated directly 90 degrees above your head, but at the mid-Northern [sic] latitudes (like here) [Where?] it's about 45+/- degrees."

Nowhere in the video does it explain where "here" is, so perhaps he means the 45th parallel north. I don't know. If so, that would put him somewhere around the southern border of Canada, approximately. But we can't be sure since he doesn't really say.

Ambiguity, like at Vatican II, is the rule of the day with flat-earthers.

The term "southwards" needs no capitalization, but curiously for a flat-earther, most of whom deny the very existence of the south direction, not only is it referred to, it is Capitalized. Odd. Perhaps this particular flat-earther denies south sometimes when it's a difficulty but refers to it at other times, like now, when it's convenient. I don't know if he does or not because flat-earthers are very difficult to keep track of with their opportune inconsistencies. But I digress.

While it's true that the stars in the sky seem to change position due to perspective, this change is extremely small compared to the constant and predictable change that occurs due to the curvature of the earth, which is a reasonably constant curve, very close to circular in all directions. For our purposes the amount of variation is negligible so we can say it is entirely circular. For each degree of movement from the north terrestrial pole toward the equator (and ultimately the south pole), the north star, Polaris, moves just one degree downward toward the north pole. One terrestrial degree is equivalent to 60 nautical miles. So for the first 10 degrees south from the north pole, Polaris moves 10 degrees downward, and for the next 10 degrees south on the earth's surface, Polaris moves another 10 degrees downward. By the time one arrives at the equator, which is 90 degrees from the north pole, Polaris has moved just 90 degrees downward, which is why it is then found at the horizon line. This is entirely explained by the curvature of the earth, and not by perspective, because if it were perspective, Polaris would only have moved perhaps one degree, since it is at such a great distance from earth. Flat-earthers claim that the distance to Polaris is only a few thousand miles in order to perpetrate this falsehood that the movement of Polaris is entirely due to perspective.

But just as the enormously greater distance from earth to the sun compared to distance from earth to the moon is easily demonstrated by a simple observation you can make the day after tomorrow, April 3rd, 2017, so too the distance to Polaris is easily demonstrated to be many many times the distance to the sun. In fact it is thousands of times further to Polaris than it is to the sun from earth. Consequently, the light rays from Polaris reaching earth are effectively presumed (and rightly so) to be parallel lines. Again, flat-earthers deny this and claim they are far from parallel, but that only complicates their model for other reasons, leading them to additional self-contradictions.

In only 27 more seconds (2:27) the video shows a very odd and self-contradictory drawing that points to the ground with an arrow "land horizon" and then draws a line to the right at 30 degrees inclination to a place on the right side labeled "sky horizon." A note under this triangle says, "everything in the dark section is behind the horizon." There is no explanation given for why something obviously straight ahead of the viewer would be "behind the horizon." What is being done here is an attempt to set up a false premise. The man figure on the left side as we all know, is a man standing on the ground, which we can do, and the flat line under his feet accurately describes the flat ground under our feet.  When we look to the right or to the left or straight ahead or behind us, we can see to the horizon and we can see the ground going to the horizon. There is no such thing as a "dark section (...) behind the horizon" that we can't see. By insinuating this illogical error, the author is hoping a gullible viewer will buy into his lie so that he can build more erroneous thinking on top of it. Our limitations on seeing things far away is aided by telescopes which bring into view things we would not be able to see without them. An improvement on the telescope is binoculars which give us the ability to see relative distance of things far away, even if they appear to be more flattened-out than they do when we are physically up close to them. If the author were referring to things that we could see if we had a telescope, he did not say that, and as you will find out later, that cannot be what he's talking about because he really wants the viewer to believe that there are things straight ahead of our viewing angle that we are incapable of seeing because they're in the "dark section behind the horizon," whatever that means.


That's one part of the first two and a half minutes of inaccuracies, half-truths and total errors.

Almost all of what you just said is explained by your different notion of what perspective is.
For us it is much greater.

Explanations for the stars are just theories. Based on the presumption that the earth is flat. Since you don't share that presumption, your attempts to point out inaccuracies are very strange and inadequate. I for one, don't agree with the point made in the video that the stars could be on a flat disc. I believe there is a dome.

As an aside, your attempt to make me look stupid by pointing out grammatical mistakes, will only backfire against you, in the minds of reasonable people. You'd be better off, for your own sake, not going down that route.

As for your criticisms of the website, there is no substance to them. You just attack the people and try to ridicule it. Focus on the issues please.

For people just tuning in now, Neils Modus Operandi is to ignore when he is shown up as wrong. Psychologically, you have been programmed to accept that the earth is round and that flat earthism is stupid. Neil plays on that prejudice by making us, at all costs, appear to be stupid, and muddying the waters with silly objections, which aren't to the point.

Honest people reading; don't fall for this trickery. http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/

Try this one out  

The earth is fixed
The earth does not spin, move, tilt  wabble03/04/2017

The sun is only a couple thousand miles away...
The sun and moon travel around the earth
The universe does it works around the earth

God is mysterious

Well, I'm here looking east at 12:11 pm PDT and I can't see the moon yet. Too much haze on the horizon, won't be able to see it until it rises above the haze.

But, what is the point? What am I supposed to be looking for, Neil, you still haven't responded?

Sorry for taking so long. You can still do this today, but your measurement will be a bit off. The moon moves across the sky at a rate different from the sun's so each day it changes significantly. 
I posted above what to do. You can make up your own method, but the point is to set up a plane, or a flat surface, or a pivoting device, which allows you to point it at the moon and at the sun at the same time. 
Mark the two lines of sight from your spot on the ground to the moon and your spot to the sun. DO NOT LOOK DIRECTLY AT THE SUN.
Then measure the angle between the two lines of sight: one to the moon, the other to the sun. Take note of the TIME it is when you measure this. For me it was 5:00 pm.

Almost all of what you just said is explained by your different notion of what perspective is.
For us it is much greater.

Explanations for the stars are just theories. Based on the presumption that the earth is flat. Since you don't share that presumption, your attempts to point out inaccuracies are very strange and inadequate. I for one, don't agree with the point made in the video that the stars could be on a flat disc. I believe there is a dome.

As an aside, your attempt to make me look stupid by pointing out grammatical mistakes, will only backfire against you, in the minds of reasonable people. You'd be better off, for your own sake, not going down that route.

As for your criticisms of the website, there is no substance to them. You just attack the people and try to ridicule it. Focus on the issues please.

For people just tuning in now, Neils Modus Operandi is to ignore when he is shown up as wrong. Psychologically, you have been programmed to accept that the earth is round and that flat earthism is stupid. Neil plays on that prejudice by making us, at all costs, appear to be stupid, and muddying the waters with silly objections, which aren't to the point.

Honest people reading; don't fall for this trickery. http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/

.
Where to begin, where to begin -- how about the beginning?

Almost all of what you just said is explained by your different notion of what perspective is. 
For us it is much greater. 

.
Almost all? Well there you go -- when it comes to logic and reason, you have to be 100% accurate, so "almost all" is inadequate. Besides, my "different notion" is irrelevant when it comes to objective observation.  Facts are facts, and I'm sticking to facts here.

Explanations for the stars are just theories. Based on the presumption that the earth is flat. Since you don't share that presumption, your attempts to point out inaccuracies are very strange and inadequate. I for one, don't agree with the point made in the video that the stars could be on a flat disc. I believe there is a dome.

.
No, explanations for the stars, based on objective observations, are objective observations, not theories. Your next "sentence" is not a sentence ("Based on the presumption that the earth is flat." - not a sentence, so I have no idea what you're trying to say there.) Pointing out inaccuracies in statements that are easily shown to be fallacious are perhaps strange to someone who illogically believes in their fallacy. 

As an aside, your attempt to make me look stupid by pointing out grammatical mistakes, will only backfire against you, in the minds of reasonable people. You'd be better off, for your own sake, not going down that route.

.
As for making you look stupid, you don't need any help. If you check your posts with Preview before you send them you can avoid being incomprehensible, which see. 

As for your criticisms of the website, there is no substance to them. You just attack the people and try to ridicule it. Focus on the issues please.

.
I beg to differ. The website to which you refer, the flatearthtards forum , is not credible for many objective reasons. For starters, they claim to be in accord with Bishop Richard Williamson, but he has never voiced any approval or agreement with flat-earthism. So that's a big, fat lie, i.e., not credible. Secondly, a large portion of their posts make unsupported claims such as "the horizon always rises to the level of the viewer," which is false. The horizon remains where it is, and a line of sight directs its view to wherever it will, even straight up, for example. The horizon does not rise to straight up, does it? Or, in the area called "Flat Earth Proofs" contains no proofs whatsoever. One video used for "proof" has a guy running around on the side of a hill with a topography map, without any compass nor demonstration that he is aware of magnetic declination or how to use it, and no awareness of what the actual location he occupies on the map. He says he took a trail off the road, presuming that an unmarked trail is the one he sees drawn on the map without any mileage or estimated mileage from a known monument to the head of the trail. He then describes wandering uphill and downhill off the trail in an attempt to get a view of the mountain peaks in the distance that he supposes are those shown on his topo map. The elevation to which he refers is the top of the peak above him but he has no idea in fact of how many feet above him this peak is because he has not walked up there nor has he employed any reasonable means of measuring his elevation decline to the place where he's at. 

Do you want more?

For people just tuning in now, Neils Modus Operandi is to ignore when he is shown up as wrong. Psychologically, you have been programmed to accept that the earth is round and that flat earthism is stupid. Neil plays on that prejudice by making us, at all costs, appear to be stupid, and muddying the waters with silly objections, which aren't to the point.

.
There's unlikely anyone "tuning in now," just as there are practically no readers at the said forum. So when have I been "shown up to be wrong?" Please be specific, if you can. 

Again, you don't need any help showing your stupidity. You're doing a great job all on your own.

.

Neil,
you are becoming quite pedantic at this point.

- you have not answered Mw's question about the experiment. What is it meant to prove?

-Flat Earth trads website never claims nor even implies that Bishop Williamson is flat earth.

-The horizon is suppose to descend on a ball earth as you ascend. Common sense tells us that. But you wish to deny that.

- "tuning in" was in reference to cathinfo and not flatearthtrads

- for nearly the 20th time, you were shown up wrong by not answering where hudnreds of feet came from on the mountain in a video which has been shown multiple times on this and other threads. There are other examples but that is the most important, because it is the base of the flat earth proof.

- Perspective is simply a description of the reality. It doesn't even need to be proven. Because we know the earth to be flat, and yet objects to be there, the way we explain it is by perspective. It doesn't make sense to you because you believe the earth to be round. I use BELIEVE in the true sense because you have no evidence for it. We see the earth to be flat.