Sun and moon circling at a constant height above flat earth is a concept that hasn't been published before Dubay started the recent hype around 2014/2015. Given your vast literature, you could simply refute this, if you weren't dishonest yourself.

P.S.: And what about your implicit claim that all the world, including Moses, Solomon, and the Lord, use deceptive language, describing appearences and not reality? No answer?

You're a dishonest fool who simply makes things up without proof and then demands that others disprove your nonsense.

1902 "The Earth" (volumes III-IV), a journal published in 1902 by John Williams (editor).





And this is just the third one I randomly opened to look for this.

And we admit that the exact path of the sun and moon are speculation.  Perhaps they do exit and enter these "gates" as the Book of Enoch seems to describe.  We don't know for sure.  We're taking guesses based upon the other phenomena we can observe.  That is precisely known as the scientific method, where you form theories and hypotheses and then see whether observations back them up or falsify them.

DuBay actually got his ideas from a lot of these same books.  He has this video "200 Proofs ...".  There's a book out there from the 1800s called "100 Proofs", and Dubay took that book and then added stuff in there from other books.  When DuBay was talking about how he became a Flat Earthers, he spoke about having come across these very books (most of which I have in my collection as well).

Reminds me of the Conciliar heretics casting Traditional Catholics as "Lefebvrites" -- as if we are in a cult, heretics, following a mere man. It's not about the Faith, the truth, or Tradition handed down by the Apostles -- it's all about "Lefebvre". A diabolical inversion of the truth, which is to be expected I suppose.

It's the oldest trick in the book. A dirty trick, but unfortunately a very effective one, at least with the normies and sheeple.

There was the original Flat Earth Society from the mid 1950s ... that most FEs believe was taken over by disinfo agents after the death of its original founder, but Marion insists this was all invented by DuBay in 2015 because Sungenis embarrassed a Jєω in his movie.  Pay no attention to the fact that he has zero evidence for this and just pulls it out of his rear end.

At the end of the day, there's much theory there with FE due to the gaps of our scientific knowledge.  We don't have the billions per year at our disposal that NASA does in order to conduct experiments.  Some of the theory might be right; some of it might be wrong.

But I simply cannot buy that this magical refraction is responsible for all the "see too far" phenomena.  I laid out both sides of the issue, and the odds are so small that this refraction can consistently and repeatably make light bend perfectly around the curve, are almost zero.  And the odds that as we're hurtling through space at millions of miles per hour, not just the planet, but the entire solar system, and then the galaxy, and that the angle of our north pole towarad Polaris hasn't budged, and that the moon rotates at the same rate as it revolves around the earth ... to the second, those odds are so preposterously small that it would be like my claiming that complex organisms just evolved randomly out of nothing.

I would be more inclined to believe some evidence that "gravity" causes light to bend around the curve.  At least that would result in a repeatable and consistent result.  But nobody argues that because they realize that gravity does not have that effect on light.

As I posted on the other thread...I find it fascinating to see many sedes against FE, because it hasn't been "fully explained" or some details are unclear, yet...how many theories of sedevacantism are there (100s)?  Not all the sede details are worked out (not even close). But still, millions of people believe sedeism and it’s plausible even if not fully explained (yet).  

Oh, and I suppose it's necessary to point out the obvious, that the midnight sun observed at both poles during opposite halves of the year, is very low to the horizon and circles the observer through each day.
Shouldn't have to point that out, but it proves the "spirograph sun" of these fraudsters is quite an impossibility.

1902 "The Earth" (volumes III-IV), a journal published in 1902 by John Williams (editor).





And this is just the third one I randomly opened to look for this.

Since I couldn't really figure out what that text is supposed to mean, I looked it up. The monthly Journal "The Earth" was edited, printed, and published in 73 West Street, Brighton, England by Lady Elizabeth Anne Mould Blount ("A pancake world, rolled flat by Lady Blount"). Lady Blount F.R.S.L., F.S.A. also was President of the Universal Zetetic Society, and President of the Society for the Protection of the Dark Races.

The text quoted by Ladislaus is from a letter to the editor, written by W. Ernest Cooke, an Australian astronomer, who was not amused. A reader had given a pamphlet of Lady Blunt titled "The Midnight Sun" to Cooke, and had forwarded Cooke's refutation to Blunt, who printed it.

Dear Sir,

I know there are still a few persons who profess to believe that the Earth is a plane and stationary, whilst the sun revolves round it, but I did not know that any of them had printed such utter rubbish as in the pamphlet you so kindly sent me. This is the first of their publications I have seen and I am much obliged to you for it. I suppose some of them have written something a trifle more plausible than The Midnight Sun, and it would interest me to see a really plausible explanation of their theory. As to The Midnight Sun, the author has not the slightest idea of modern theories, etc., e g.: in his diagram on page 7. As a fact the sun at its farthest north declination, passes overhead at the tropic of Cancer, and according to accepted theory “overhead” means a contination of a line joining the observing station with the Earth’s centre. The position of the sun therefore should be on a prolongation of E F and at an enormous distance away. Placed thus, what becomes of the difficulty of seeing it from M, in a direction somewhat resembling M Q ?



As to the theory of the sun’s rays just reaching through our atmosphere to a certain distance, it is too funny for words. An action of this kind must be gradual and must vary with the constitution of our atmosphere, if we are to accept any verified facts of optics whatever. In this case the length of each day will be determined by the state of the atmosphere! Besides apply the simplest mathematics to the case. On page 9 : suppose the sun is running round the inner circle O R Q. See how his motion would appear to an observer at G. With centre G and radius G N draw a circle cutting O R Q in X and Y. Then when the sun reaches X it would be just rising to the observer at G, when at R it would be noon, and sunset at Y. But in one hour’s motion from X its apparent angular movement at G would be almost nil and this would gradually increase until it would reach a maximum at noon and then decrease. Now nothing is so certain as that the sun moves through equal angles in equal times, so this consideration alone would absolutely demolish the theory.



I need not go on, but what about the stars? I honestly believe that many who profess to believe (!) in this nonsense do not even know that every star in the sky describes a circle round the celestial pole every 24h. Ask some of them for fun, if you come across any.

The fact is that the writer of the book on Norway could easily have worked out all his statements of facts in his study, and if he used the ordinary theories they would be as correct as if he observed them, and probably more so, because the small error of observation would be eliminated, e.g., the 4th par. on page 3, “the nearer any point,” etc., evidently has been written in this manner, for the observer has not certainly visited the Pole or has remained remarkably reticent about it.

One more word. I believe the confusion of the term “level” with “straight” or “plane” has given rise to no end of error. The sea is, on the whole, level but certainly not plane. The level of anything is measured by an instrument which depends upon the action of gravity and when we state that two points are on the same level we mean that they are subjected to the same gravitational pull, or in other words are equi-distant from the Earth’s centre. This, however, would be above the level of these paradoxers.

Yours faithfully,
W. ERNEST COOKE.

archive.org


Unfortunately I couldn't find a copy of the pamphlet of Lady Blunt, so her model of the trajectory of the sun remains somewhat in the dark. Cooke discusses a section of a circle above the tropic of Cancer, which would be a section of that trajectory. Vertical movements are not mentioned.

Ladislaus, I really wasn't aware of this letter of Cooke's and of the pamphlet of Lady Blount. Maybe you can find "The Midnight Sun" in your Literature?!

And we admit that the exact path of the sun and moon are speculation.

But constant height. That was given e.g. in the video you posted and highly recommended about that "Perspective Matrix". The horizontal path, then, should follow the places within the tropics where the sun is seen at the zenith at noon. How can this be open to speculation?

Actually, it's diffraction, and it is caused by the graded density of air,

... ridiculous.  Dr. John D (a specialist in spectrometry) explains why its nonsense and conducted a two-way laser experiment which ruled out any diffraction.  We had a very lengthy and thorough discussion of the subject and you think you can come here and pontificate it away with the wave or your hand and a gratuitous statement.

But I simply cannot buy that this magical refraction is responsible for all the "see too far" phenomena.  I laid out both sides of the issue, and the odds are so small that this refraction can consistently and repeatably make light bend perfectly around the curve, are almost zero.  And the odds that as we're hurtling through space at millions of miles per hour, not just the planet, but the entire solar system, and then the galaxy, and that the angle of our north pole towarad Polaris hasn't budged, and that the moon rotates at the same rate as it revolves around the earth ... to the second, those odds are so preposterously small that it would be like my claiming that complex organisms just evolved randomly out of nothing.

I would be more inclined to believe some evidence that "gravity" causes light to bend around the curve.  At least that would result in a repeatable and consistent result.  But nobody argues that because they realize that gravity does not have that effect on light.

Then please look up terrestrial refraction, how it works, how to calculate it, and then make an informed decision if it can be used as an explanation for bent lines of sight.

Here is a good calculator, as an example I chose the 273 miles world record line of sight distance and it's parameters, which gives you a k value for refraction, which you can put into the terrestrial refraction formulas that I posted earlier and that you can look up everywhere.

http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Advanced+Earth+Curvature+Calculator&state=--22743.2-9439350.91-9-31760.6569-40.41974412-10.034081287-9-9-2#App

Because the other explanation of so called atmospheric lensing is a baseless, unscientific claim with no evidence for it's existence. Even if it did exist, it's behavior would be highly inconsistent and definitely looks much more like a human ad-hoc explanation.

That is looking at the issue from both sides then I guess?