CathInfo.com

.
I went back to read this thread with the intention of saying that at least flat-earthers are honest enough to admit that they have no explanation for what causes eclipses to happen. 
.
But now I see that was something they USED to say BEFORE the great American eclipse of August 21st, 2017.
.
Apparently they all got tired of being shown up for their ignorance and pretentiousness in regards to eclipses so they circled the wagons around a contrived, silly notion that eclipses can only be explained by a flat-earth model. But NEVER MIND that they can't provide any example of how their model explains even one eclipse.
.
This pathetic record is yet more evidence for the ridiculous character of flat-earthism.

.
Where are the flat-earthers' predictions of eclipses to come in the future?
.
Too difficult with the flat-earth model, eh?
.

That's because their model is speculative ... since they don't have the funds, equipment, etc. to study the actual model.  That's not an argument against flat earth.

Modern Planetariums use Ptolemaic / geocentric math to plot the movement of the stars (and eclipses).  Are you a geocentrist?

Ok a couple of things here.  

...over this is silly because the 2018 eclipse deflates ball earth theory.  The (flat) ball is in your court, Neil.

Um..the guy in the this video was trying to prove that the moon is flat.  And considering it was supposed to shut the door forever on the spherical moon argument...it was a pretty bad video.

1) The confirmation factor...He was saying that the shadow would bevel and skew, wrapping the moons surface.  A pencil and bowl inches apart do not represent the visual acuity in the distance from the earth to the moon. Yet at the 9:10 mark you can see in his example that the light vs shadow bends across the surface.
2) The diffusion faction...He was talking about the sharpness of shadow based on distance.  This is oversimplification.  It doesn't factor in the intensity of the light.  For example get a cheap regular bulb flashlight and point at an object 20ft away.  Now get a high intensity LED flashlight from the same distance.  You will see a difference in the shadow's 'diffusion.  Using his explanation as a premise for 'diffusion factor' is a bad way to prove something.  Its like ignoring the numbers after the decimals, you won't get an accurate answer.  At the 10:32 mark, he said there is no stretching, no conformation, no warping....yet the shadow extends out....note the yellow into orange into darkness....and the fuzzy area between the orange and the dark...looks like what he was describing as diffusion.
3) Sine factor...I have never heard about a sine factor before.  Maybe I am not educated enough, but other than trig and calc, I've never used it again.  Is this a real thing? I could not find anything on this in a google search.
4) Reflected light factor. So he held an object less than an inch away to show proof that the earth should reflect light back to the moon....thus eliminating new moons.  Another thing...the sun's light is not yellow as he describes.  And moon light isn't blue? Atmosphere plays a part in it.  He says you should see this, or the moon should do that, but again with no data to back him up other than opinion.  No one too my knowledge has ever seen the new moon.  So we should be able to see it because he thinks we should

How does a puppet show, in his words, "100% discounts and debunks any further arguments or perspectives that hold to our moon being a sphere."  That by itself is a illogical statement.

So now the earth AND the moon are flat.  What is next flat Mars and flat sun theory?