I can't believe how they repeat a lie early and often, to try to convince us it's true.

"Lie big or go home!" is their philosophy. Most good people, who can't conceive of such satanic boldness, assume they CAN'T POSSIBLY be lying about something so fundamental -- that they would never lie that BIG.  ...Would they?

They would.

Look at the picture on the bottom. That is REALITY. You can do it yourself, at home, in a minute or two. Just get a light source, a ball of some kind, and a globe. Read 'em and weep.

I understand they can't prove gravity at small scale, or "molecules to man" evolution, or random chance creating information/new features in a creature, or pressurized air without a container, the motion of the earth, the curvature of the earth, etc. Most of the Globe Earth model they can't prove at all. They basically say "trust us!".

But THIS is merely the behavior of light, spheres, bodies, basic physics. This SHOULD be demonstrable at small scale. This should take up little space or materials, it should be very cheap and easy to demonstrate. They should be able to SHOW US this with actual, physical models and lights. Not a CGI cartoon where they could have anything happen -- why not have a basic, physical model set up to demonstrate this alleged behavior?

Nowhere in human experience or reality do 2 bodies and a light source cast pin-point focused shadows like this. As a matter of fact, the exact OPPOSITE happens. The shadow would spread out with increased distance. So the further the "earth" was behind the moon, the LARGER the moon's shadow cast on the earth would be.

This is all made-up nonsense to salvage the Globe model. People are SO trusting of authorities! They distrust their own senses, and trust some liars who have been proven to lie again, and again, and again. It's sad.

That one about the angle of the sun's rays is absolutely conclusive for me.  By the time the sun's light reaches the earth, it would be about 99.99% parallel (or something like that, as I've looked it up).  Also, if the sun's rays were coming in at an angle, that would invalidate the highly-vaunted Eratosthenes experiment.  But the globers like to maintain both contradictory theses at the same time, yet another example of their intellectual dishonesty.

If the sun's rays come in parallel, as heliocentric globe earth math requires, the shadow of the moon would be roughly the size of North America (as models demonstrate).

Lots wrong with these posts, but I think the quickest and easiest to point out is the picture of a model eclipse experiment with model moon, flashlight and model globe. So... the moon is only 2 lunar diameters distant from the earth? So much for intellectual honesty. 

That's equivalent to flat earthers calling the earth flat while it's covered in hills and mountains.

  You know what we mean by the earth being flat (i.e. oppose to a sphere, not that it's absolutely flat).

But you don't know what we mean? The sun's rays are practically parallel. Anyone capable of reasoning can determine that the sun's rays are both not perfectly parallel, and are quite divergent unlike laser beams, which again are not perfectly straight beams like most people think, but are somewhat divergent as well, just on such a small scale that it isn't noticed that the dot is getting much larger because perspective counters the apparent size increase with distance.

  You know what we mean by the earth being flat (i.e. oppose to a sphere, not that it's absolutely flat).

OK, that picture isn't the best, but I've seen models done to scale, and the result was that the entirety of North America (where it was pointed during the demonstration) was covered in darkness.

Yep, and just how much of the country was included in some part of the shadow? In other words, from where all could a partial eclipse of some extent be seen? I'm guessing most of the country without looking it up.

This is on NASA's website ... and is a complete joke.  No, the sun is not 5-10 times bigger (from the perspective of earth) than the moon so that it's rays come in at an angle.  And you talk about the FE pictures being not to scale?  This is to the point of being laughable.

Put your glasses on, it says not drawn to scale.

Yep, and just how much of the country was included in some part of the shadow? In other words, from where all could a partial eclipse of some extent be seen? I'm guessing most of the country without looking it up.

No, the question is that without the bogus NASA picture showing rays coming at an angle, you can't explain the small path of TOTALITY.