The video response to the book of Robert Sungenis' book "Flat Earth Flat Wrong"

A third part will follow soon.

.
But the comments are interesting! 
Looks like flatearthtards has bitten off more than he can chew!
.

Greg McCormick
6 days ago
NASA is an irrelevance, and sophisticated equipment is not needed to show that the earth is not flat. Such observations as
the elevation of the pole star changing steadily by 1 degree per 69 miles are not compatible with a flat earth. Other simple observations including the clockwise rotation of the southern stars, the fact that stars near sigma octantis are always due south wherever you are in the southern hemisphere, and the east west directions of sunrise and sunset at the equinoxes are also incompatible with a flat earth and firmament. It's geometry, not NASA, that shows the earth is round.
 
1


Flat Earth Trads
Flat Earth Trads
6 days ago
it is a mere assertion by you that this math shows the earth to be round. It is all perfectly explicable using perspective. Which clearly you have not take the time to study.



Greg McCormick
Greg McCormick
6 days ago 
@Flat Earth Trads I have indeed studied perspective, and in some depth. Perspective depends on light travelling in straight lines until it reaches the eye or camera. It does not and cannot cause or explain any of the phenomena I referred to. In particular it cannot explain how the angle of elevation of Polaris changes with latitude in exactly the the way expected on a globe.

Refraction might explain this except that it would require an atmospheric gradient of refractive index that is the opposite of what is actually observed. And neither perspective nor refraction is capable of explaining the direction of rotation of the southern stars. If there were a firmament rotating about an axis through the north celestial pole there could not be any other celestial pole.

As for maths, it is a language that logically and flawlessly explores the consequences of propositions. It is not a mere assertion, to say that the maths shows that the measurements and observations indicate a globe. I can show you the maths and prove my point, if you understand a modicuм of trigonometry.

Flat earth versions of perspective are invariably merely verbal, confused, and lacking in rigorous logic. They are not mutually consistent, and where maths aspires to be so simple that the conclusions are obviously right, FE accounts of perspective are often so confused that it is an effort to pinpoint where they are wrong. Nevertheless, I have worked out where the most common mistakes are made. It is also evident that the only evidence for these confused inventions is that they are needed to prop up the contradictions of a flat earth.
 


Flat Earth Trads
Flat Earth Trads
5 days ago
type "stinky cash perspective" into youtube. Also try "eric dubay star trails". Everything is explained there. It is very easy to see how the angle of polaris changes. It is only hard if you are assuming that the earth is round and desperately are trying to close your mind to the truth.

Maths based on a false axiom is not real maths at all. It is false maths.
 


Greg McCormick
Greg McCormick
5 days ago
@Flat Earth Trads I have done the maths both ways, assuming a flat earth and assuming a globe. The flat earth result does not match reality, the globe result does. Unlike Dubay, I am competent at maths and geometry and I have no financial incentive to lie.

Specifically, on a globe the elevation of Polaris should be equal to latitude. On a flat earth it should be arctan (height of Polaris/ distance from the North pole). This latter relationship implies that at the equator Polaris should be well above the horizon, but in fact it is just on the horizon.

In case you think the maths is made up, it is just a standard formula for the angle of a triangle.

You can reverse this. Minneapolis is at  45 degrees north, and 3100 miles from the North pole. A 45 degree triangle has the base and height equal. If the earth is flat, Polaris should be 3100 miles above the pole. However,  if you do a scale drawing based on Oslo (60 degrees N) or New Orleans (30 degrees) you get different answers. Try this using any flat earth map.