Author Topic: The Ladislaus Defective List of Objections (Read 286 times)

Neil Obstat · « **on:** August 24, 2018, 07:58:13 PM »

.
Ladislaus made a neat list of objections to the globe earth theory on another thread but there was too much confusion there for me to address them at the time, so I let it pass. Now in retrospect, it seems I missed an opportunity that shouldn't be let go so easily.
.
Therefore, I would like to address them now.
.
Here is the list:
.
.
So, when I first started looking into flat earth, I didn't think it likely that I would come around to accepting it.

But the evidence seems to be stacking up strongly in favor of flat earth.

1 ) cities, mountains, other objects that are clearly visible (and obviously not just refraction or "mirage") from distances at which globe earth math would make it impossible

2 ) strong evidence of NASA (and SpaceX) fakery

3 ) sun spots on the top of clouds when sun is allegedly 93 million miles away

4 ) lots of independent (not NASA controlled) footage from high enough where curvature should be visible ... and yet it's not, and where the horizon remains at eye level

5 ) flight plans that don't make any sense except for against a flat earth map

6 ) prohibition of free Antarctic exploration

7 ) moonlight being cooler than surrounding area

8 ) surveyors and engineers ignoring earth curvature

9) NASA images of globe earth are clearly (and admittedly CGI) ... with differing shapes of continents, cut-and-paste repeated cloud patterns, no satellites visible

10) fake Mars rover pictures, obvious green-screened and otherwise faked "astronaut" footage

11) Piccard's pre-NASA statement that the earth looks like a circular disc with upturned edges

12) sun changing size in the sky when it's allegedly 93 million miles away

[this is just off the top of my head, as I'm sure there's more]

On the globe earth side, I see ...

1) the Antarctica problem ... long periods of sunlight where there should be less sunlight according to a flat earth model

2) alleged flights over Antarctica

So the Antarctica problems remains the final obstacle to my being able to completely embrace flat earth.

So, flat earthers, what do you say about the Antarctica issue? If the circuмference of the Antarctica is so big, why is there so much sunlight during "Southern Hemisphere" summer? Is light bouncing off the dome or something?
.
.
From the very start, I would like to point out that the list "On the globe earth side, I see..." is extremely insufficient.
It only shows two items but there are literally many dozens, a few of which I will now supply.
.
Objectively speaking, there are numerous points entirely missing, and it seems this blind spot might be at the root of his problem.
.
For example, why not include:
.
3) Every equinox (twice a year) the sun rises due east and sets due west as viewed from every point on earth, without fail.
.
4) Any vessel traveling due west on the equator does not need to turn right or left in order to remain on the equator.
.
5) The same is true traveling due east on the equator: no rudder/course corrections needed (other than to counter wind or tide).
.
6) The respective lengths of the Tropic of Capricorn and the Tropic of Cancer are virtually identical.
.
7) During winter solstice (December 21st) the South Pole receives sunlight 24 hours a day.
.
8 ) From the top of any mountain, anywhere in the world, a theodolite shows level line of sight above the horizon in all directions.
.
9)* The angle measured between the sun and moon from earth at every quarter moon is about 89 degrees*.
.
10) The length of every line of latitude by degree from the equator to the North Pole is closely mirrored by those in the south.
.
11) Lunar eclipses always reveal the shadow of earth falling on the moon to be a curved shadow, not a straight one.
.
12) Every night, during a full moon, one can approximate the direction to the sun at midnight, and it is below your feet.
.
13) The moon never shows a shadow in its phase on the bottom (close to earth) even when viewed from far south, Tierra del Fuego.
.
14) Whatever the current phase of the moon, the exact same phase is always seen from anywhere on planet earth simultaneously.
.
15) High altitude balloons consistently show earth's curvature, while flat-earthers edit out those frames with selective bias.
.
16) Viewed from over 60,000 feet the sun is always far above any clouds, giving the lie to the "clouds behind the sun" canard.
.
17) Every attempt to itemize and verify components of proper observation are rejected and ignored by flat-earthers.
.
18 ) Precise scientific experimental procedure including measurement and REPETITION are wholly absent in flat-earth coverage.
.
19) The concept of testing an hypothesis is an integral part of the scientific method that flat-earthers persistently ignore.
.

[this is just off the top of my head, as I'm sure there's more]

*(No. 9) There are serious consequences to this measurement, consequences which the flat-earthdom syndromers have consistently refused to discuss but instead resort to puerile ridicule and intractable nescience, which anyone with a modicuм of desire to know the truth can do. The most cursory and sloppy of measurements gives over 80 degrees, but even that is sufficient to prove that the sun is far more distant from earth than the moon is. But it goes to show the enormous variation due to lack of accuracy when a measurement of 89 degrees means the sun is 50 times farther than the moon is from earth, but 89.8 degrees (the verified modern correct measurement using sophisticated and expensive apparati) means the sun is 390 times as far from earth than is the moon.
.
.
Be that as it may, Ladislaus' list of things in favor (ostensibly) of flat-earthism is entirely DEFECTIVE in every case.

I'd like to first address this Defective List.
Let's begin with No. 1:
.
1 ) cities, mountains, other objects that are clearly visible (and obviously not just refraction or "mirage") from distances at which globe earth math would make it impossible
.
The cities, mountains or other objects he says are "clearly visible and obviously not just [due to] refraction or 'mirage'," are his way of saying that he's seen some cherry-picked flat-earther videos where certain looming views of distant cities, mountains or other objects are seen only under certain atmospheric conditions and on certain days and times of the year. He neglects to mention that the videos showing these things never bother to take the same pictures at other times of the year from the same places. The reason being, that the same effects are not to be found year-round there. That's what I mean by "cherry picked."
.
If it were a plain fact of nature that these things would be visible, they would ALWAYS be visible, but they're not. Which puts the lie to "obviously not just refraction or 'mirage'," because that's exactly what they are! Without the refraction or mirage or looming, the objects in question are not visible. Since light bends when it travels through a medium of one density then into another density, like it does passing through a prism or from air into water and back again, so too the light traveling over the surface of a body of water bends when the temperature of the water differs greatly from the temperature of the air above it (through which the light is passing). Additionally, varying layers of humidity affect the straightness of the light's path. Sailors at sea never rely on visual sighting of a lighthouse beam. They always chart the direction of the beam and calculate their position based on two or more different lighthouses' beams. They also use sound. They keep track of the type of sound that each lighthouse sends out (foghorns) which are timed, and observant sailors can estimate the distance to the source of the sound by how long it takes the sound to arrive! They don't rely on the a visual sighting of the lighthouse beam because over water it could be obscured or stretched out depending on prevailing conditions. A light that ought to be visible only 30 miles away due to the earth's curvature, might sometimes be visible from 70 or 80 miles away because of looming or atmospheric lensing. Therefore, whether the light is visible or not cannot be a reliable factor for determining how far away it is. Many times a lighthouse beam (they say "light" but that's confusing here) appears at a surprisingly long distance away, but only as a soft, faint glow at the horizon, which could be spread out over 10 degrees horizontally due to looming or lensing.
.
Nor do the flat-earthers ever bother to test their claim (it's not a theory) by rising to higher point of view, like climbing a ladder or a staircase or a hill, or even by so much as STANDING UP. Mick West on Metabunk does a whole thread on standing up to see the earth's curvature. Speaking of Metabunk, their earth curvature calculator is widely accepted as reliable and accurate by all but flat-earthers. Of course, flat-earthers don't have any objective reason for opposing its use (except for the unacknowledged fact that its results conflict with their sacred cow, Shangri-La, fantasyland, false-god flat-earthdom syndrome.

2 ) strong evidence of NASA (and SpaceX) fakery
.
There certainly have been times when NASA and SpaceX have presented footage or photos of studio-produced images or even CGI (meaning computer-processed to improve appearance and to edit out objectionable appearance blemishes), while making no overt admission of the fact that the images have been doctored. Perhaps they misjudged the price of such ostensible diligence to detail. They did it anyway, after all, Hollywood does F/X in movies all the time without putting a disclaimer at the bottom of the screen and nobody whines about that. Nonetheless, just because one photo is CGI doesn't mean they all are. As a matter of fact, all that's needed is just one unretouched photo of the curvature of the earth to settle the question forever. But flat-earthers won't dare recognize even the first one. They can't, because then their whole pseudo-reality fails in one fell swoop.
.
By this principle, flat-earthdom syndromers cling tenaciously to their intractable nescience, according to which, they will not cooperate or participate in any objective testing of any claims. The reason is, they refuse to subject their fantasy subjective dreamland to the scientific method. All the while, of course, they repeat the mundane canard that flat-earthism is "scientific," which is manifest falsehood.

3 ) sun spots on the top of clouds when sun is allegedly 93 million miles away
.
No one has managed to respond to this item. Perhaps it has to do with the ambiguity of the first phrase, "sun spots on top of clouds."
We have already addressed the enormous and verifiably greater distance of the sun from earth compared to the moon's mean distance from earth. So let's take both possibilities.
.
A) If Ladislaus is referring here to sunspots (no space before the "s"), then one must wonder why anyone would expect sunspots to be found underneath clouds instead of on top of clouds. Certainly there are those intractably nescient flat-earthers who believe the sun has been seen underneath clouds (when cameras' overexposure of the sun makes it appear that clouds go behind it but they actually are merely rendered invisible for exactly the time they spend passing in FRONT of the sun), so perhaps he's busy pandering to the sensibilities of those intractably nescient flat-earthers, but what else is new? But if that is the case, why would presupposing that clouds move behind the sun be a good place to start your argument, when you're only going to show that the sunspots are on the other side of the clouds where the sun ostensibly is NOT? This is the sort of trouble one runs into when one's thinking is clouded by a false premise.
.
B) If Ladislaus is referring to sun spots meaning highlights or reflections of the sun on the top of clouds when seen from high altitude, such as from an airplane or a high-altitude balloon, then one must wonder: What does a flat-earther expect to see? No reflection? Just because the earth's curvature might have some effect on the way sunlight reflects off of it doesn't mean that there should be no reflection or highlight at all. This is verified quite simply by the use of a convex mirror. A readily available example of which is a mylar balloon, which, by the way, are available in blue so they can imitate the vast oceans' surface:

.

In the example above, you can see there are highlights reflected off the curved surface, especially the one on the top left side, which is manifestly a bright light of some sort, possibly a studio spotlight. The curved surface does not eliminate reflection, but rather it causes the shape and size of the reflection to change accordingly. It has absolutely nothing to do with how far away the light source is from the convex surface. When the convex surface has a rippled texture such as the surface of the ocean does, the reflection gets spread out by the multitude of tiny reflecting facets of the ripples, collectively making the highlight appear larger or stretched out like it does at sunset over the ocean. Clouds are composed of tiny droplets of convex water in vapor form, which all together produce the same effect that the surface of water does. So there is no mystery or contradiction between "sun spots" or reflection highlights on top of clouds, with regards to the sun being one million, 93 million or 930 million miles away -- you're still going to see the same effects on the ocean or on the tops of clouds when viewed from high altitude.

.
That's 3 down, 9 more to go.............................
.

Author Topic: The Ladislaus Defective List of Objections (Read 286 times)

Neil Obstat

The Ladislaus Defective List of Objections