The 10,000 Dollar Baller Challenge

Your'e not going to convince a religious ball earth fanatic of anything guys.
Despite pointing out the facts of perspective and limitation of vision, regardless of using telescopes or not, this balling disciple continues to spew the same drivel over and over.
If he was really concerned with truth, he would watch some of Gav's videos on perspective which are conclusive and full off observable proof rather than Jewkipedia. In fact anyone listing this as a source should not even be entertained, except to be laughed at like a court jester. '
These ballers would look at the colour black and tell you it is 100% white just because their high priests told them so.

No worries. I'm sure a group of super-smart, honest and independent globe scientists are working really hard on this challenge at the moment—compiling a whole bunch of factual, irrefutable evidence for a magical spinning pear-shaped ball Earth—and will kindly present it to us (and the world) and collect their $10k any minute now...

jewry/trannywood wrote:Your'e not going to convince a religious ball earth fanatic of anything guys.
Despite pointing out the facts of perspective and limitation of vision, regardless of using telescopes or not, this balling disciple continues to spew the same drivel over and over.
If he was really concerned with truth, he would watch some of Gav's videos on perspective which are conclusive and full off observable proof rather than Jewkipedia. In fact anyone listing this as a source should not even be entertained, except to be laughed at like a court jester. '
These ballers would look at the colour black and tell you it is 100% white just because their high priests told them so.

Exactly. When you're brainwashed to believe that there is no up or down and everything is relative, the rules go right out the window. The ISS window...which is always open...despite being "in space"...

More proof the Lake Pontchartrain power lines curve due to perspective not globularity:

The following are only a few of the reasons why no one but the most deluded or dimwitted would consider this "Challenge" legitimate: (1) Eric Dubay is so determinedly biased that he doesn't even acknowledge the existence of Sigma Octantis; (2) The judges stand to lose money if they admit that they have been wrong about the Globe Earth; and (3) although the judges claim to have conducted a years-long search to satisfy their burning personal desire for evidence against the Flat Earth, they have crafted the terms of the Challenge so as to disallow, out of hand, the types of experiments that would be most likely to produce such evidence. For example, MigFlug "Edge of Space" flights to 17 km. (Note that to eliminate the possibility that optical distortions in the MiG's canopy cause the horizon to appear curved, the judges could perform their own tests before and after the flights.)

If MigFlug's advertising is accurate, that flight would satisfy the judges' burning personal desire for evidence against the Flat Earth. Perhaps that's why they crafted the Terms to require that submitted experiments be accessible to "everyone":

"The experiment needs to be something testable and demonstrable by everyone, so requiring people to travel to the North/South Pole or into "outer-space" to prove your point is not acceptable ... " (Admin on Mon Sep 03, 2018 8:08 pm).

So much for the judges' "desperate" desire to know the truth. Eric wouldn't have attempted this laughably, transparently bogus publicity stunt unless he thought that Flat Earthers are very dim bulbs. And to this point, events have proved him right.

jimsmithinchiapas wrote:
no one but the most deluded or dimwitted
acknowledge the existence of Sigma Octantis

The south celestial pole (SCP), "the imaginary point in the sky directly above the Earth’s south pole", can be located by using the constellation Crux and the two brightest stars in Centaurus, Rigil Kent and Hadar.  These stars are sometimes called the “Southern Pointers”.  Extend an imaginary line through the long axis of the cross, from the star at the top (Gacrux) through the star at the bottom (Acrux).  

...The SCP lies just south of the halfway point between these two bright stars.

Here's a better way to find the Fake south celestial pole star:  Look for the "second star to the right, and fly straight on till morning"

ref: oneminuteastronomer.com/3307/finding-south-celestial-pole/

You misquoted me. I did not say "no one but the most deluded or dimwitted acknowledge the existence of Sigma Octantis". Or do you not know how to use an ellipsis when you omit words from a passage that you're quoting?

Also, my post did not refer to the South Celestial Pole. Instead, I referred exclusively to the star Sigma Octantis, whose existence is incontrovertible. Eric's refusal to to acknowledge it disqualifies him as a judge of scientific evidence. But as I said in my OP,

"Eric wouldn't have attempted this laughably, transparently bogus publicity stunt unless he thought that Flat Earthers are very dim bulbs. And to this point, events have proved him right."

jimsmithinchiapas wrote:
"no one but the most deluded or dimwitted acknowledge the existence of Sigma Octantis"

The so called constellation Octans, is said to be one of the handful of constellations invented the French astronomer "Nicolas Louis de Lacaille", in 1754.  The so called southern polestar, Polaris Australis (also called Sigma Octantis), unlike the north polestar, Polaris, CAN NOT be seen by the naked eye.  bahaha

So, your balltardism has you using FAITH to beLIEve about the Southern Pole Star that you can't see and can't use for navigation.  Why did Lacaille use the Latin word octan?  Because he wanted to represent the fake Southeren Pole Star "as a navigational instrument that was replaced by the sextant in the latter half of the 18th century."  bahaha


Here's a better way to find the Fake southern pole star:  Look for the "second star to the right, and fly straight on till morning"

" jimsmithinchiapas wrote: 'no one but the most deluded or dimwitted acknowledge the existence of Sigma Octantis' "

Thank you for demonstrating that your misrepresentation of my OP was deliberate.

The so called southern polestar, Polaris Australis (also called Sigma Octantis), unlike the north polestar, Polaris, CAN NOT be seen by the naked eye.  bahaha

I'll trust people who live in or travel to places in the Southern Hemisphere with clear, dark skies to test that assertion themselves, and form their own opinion about your credibility.

Also, you're misrepresenting or evading my point: that Eric denies the very existence of Sigma Octantis. Do you and he believe that a star exists only if it is naked-eye visible? If so, there's a marvelous new invention called binoculars that might interest you.

But a more-likely explanation is that you're being merely dishonest -- again.

jimsmithinchiapas wrote:
Polaris Australis (Sigma Octantis)

I'll trust people who live in or travel to places in the Southern Hemisphere

Again you show to be "deluded or dimwitted" without first-hand knowledge.

jimsmithinchiapas wrote:
Eric denies the very existence of Sigma Octantis

Only Heliocentric Priests and the "deluded or dimwitted" except that "Sigma Octantis" is representing the so called Southern Pole Star on Spaceball Earth.

Why did French astronomer "Nicolas Louis de Lacaille", in 1754, use the Latin word "octan" to describe the fake Southern Pole Star?  
Because he wanted to claim it "as a navigational instrument that was replaced by the sextant in the latter half of the 18th century."  bahaha

"Sigma Octantis is so dim that trying to use this as a guide point is relatively pointless." ~ astronomywa.net.au/


"no one but the most deluded or dimwitted acknowledge the existence of Sigma Octantis"

It's so dim because it's 88 quadrillion light years away in the LOL 666 galaxy and most of its light gets sent to a parallel dimension before it reaches the Earth due to the curvature of space-time.

You're just a dimwit for not knowing that, Schpankme!

Dual1ty wrote:
It's so dim because
its light gets sent to a parallel dimension before it reaches the Earth
due to the curvature of space-time

I love reading your Science Fiction Stories before bed time; but, it gets even worse for the worshipers of Heliocentricism.  

Why is it that Heliocentric Priests never ask, "how come the Vatican owns and operates the majority of Telescope Observatories?"

Lets begin with the fact that society is controlled through 'psychological manipulation' whose reality is defined by what they perceive to be fact and fiction.  It all started around the year 1500 when the advent of the "printing press" became available to those with influence and power.

In 1542 the papal Inquisition was re-established to combat Protestantism, eventually becoming an organ of papal government.  Except within the Papal States, the institution of the Inquisition was abolished in the early 19th century, after the Napoleonic Wars in Europe and after the Spanish American wars of independence in the Americas. The institution survived as part of the Roman Curia, but in 1908 was given the new name of "Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office". In 1965 it became the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Nicolaus Copernicus (1473–1543)
It is said that Copernicus conducted astronomical observations, using primitive instruments modeled on ancient ones -- the quadrant, triquetrum, armillary sphere.  Around 1514, Copernicus wrote an initial outline describing his theory of the heliocentric mechanism, without mathematical apparatus, which differed in some important details of geometric construction from his work, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres).  This book was first printed in 1543 in Nuremberg, Holy Roman Empire, it offered an alternative model of the universe to Ptolemy's geocentric system, which had been widely accepted since ancient times.

History Time-Line:

1543
May 24, Copernicus dies.

1572 - almost 30 years later
Jesuit Christopher Clavius recommends reforming the calendar based on Copernican Heliocentricism.

1582 - 10 years would pass before the Holy Roman Empire agreed
Heliocentricism as invented by Copernicus is used by Pope Gregory XIII to reform the calendar.
  Institutes Gregorian calendar in March, 1582.

So, the question becomes:  has anyone seen a Spaceball orbiting another Spaceball?   NO, but we now have the Theory of Heliocentricism being taught by the most powerful and feared organization on the face of the Earth, the Holy Roman Empire (aka Vatican).

1601
Telescope invented

see:  Who invented the Space Enterprise

1610
Galileo Galilei, claims to see Spaceballs orbiting about one another (planetary motion).
  Galileo is a beneficiary of the Jesuit payroll.

1611
Jesuit Christopher Clavius, confirms Galileo’s observations of planetary motion.
  Jesuits claim that Lights they observe through their Telescopes are in fact Spaceballs that orbit about one another.

1931
Jesuits invent Big Bang theory (aka, Cosmic Egg or Primeval atom)


From birth you are indoctrinated to worship the man-made constructs of Heaven and Space (Fiction).

OK, since I can't write on Dubays Facebook (which I thought was the place to post), I will post here (which is better, though, since I get the formatting and easy pictures, here ).
This can be considered my official submission to give an experiment which establishes curve (and even ball). I also recognize that this might not be perfect, since it's something I have come up with in my own head, and thus I also want to open to make the experiment more accurate and better (or scrap it) depending on the official judgement.

So, this is something I think works on the FE-premises, and that's why I think it is good, and will stand against the strong demands from the test. I personally think it's so good, that if this does not hold up to skepticism, then no FE-evidence hold up to back up FE either (One can always raise the bar, even for ones own existence for that matter).

OK, so enough of intro, let's cut to the case:

So, one of the earliest things I heard when starting to research FE, was that ie 24/7 daylight on the south pole would disprove the FE, and then several responses was posed, which I don't want to deal with at all. My first response to this, was that; well, if 24/7 daylight would disprove it, 18/7 further north, would be equally destructive, and this would be easy to circumnavigate all the conspiracy-possibilities. But this seemed to me to be way too obvious so I assumed this was dealt with somehow. But... Since I started this research about half a year ago I have not seen anyone deal with this objection. In fact, the closest I have seen anyone deal with it, was someone who used a map which shows it's absurdity, to prove FE...
This is the image:

And this is the video which used it as a main factor to support FE, and thus supports this problem in a different way than I suggest here; potentially two independent lines of evidence:
(At around 15 minutes)

I have actually not seen anyone take on this problem from a FE-perspective, and that's why I submit it here; if there's an explanation I'd like to see it, and if not it debunks FE. The closest I have seen is that someone mentions that Samuel Rowbotham simply dismisses this by saying that we have no evidence that this is the case...

OK, so to describe the problem:
This is not about how seasons work, but daylight specifically.

In South Argentina they have 17 hour daylight in december, as do they in south of New Zealand, just as we do here in south of Norway in june.

Either Samuel Rowbotham has not even tried doing research on this, or he is flat out lying. For him to have both researched it, and not lying, the entire southern hemisphere must be in on the conspiracy to a more or less degree.

Datapoints:

Punta Arenas, Chile, population 125 000.
22. december:
Daylight for 17 hours. It is technically never night between 17th of november and 25th of january, meaning it only gets to "astronomical twilight" during this time.

Dunedin, New Zealand, population 120 000.
22. december:
Daylight for 15,7 hours. Night occurs for only 2,8 hours.

Cape Town, South Africa, population 3 600 000.
22. december:
Daylight for 14,4 hours. Night occurs for 6 hours.

This means that there's actual daylight for 15,75 hours a day, 17 hours a day and 14,4 hours a day on the three "opposite" sides of the FE.

[The exact data is brought from www.timeanddate.com, but I have personally talked to one person in each place, just to be sure I had integrity on this]

Actual timeframes:
Punta Arenas: Rise at 5:13 and set at 22:11 local time.
Dunedin: Rise at 5:44 and set at 21:28 local time.
Cape Town: Rise at 5:32 and set at 19:57 local time.

In UTC-time, so that we have a common timetable:

Dunedin, UTC+13: Rise at 18:13 and set at 11:11 UTC time.
Punta Arenas, UTC -3 : Rise at 2:44 and set at 18:28 UTC time.
Cape Town, UTC +2: Rise at 7:32 and set at 21:57 UTC time.


Which means: There is an overlap between Dunedin and Punta Arenas of 15 minutes in the one end, and 9 hours and 33 minutes , a total of 9 hours and 48 minutes, almost 10 hours.
There's even a triple overlap of 15 minutes, between 18:13 and 18:28 UTC time.

The problem it poses:

This seems extremely hard to explain, at least with the sunlightmodels I've seem suggested. This does not give a circular or oval shape of the light from the sun by any means. The light needs to drag almost around the circumference of the edge, but not quite, unless there's also 24/7 daylight on antarctica, but since that's disputed, let's just keep at what can't be disputed.

The problem is that we now have three datapoints which are on opposite-ish ends of the FE. And if we don't trust dateandtime.com, we can get more datapoints, so that we can accurately do this ourselves. I have trusted dateandtime.com myself on the specific times, but I did talk to one person who has been to each of these places; I had a friend who lived several years in Chile, near Santiago, but who visited Puntas Arenas several times during december (and other times), and one school mate who studied one year in Cape Town, and lastly a friend who lives in Auckland, but did his doctorate in Dunedin, so was there for several years. That's why I chose these specific places.

If these points are somewhat accurate (meaning if they are not wildly wrong to such a degree that anyone living in any of these places would immediately say the data on dateandtime.com are definitely way off), we have a problem with the FE-explanation on how the sun, and light, work. The dateandtime.com data all over gives us this model of how the sunlight works:

[For some reason this GIF is autoturned into JPG, so I need a direct link for one to see the effect]
https://img5.picload.org/image/lwwgwcl/oneyear.gif

Everything north of equator seems to work fine on FE, given that the sun moves south and north according to seasons, and all that. The problem is the south of equator, where you get the problem I am describing.
On a FE, we would get this:



And, the "worst" is that if we check the exact same thing on a round earth, we get a consistent model (which also shows that the sun is far enough away that its light covers half the globe)!



So, I know that these pictures are not evidence according to the rules, and of course they should not be, they are simply illustrative to reflect what the evidence show, and make clear the problems they pose.

The posed experiment to verify this:

Everyone from Zimbabwe and south on, could easily check this; It's simple, does december have 13 hour-sunlight and longer? If yes, this is the exact same principle. So this would include everyone living in Zimbabwe, Botswana, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland, Lesotho, Paraguay, Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Australia and New Zealand. In every one of these countries all you need to do is take the time of one day; is it 13 hours or more, then you have to explain this by a non-circle/oval light getting qider and shorter in a very, very hard-to-explain shape of the light on the south part of the flat earth.

To get a specific and concrete experiment: Between 18:13 and 18:28 UTC livestream with one person in Cape Town, one in Punta Arenas and one in Dunedin, and confirm that they can all see the sun at this time. If they can, this problem is confirmed. And the problem is that the sun shines in a spotlight. That's not possible in this scenario (unless you'd like to pose that the entire planet has sunlight at this point in time....).

Conclusion:

This experiment should prove, on the Flat Earthers premises, that the Earth is a globe. This experiment says nothing about if the Sung goes around the Earth, or the other way around, but it seems definite and conclusively to establish a globe.

Thanks for the submission Tristan.  Firstly, the pictures of daylight hours you've submitted are assuming the TimeandDate.com figures are correct, and some of them are provably false such as the 24 hour Antarctic sunlight shown during winter solstice.  There is never 24 hour sunlight in the Antarctic, but there must be in the wobbling ball model, so it has been added in and fake videos have been given as proof:  http://ifers.123.st/t68-no-midnight-sun-in-antarctica



Secondly, the amount of daylight hours present during different seasons on various places on Earth does not give us any proof of the shape or motion of the ground beneath us.  This assumption is false, as is your assumption that this can only be explained by a spinning ball Earth wobbling around the Sun:

https://ericdubay.wordpress.com/2018/07/11/arctic-vs-antarctic/

Extended hours of daylight in the South during winter solstice is perfectly consistent with the geocentric model as shown here:



And the reason daylight (not the Sun itself) remains for extended periods has to do with the nature of light propagation itself (see the following):

Thanks for a reply.

I would appretiate if you read through my post, and tried to understand what it is saying. I mentioned the south pole 24/7 simply for context, and said it was irrelevant for my claim, we don't need it because it is contested, and thus we don't need to talk about antarctica at all for this experiment. Also, I did not claim the experiment to establish all the things you ask for, I even explicitly explain that they don't do everything you said, only the globe form, and for that to be the case, one would just need to do enough experiments to establish that dateandtime.com is somewhat accurate on their sunrise/sunset times. That all. If they are wrong (in a major sense) this is easily and quickly dismissed. I know they are close to 100% accurate in Norway, at least.

Also, I was not speaking of seasons, but sunlight specifically. I know of the seasonal explanations made by the sun moving south and north, as I mentioned in the post.

Because of time (I won't be able to answer thorughly until tomorrow) I have only seen the first video you posted, but it time and time again uses a model with spotlight sun which would have the largest part of a day in december being without any sun in all three points I have mentioned, rather than that they can see the sun specifically (not only daylight; When I have said daylight, I have meant time between sunrise and sunset, so this is time they see the sun specifically; daylight is covered with the "night" I added also, but that's just for extras, not vital to the experiment itself), so the model Eric (and Rob Skiba, who I have tried mailing about this) uses would give the opposite of what one would expect, on the southern hemisphere. These models all work well and fine on the northern hemisphere, but crashes on the southern (which is what to be expected, since that's where it differs from the globe model, really).

What the experiment says:
You can have a live video with one person on each of these places mentioned (and for that matter someone in Asia as a control), at 18:15 - 18:30 UTC, and see if all three can see the sun (not only daylight, but SUN), and if they can, you need to be able to explain how those three points can see it, but not those in Asia as doodled quickly here:



You need to say: Where is the sun, so that those three can see it, but not those in Asia.
If you are serious, this is an easy experiment to do, it costs nothing. One easy way to explain this is if the earth is a globe.

I will answer the last two videos tomorrow (and hopefully they are relevant, at least).

So I got to see the second last video about how light works. That seems totally irrelevant to my problem. If the sun is plasmareactions or a rock for that matter, is irrelevant to the point I am making. If plasma reacts in the atmosphere, it does not explain how these tree points can see the sun itself at the same point in time, and also the sunrise time is still the opposite of what one would expect given the model used in the first video. With that model, the sun should be visible in NZ just a very short time, and most of the day out of sight, rather than most of the day directly visible, and rest of the day indirectly visible.

If you are the judge in this challenge, you need to try to understand what is being challenged here, and not randomly put out videoes and answers that seem somewhat related. Answer the posed problem. If you do not understand the problem at hand, please ask for clarifying info, so that we can actually reach a point of understanding, so that we can actually evaluate the relevant experiment, and the consequenses of it.

The last video is unavailable to me. I get a message saying that the video contains content from Turner EMEA Enterprise, which has blocked the content in my country because of copyrights. I live in Norway.

"See if all three can see the sun (not only daylight, but SUN), and if they can, you need to be able to explain how those three points can see it."

No I don't need to explain that. The challenge is for you to provide measurable, demonstrable, repeatable evidence that Earth is a globe/moving. The amount of daylight visible in various places at different times on Earth, in no way provides proof of the shape or motion of the ground beneath your feet.

To date, no experiment can "provide measurable, demonstrable, repeatable evidence" for Spaceball Earth to be in motion.

Space is a man-made construct.
Spaceball Earth is a man-mad construct.
Heliocentricism is a man-made construct taught by the Jesuits and the Holy Roman Empire, beginning in the 1500's.
Heliocentricism ushered in the new Religion called Scientism, this theory based system that relies on faith not facts; the one religion to bind them all.

Tristan Wisefist wrote:So I got to see the second last video about how light works. That seems totally irrelevant to my problem. If the sun is plasmareactions or a rock for that matter, is irrelevant to the point I am making. If plasma reacts in the atmosphere, it does not explain how these tree points can see the sun itself at the same point in time, and also the sunrise time is still the opposite of what one would expect given the model used in the first video. With that model, the sun should be visible in NZ just a very short time, and most of the day out of sight, rather than most of the day directly visible, and rest of the day indirectly visible.

If you are the judge in this challenge, you need to try to understand what is being challenged here, and not randomly put out videoes and answers that seem somewhat related. Answer the posed problem. If you do not understand the problem at hand, please ask for clarifying info, so that we can actually reach a point of understanding, so that we can actually evaluate the relevant experiment, and the consequenses of it.

The last video is unavailable to me. I get a message saying that the video contains content from Turner EMEA Enterprise, which has blocked the content in my country because of copyrights. I live in Norway.

The problem you have is that you are using an FE map based upon an unproven (imaginary ) globe model . You assume that the flat earth must 24000 miles in diameter because the unproven globe model has this figure for it's supposed circumference .

Seems to me that everything below the antarctic polar circle is a fiction - it's why we are banned by international treaty from exploring there .

We do not know the shape of the land mass below the 60S , other than that there is a wall of ice surrounding the land mass. All versions of the South pole are imaginary and the southern latitudes/longitudes are just arbitrary lines placed on a globe .

Admin wrote:"See if all three can see the sun (not only daylight, but SUN), and if they can, you need to be able to explain how those three points can see it."

No I don't need to explain that.  The challenge is for you to provide measurable, demonstrable, repeatable evidence that Earth is a globe/moving.  The amount of daylight visible in various places at different times on Earth, in no way provides proof of the shape or motion of the ground beneath your feet.  

Well, if it is impossible on flat earth, then yes, FE disproven, and curve proven. But yeah, sphere isn't proven by only three datapoints. But, as I said in the first point, to do that, you simply need to show that dateandtime.com is somewhat reliable. I've checked out these three datapoints (And made sure they are close to 100% accurate several places in Norway, personally in south and north of Norway) I've also seen several FEers use this site to prove different points. Luckily they are supereasily refutable, you just need one point where they are drastically wrong, and it'll be debunked as a source. All my sources so far deem them reliable.

RedorBlue wrote:

The problem you have is that you are using an FE map based upon an unproven (imaginary ) globe model . You assume that the flat earth must 24000 miles in diameter because the unproven globe model  has this figure for it's supposed circumference .

Seems to me that everything below the antarctic polar circle is a fiction - it's why we are banned by international treaty from exploring there .

We do not know the shape of the land mass below the 60S , other than that there is a wall of ice surrounding the land mass. All versions of the South pole are imaginary and the southern latitudes/longitudes are just arbitrary lines placed on a globe .

Where do you get this from? Where have I relied on any specific size of the Antarctica? (This is especially weird since I don't rely on Antarctica at all, just NZ, Chile and South-Africa, and it seems to me that you actually agree we do know where they are [and again, all I need for this is approximate locations, since they need to be drastically different to be able to work on any FE-model.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

It seems to me that I might have underexplained the case, so I will try doing it more clearly.

The experiment is simple: Get as many datapoints you want, on sunrise and sunset all over the earth. I have suggested three specifically, which to me seems sufficient, but be as sceptical as you want, and get as many as you want. Do it at your home, and someone else you know in the FE-community. I suppose most of you live on the northern hemisphere (since the majority of the world does so), and thus one might expect there to be no problem there at all.

The place where FE and BE really, really differs, is on the southern hemisphere. Please contact anyone on the southern hemisphere; the further south, the better. Check if the numbers work, today (22nd of december is just the most obvious point in time, we don't need it to be then, since actually every single point in the year would do it, though the further from 22nd of june, the better).

So, that are all you need (I think) in terms of getting datapoint for the experiment, thus it is a very, very cheap experiment to do. You could, to make it even safer, and even stronger, also collect to what degree the sun goes down, and all that also, which would conclusively demonstrate ball earth (and again, this can be checked against dateandtime.com since they show this also).

I don't do 3D-renders and stuff, but I do think even amateur Paint-scetches are able to get the point through:

So, what I have already pointed out is that the three points can see the sun at the same time. I have not pointed out specifically dark places, but north of Norway does not see the sun the entire month, so that will be one place where it's dark. That's also when it's night in Asia, so that should not be in dispute. So, where it is dark, is marked on this map - ish. That means that the sun need to shine a very weird pattern of light, definitely not a spotlight kind of shape.


So, as I have also pointed out on this map, is that if it were even in theory to be correct, Dunedin, Cape Town and Punta Arenas should look at a sun locating above the Pacific sea somewhere (the red lines). The problem is that if you check what they actually see, they see the sun being somewhere completely different (the orange lines), which makes it seem like there's three different suns... But we know that's not right...


Another point I have made, is that the time it takes the sun to fly by makes no sense on FE. Look at this picture. The inner, light red ring, is the circle the sun goes to make summer (in north). Let's just say that it's reasonable to say that the sun is within range of what you can see there. If you can see equally far in the northern winter (the outer dark red ring) the sun uses 17 hours on the orange lines part. On the other hand, if the sun travels as one would expect, you need to see the sun on the purple lines, which also means that one should be able to see the sun 100% of the time from basically november through february (at least). And if that's possible, one should see the sun from Norway 100% of the time, all year round.


But! On a globe the facts we actually see, are perfectly reasonable. Every single datapoint makes sense, either on the southern or the northern hemisphere, during june, or december, morning and evening. But, it would suggest that not only is the earth a globe, but it is also tilted to such a degree that we would get 24h sun in the north (and also in the south, but that's simply a consequense, and not something I want to get into at all, even though you claim that this is a point in my experiment, but it's not).

So, the reason I claim this shows curve, and destroys FE, and even shows globe, is with these premises:
1. There's only one sun.
2. It's possible to see the sun at the same time on three different points in the south, while not possible in the north in between two of the points.
3. If all points on dateandtime.com are correct-ish they give a perfectly reasonable model of light covering half the earth 24/7/365, while on the FE it makes no sense at all, and stretches and turns in unreasonable motifs.
4. On FE one would expect the longest of days in june, but still very short, and even shorter of days in dec. But on globe, what we find is exactly what one would expect.

Tristan Wisefist wrote:


facts
the earth globe is also tilted

destroys FE

The below information completely destroys Spaceball Earth, and hands it back to it's inventors, the Holy Roman Empire and Jesuits (Jews) who need to rethink their Science Fiction agenda.

Space.com
Rare Selenelion Total Lunar Eclipse
Lunar eclipse - a selenelion or selenehelion occurs when both the Sun and the eclipsed Moon can be observed at the same time in the sky.

How do Heliocentric Priests explain this impossibility on Spaceball Earth?
"thanks to atmospheric refraction, you see images of the sun and eclipsed moon above your horizon"

Note, this magic trick allows the Sun to be transported to the other side of Spaceball Earth during the Lunar Eclipse, maintaining it's size to that of the Moon.




This photo shows simultaneous sunset and (nearly) full moonrise as captured by Andy Somers in Noumea, New Caledonia, September 2013.



This video shows the Sun and Moon during an eclipse, proving that Spaceball Earth is not creating the shadow.  Listen to the Heliocentric Priest, through disassociation, claim what he is seeing "must be an optical illusion."




Lets take a look at some times, on the same Longitude, from the Spaceball Earth app (dateandtime.com).

Nuuk, Greenland: 17:00 (DST)
Cayenne, French Guiana: 16:00 (GST)




As seen from Zionist Jew controlled, Google Earth

Tristan Wisefist wrote:
But! On a globe the facts we actually see, are perfectly reasonable.

According to timeanddate.com there is 17-hour day in Ushuaia, but how is this possible on an evenly spinning Ball Earth? I have asked about it many times ball-believers, and i have never received answer.

Real World wrote:
According to timeanddate.com there is 17-hour day in Ushuaia, but how is this possible on an evenly spinning Ball Earth? I have asked about it many times ball-believers, and i have never received answer.

Ehm... That's right next to Punta Arenas which I have used, which also has 17h, so... I don't understand why that's wierd at all? It's the same reason we have 17h (and even 24) here in Norway during summer. The earth is "tilted" in relation to the sun. If you have not gotten this answer from anyone before that says to me that you either have not spoken to many people about it, or you have not tried researching it, or it says everything about who you have asked... Because that answer is some of the very first things one learns (though.. That may be the case here in Norway because we are thuroghly affected by the tilt). It's the same reason the magnetic pole and geographic poles are not om the same place. It's also the answer for seasons. And, it's basically what I am looking at here, as something that definitely doesn't work with the FE.

How do you explain that on the FE?

Tristan Wisefist wrote:

we have 17h (and even 24) here in Norway during summer.
How do you explain that on the FE?

FLAT EARTH: Seasonal, Sun Time Lapse from Finland facing North

So, on northern hemisphere is equally easy to explain on both models, the problem arises on the southern on FE.

Why is noone engaging with the arguments at all? Just throwing out other non-related stuff for my argument.