200 Proofs that Eric Dubay is a liar and an idiot

The visible stars are a big problem for flat Earthers because what we observe is 100% consistent with a spherical Earth and completely impossible on a flat Earth. Their solution?  Simply to lie about what is observed.  These lies include denials of observations that are impossible on a flat Earth and pretending that observed stars would be impossible on spherical Earth. For the latter, it could be that Dubay simply can't do simple trigonometry but I think that he is once again deliberately lying. The strange thing about this is that everyone is capable of putting these claims to the test simply by looking up at the night sky.  The fact that flat Earth believers refuse to put these "proofs" to the test tells you that they are not really interested in truth, they are only interested in feeling good about their beliefs and will simply unquestioningly accept as fact anything that backs up these beliefs. Ignorance truly is bliss. 99

Among the more pathetic "proofs" of Eric Dubay are examples of how different the northern and southern hemispheres are, especially the arctic and antarctic.  His simplistic argument is that since Earth's hemispheres are the same shape the weather, flora and fauna should also be the same. What Dubay fails to understand is that while the overall shape is the same, there are very big differences in the volume and distribution of land which has an enormous effect. 50. Dubay thinks that Arcrtic and Antarctic should not be so different on a spherical Earth “If the Earth were truly a globe, the Arctic and Antarctic polar regions and areas of comparable latitude North and South of the equator should share similar conditions and characteristics such as comparable temperatures, seasonal changes, length of daylight, plant and animal life. In reality, however, the Arctic/Antarctic regions and areas of comparable latitude North/South of the equator differ gre

Dubay includes many versions of a "proof" all built on the same misunderstanding of the laws of motion. Dubay imagines that if you jump up on a rotating Earth, while you are in the air the Earth will continue rotating underneath you. When you land you would land in a different place.  A globe rotating eastward would mean that you would land further west. When you landed you would fall over because the Earth would be moving so fast underneath you He repeats this nonsense so often and in so many ways I feel that I need to explain it in as simple a way as possible for him. When you are standing on the Earth, and the Earth is rotating eastwards at 1000 mph (at the equator), you are also moving at 1000 mph. If you jump in the air, you won't suddenly stop moving at 1000 mph.  The laws of motion dictate that you will continue to travel in the same direction at the same speed unless some external force acts on you. So when you jump up, you and the Earth bo

Dubay often tries to invoke "The law of perspective" to explain why objects appear to disappear below the horizon.  Invariably his "proofs" just show that he really does not understand how perspective operates. He essentially relies on the fact that as things become more distant it is harder to see the detail of those objects and consequently easier for Dubay to make up some nonsense about what is being observed. 102. The Pole Star approaching the horizon as you travel south can be explained by perspective "Some heliocentrists have tried to suggest that the Pole Star’s gradual declination overhead as an observer travels southwards is proof of a globular Earth. Far from it, the declination of the Pole Star or any other object is simply a result of the Law of Perspective on plane (flat) surfaces. The Law of Perspective dictates that the angle and height at which an object is seen diminishes the farther one recedes from the object, until a

Dubay repeatedly sites "Common Sense" as a way of "proving" that the Earth is flat, believing common sense can be the basis of all correct reasoning.  It isn't.  Common sense is less a way to understand the world, than a way to survive without having to understand it. Definition of Common sense “Sound practical judgement that is independent of specialised knowledge, training, or the like.” From  http://freakonomics.com/2011/09/29/the-myth-of-common-sense-why-the-social-world-is-less-obvious-than-it-seems/ "Common sense ... is extremely good at making the world seem sensible, quickly classifying believable information as old news, rejecting explanations that don’t coincide with experience, and ignoring counterfactuals. Viewed this way, common sense starts to seem less like a way to understand the world, than a way to survive without having to understand it. That may have been a perfectly fine design for most of evolutionary history, whe