200 Proofs that Eric Dubay is a liar and an idiot

“The establishment claims the Midnight Sun IS experienced in Antarctica but they conveniently do not have any uncut videos showing this, nor do they allow independent explorers to travel to Antarctica during the winter solstice to verify or refute these claims. Conversely, there are dozens of uncut videos publicly available showing the Arctic Midnight Sun and it has been verified beyond any shadow of a doubt.” This is just conspiracy nonsense from Dubay and one of the most important claims of flat earthers. This is  because on a flat Earth it is absolutely impossible to explain an Antarctic midnight sun. Videos such as those below will always be dismissed as fake and the creators of those videos denounced as being part of a conspiracy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midnight_sun http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/continent-7-antarctica/videos/24-hours-of-sun-at-the-south-pole/ However  we don’t need to go as far south as the Arctic to prove the point.  Christchurch in

“The “Midnight Sun” is an Arctic phenomenon occurring annually during the summer solstice where for several days straight an observer significantly far enough north can watch the Sun traveling circles over-head, rising and falling in the sky throughout the day, but never fully setting for upwards of 72+ hours! If the Earth were actually a spinning globe revolving around the Sun, the only place such a phenomenon as the Midnight Sun could be observed would be at the poles. Any other vantage point from 89 degrees latitude downwards could never, regardless of any tilt or inclination, see the Sun for 24 hours straight. To see the Sun for an entire revolution on a spinning globe at a point other than the poles, you would have to be looking through miles and miles of land and sea for part of the revolution!” Dubay simply chooses to conveniently forget that the spherical Earth has an axial tilt, making the midnight sun a phenomenon which is obviously consistent with a spherical Earth.

“If the Sun circles over and around the Earth every 24 hours, steadily travelling from Tropic to Tropic every 6 months, it follows that the Northern, central region would annually receive far more heat and sunlight than the Southern circumferential region. Since the Sun must sweep over the larger Southern region in the same 24 hours it has to pass over the smaller Northern region, its passage must necessarily be proportionally faster as well. This perfectly explains the differences in Arctic/Antarctic temperatures, seasons, length of daylight, plant and animal life; this is why the Antarctic morning dawn and evening twilight are very abrupt compared with the North; and this explains why many midsummer Arctic nights the Sun does not set at all!” Yes, sort of,  but … Yes a flat Earth could be used to explain the temperature in the southern hemisphere being colder than the northern as long as you keep things vague.  The claim that it “perfectly” explains the differences would need

“At places of comparable latitude North and South, dawn and dusk happen very differently than they would on a spinning ball, but precisely how they should on a flat Earth. In the North dawn and dusk come slowly and last far longer than in the South where they come and go very quickly. Certain places in the North twilight can last for over an hour while at comparable Southern latitudes within a few minutes the sunlight completely disappears. This is inexplicable on a uniformly spinning, wobbling ball Earth but is exactly what is expected on a flat Earth with the Sun traveling  faster, wider circles over the South and slower, narrower circles over the North.” Probably just another lie I have never experienced this myself, and I can’t find any accounts of this phenomenon.  Given Dubay's past record of blatant lies my current presumption is that he is just making this up again. The following link describe how twilight differs with latitude and season, but makes no distinction b

“At places of comparable latitude North and South, the Sun behaves very differently than it would on a spinning ball Earth but precisely how it should on a flat Earth. For example, the longest summer days North of the equator are much longer than those South of the equator, and the shortest winter days North of the equator are much shorter than the shortest South of the equator. This is inexplicable on a uniformly spinning, wobbling ball Earth but fits exactly on the flat model with the Sun traveling circles over and around the Earth from Tropic to Tropic.” More blatant lies Leaving aside the fact that he does not explain how a flat Earth explains the alleged phenomenon, the claim is just not true. Let’s take two cities at almost identical latitudes north and south.  Phoenix Arizona, USA:  latitude at 33.4 and Sydney Australia at latitude - 33.8 Day length in summer In Phoenix the longest day on 21st June 2017 was 14 hours 22 minutes In Sydney the longest day on 22nd Dece

“ Iceland at 65 degrees North latitude is home to 870 species of native plants and abundant various animal life. Compare this with the Isle of Georgia at just 54 degrees South latitude where there are only 18 species of native plants and animal life is almost non-existent. The same latitude as Canada or England in the North where dense forests of various tall trees abound, the infamous Captain Cook wrote of Georgia that he was unable to find a single shrub large enough to make a toothpick! Cook wrote, “Not a tree was to be seen. The lands which lie to the south are doomed by nature to perpetual frigidness - never to feel the warmth of the sun’s rays; whose horrible and savage aspect I have not words to describe. Even marine life is sparse in certain tracts of vast extent, and the sea-bird is seldom observed flying over such lonely wastes. The contrasts between the limits of organic life in Arctic and Antarctic zones is very remarkable and significant.” Huh? This is too silly to w

“Antarctica is by far the coldest place on Earth with an average annual temperature of approximately -57 degrees Fahrenheit, and a record low of -135.8! The average annual temperature at the North Pole, however, is a comparatively warm 4 degrees. Throughout the year, temperatures in the Antarctic vary less than half the amount at comparable Arctic latitudes. The Northern Arctic region enjoys moderately warm summers and manageable winters, whereas the Southern Antarctic region never even warms enough to melt the perpetual snow and ice. On a tilting, wobbling, ball-Earth spinning uniformly around the Sun, Arctic and Antarctic temperatures and seasons should not vary so greatly.” Dubay's assertion that the Arctic and Antarctic should be similar on a spherical Earth is nonsense. The Arctic has no land beneath it, it is ice floating on water.  The Antarctic in contrast is ice sitting on-top of land.  The ocean retains heat better than land, so the ocean below and surrounding the Arc

“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 greatly in many ways entirely inconsistent with the ball model and entirely consistent with the flat model.” Another unsupported assertion.  Mr Dubay, just because you do not understand something does not mean that you can then just make up an explanation of your own off the top of your head.  Well I suppose no-one can stop you, but everyone else should recognise it for the unsubstantiated nonsense that it is. If the northern and southern hemispheres were identical then yes, you could expect comparable temperatures and seasons.  However they are very different distributions of land and

“If Earth were a spinning ball heated by a Sun 93 million miles away, it would be impossible to have simultaneously sweltering summers in Africa while just a few thousand miles away bone-chilling frozen Arctic/Antarctic winters experiencing little to no heat from the Sun whatsoever. If the heat from the Sun traveled 93,000,000 miles to the Sahara desert, it is absurd to assert that another 4,000 miles (0.00004%) further to Antarctica would completely negate such sweltering heat resulting in such drastic differences.” No expert in the subject claims that Arctic and Antarctica colder because they are further away from the Sun than the equator. However to be fair I have to admit that it is not only flat earthers who get this wrong.  Some people who should know better get it wrong, and quite a few have posted YouTube videos.  I even spotted a kids science BBC presenter getting it wrong! Near the Poles the ground is at an extreme angle sloped away from the sun, whilst near the equato

“On a ball-Earth Santiago, Chile to Johannesburg, South Africa should be an easy flight all taking place below the Tropic of Capricorn in the Southern hemisphere, yet every listed flight makes a curious re-fueling stop in Senegal near the Tropic of Cancer in the North hemisphere first! When mapped on a flat Earth the reason why is clear to see, however, Senegal is actually directly in a straight-line path half-way between the two.” Another blatant lie that exposes Dubay as a compulsive liar I must admit that I got bored after looking for ANY flight from Santiago to Johannesburg that stopped in Senegal.  But after looking for a couple of days in March 2018 I FOUND NOT ONE, so the claim that every flight stops in Senegal is yet another blatant lie. Either Dubay is a compulsive liar or he is confident that his audience isn't that interested in truth. The reason behind this lie of a "proof" is that Dubay wishes you to believe that all airlines would choose

“On a ball-Earth Johannesburg, South Africa to Sao Paolo, Brazil should be a quick straight shot along the 25th Southern latitude, but instead nearly every flight makes a re-fueling stop at the 50th degree North latitude in London first! The only reason such a ridiculous stop-over works in reality is because the Earth is flat.” Dubay shamelessly lying again From March 18-24th 2018 there were 236 flights from Johannesburg to Sao Paolo.  I COULD NOT FIND ONE FLIGHT that went via London.  Maybe I missed one or two, but regardless the claim is just another blatant lie. Look it up on yourself on expedia.com , and let this be a lesson learnt that you cannot trust anything that Dubay says. The reason behind this lie of a "proof" is that Dubay wishes you to believe that all airlines would choose to take the shortest route and that because most routes are via the northern hemisphere they would only be shortest if the Earth was flat.  Dubay either does not understa

“On  a ball-Earth Cape Town, South Africa to Buenos Aries, Argentina should be a straight shot over the Atlantic following the same line of latitude across, but instead every flight goes to connecting locations in the Northern hemisphere first, stopping over anywhere from London to Turkey to Dubai. Once again these make absolutely no sense on the globe but are completely understandable options when mapped on a flat Earth.” This is same as proof 45 Same pathetic attempt at a proof, slightly different example, another lie, same failure to prove anything. In addition Dubay is caught lying again.  Look up the quickest flight available from Cape Town to Buenos Aries on http://www.expedia.com/ .  You will find flights via Johannesburg and Sao Paolo, neither of which are anywhere near the northern hemisphere. The reason behind this lie of a "proof" is that Dubay wishes you to believe that all airlines would choose to take the shortest route and that because most routes ar

”On a ball-Earth, Johannesburg, South Africa to Perth, Australia should be a straight shot over the Indian Ocean with convenient re-fueling possibilities on Mauritus or Madagascar. In actual practice, however, most Johannesburg to Perth flights curiously stop over either in Dubai, Hong Kong or Malaysia all of which make no sense on the ball, but are completely understandable when mapped on a flat Earth.” This is similar to proof 44 .  Dubay does not understand that airlines use hubs airports for commercial reasons.. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_hub See: https://www.quora.com/Why-do-airlines-follow-a-hub-and-spoke-model-For-example-why-do-Emirates-Airways-flights-go-to-Dubai-first-and-then-from-there-go-to-other-destinations Full explanation of the Hub and Spoke model It is true that most flights from Johannesburg to Perth are via Dubai (and nearby Abu Dhabi), Hong Kong and Singapore (not Malaysia).  However, the reason is not because these are the most dire

“If Earth was a ball, and Antarctica was too cold to fly over, the only logical way to fly from Sydney to Santiago would be a straight shot over the Pacific staying in the Southern hemisphere the entire way. Re-fueling could be done in New Zealand or other Southern hemisphere destinations along the way if absolutely necessary. In actual fact, however, Santiago-Sydney flights go into the Northern hemisphere making stop-overs at LAX and other North American airports before continuing back down to the Southern hemisphere. Such ridiculously wayward detours make no sense on the globe but make perfect sense and form nearly straight lines when shown on a flat Earth map.” Dubay does not understand the Hub model that airlines operate. There are commercial reasons why many airline routes do not fly direct.  Airlines typically operate on a spoke and hub basis.  I.e.  they have a main airports through which they route all their flights.  This allows them to service many more destinations.  F

“If  Earth was a ball there are several flights in the Southern hemisphere which would have their quickest, straightest path over the Antarctic continent such as Santiago, Chile to Sydney, Australia. Instead of taking the shortest, quickest route in a straight line over Antarctica, all such flights detour all manner of directions away from Antarctica instead claiming the temperatures too cold for airplane travel! Considering the fact that there are plenty of flights to/from/over Antarctica, and NASA claims to have technology keeping them in conditions far colder (and far hotter) than any experienced on Earth, such an excuse is clearly just an excuse, and these flights aren’t made because they are impossible.” Blatant lies again Lie 1.  Flights do not fly over Antarctica.   They do. Quantas flight QF63/QF64 from Johannesburg to Sydney flies over the edge of Antarctica and can be seen to do so by the passengers.   See this YouTube video taken by a passenger. . If the flat Ea

“In the ball-Earth model Antarctica is an ice continent which covers the bottom of the ball from 78 degrees South latitude to 90 and is therefore not more than 12,000 miles in circumference. Many early explorers including Captian Cook and James Clark Ross, however, in attempting Antarctic circumnavigation took 3 to 4 years and clocked 50-60,000 miles around. The British ship Challenger also made an indirect but complete circumnavigation of Antarctica traversing 69,000 miles. This is entirely inconsistent with the ball model.” Dubay obviously imagines that the explorers travelled in a perfect circles.  Ah Bless. Firstly, the circumference of the earth at 78 degrees south is actually 24,800 miles, but since the coastline of Antarctica obviously doesn’t follow a perfect circle, the latitude and the circumference at that latitude are an irrelevance. I have no idea where he gets his 12,000 mile maximum circumference figure from, but let’s go with that for the sake of argument. Capta

“Similar calculations made from the Cape of Good Hope, South Africa to Melbourne, Australia at an average latitude of 35.5 degrees South, have given an approximate figure of over 25,000 miles, which is again equal to or greater than the Earth’s supposed greatest circumference at the equator. Calculations from Sydney, Australia to Wellington, New Zealand at an average of 37.5 degrees South have given an approximate circumference of 25,500 miles, greater still! According to the ball-Earth theory, the circumference of the Earth at 37.5 degrees Southern latitude should be only 19,757 statute miles, almost six thousand miles less than such practical measurements.” Dubay repeats his incorrect trigonometry but this time doesn't bother to explain his calculations. Average latitude of Australia?  Average latitude between Sydney and Wellington?  What does average latitude  have to do with anything?  You can’t calculate anything meaningful with average latitudes.  If you are working t

“From near Cape Horn, Chile to Port Philip in Melbourne, Australia the distance is 10,500 miles, or 143 degrees of longitude away. Factoring in the remaining degrees to 360 makes for a total distance of 26,430 miles around this particular latitude, which is over 1500 miles wider than Earth is supposed to be at the equator, and many more thousands of miles wider than it is supposed to be at such Southern latitudes.” Same as proof 39 .  Dubay again quotes incorrect distances and uses incorrect trigonometry. Distance from Cape Horn to Melbourne is 5689 miles not 10,500 miles as stated.  I have no idea where he got his figure from. Cape Horn, Chile co-ordinates are Latitude -55.98° (-55° 59' 0"), longitude -67.27° (67° 16' 0") Port Philip, Melbourne co-ordinates are Latitude -37.846498° (-37° 50' 47"), longitude 144.97° (144° 58' 0") Using the correct formula to work out the angle between these two locations (See: proof 39 ), the correct a

“Practical distance measurements taken from “The Australian Handbook, Almanac, Shippers’ and Importers’ Directory” state that the straight line distance between Sydney and Nelson is 1550 statute miles. Their given difference in longitude is 22 degrees 2’14”. Therefore if 22 degrees 2’14” out of 360 is 1550 miles, the entirety would measure 25,182 miles. This is not only larger than the ball-Earth is said to be at the equator, but a whole 4262 miles greater than it would be at Sydney’s southern latitude on a globe of said proportions.” Incorrect historical information and Dubay does not know how to do trigonometry. Once again Eric Dubay resorts to historical sources, in this case The Australian Handbook, Almanac, Shippers’ and Importers’ Directory” which was published between 1872-1879. The distance it is reported as quoting between Sydney and Nelson is 1550 miles which is incorrect. The Almanac might not have been quoting the mileage as the crow flies, or maybe they just got the

“To quote Reverend Thomas Milner, “In the southern hemisphere, navigators to India have often fancied themselves east of the Cape when still west, and have been driven ashore on the African coast, which, according to their reckoning, lay behind them. This misfortune happened to a fine frigate, the Challenger, in 1845. How came Her Majesty’s Ship ‘Conqueror,’ to be lost? How have so many other noble vessels, perfectly sound, perfectly manned, perfectly navigated, been wrecked in calm weather, not only in dark night, or in a fog, but in broad daylight and sunshine - in the former case upon the coasts, in the latter, upon sunken rocks - from being ‘out of reckoning?’” The simple answer is that Earth is not a ball.” Huh? How is that a proof of anything? Source:   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Challenger   Just silly.  However, silliness aside, this is probably another example of Eric Dubay just making things up.  There was no HMS Challenger in service in 1845. See: https://e

“Lieutenant Charles Wilkes commanded a United States Navy exploration expedition to the Antarctic from 1838 to 1842, and in his journals also mentioned being consistently east of his reckoning, sometimes over 20 miles in less than 18 hours.” Same as proof 36 Source:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Wilkes Different explorer.  Same era.  Same irrelevant observation.  Same non proof. < Prev  31-40 Next >

“During Captain James Clark Ross’s voyages around the Antarctic circumference, he often wrote in his journal perplexed at how they routinely found themselves out of accordance with their charts, stating that they found themselves an average of 12-16 miles outside their reckoning every day, later on further south as much as 29 miles.” Another irrelevant historical observation Source:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clark_Ross What does Eric Dubay think that this quote shows?  That sailors were unable to get an accurate latitude and longitude in the southern hemisphere?  Of course they were, or how else would they know at the end of the day that they were 12-16 miles outside their reckoning? So it seems that during the day in 1840 a sailing ship captain had difficulty keeping track of their exact location.  Hardly surprising considering that they were on sailing ships without GPS, subjected to uncharted sea currents and wind patterns and could not measure speed accurately.

“If the Earth were truly a globe, then every line of latitude south of the equator would have to measure a gradually smaller and smaller circumference the farther South travelled. If, however, the Earth is an extended plane, then every line of latitude south of the equator should measure a gradually larger and larger circumference the farther South travelled. The fact that many captains navigating south of the equator assuming the globular theory have found themselves drastically out of reckoning, more so the farther South travelled, testifies to the fact that the Earth is not a ball.” Dubay makes another outright lie. This is an example of Dubay "getting in first" by denying easily proved facts which debunk flat Earth. The flat Earth map with its huge distances between southern most points on the Earth that can be easily proven false.  E.g. South America to South Africa to Australia. The following colour coded map shows container traffic over the course of a year.  T

“Ship captains in navigating great distances at sea never need to factor the supposed curvature of the Earth into their calculations. Both Plane Sailing and Great Circle Sailing, the most popular navigation methods, use plane, not spherical trigonometry, making all mathematical calculations on the assumption that the Earth is perfectly flat. If the Earth were in fact a sphere, such an errant assumption would lead to constant glaring inaccuracies. Plane Sailing has worked perfectly fine in both theory and practice for thousands of years, however, and plane trigonometry has time and again proven more accurate than spherical trigonometry in determining distances across the oceans.” Dubay is just blatantly lying.  He is completely shameless. Lie 1. “Both Plane Sailing and Great Circle Sailing,…. [make] all mathematical calculations on the assumption that the Earth is perfectly flat”.   How can Great circle sailing not take the curvature of the earth into account when it is based