200 Proofs that Eric Dubay is a liar and an idiot

"The second law of thermodynamics, otherwise known as the law of entropy, along with the fundamental principles of friction/resistance determine the impossibility of Earth being a uniformly spinning ball. Over time, the spinning ball Earth would experience measurable amounts of drag constantly slowing the spin and lengthening the amount of hours per day. As not the slightest such change has ever been observed in all of recorded history it is absurd to assume the Earth has ever moved an inch." Dubay likes to quote bits of science that he does not understand.  He really shouldn't ... it just makes him look stupid. In order for friction to occur matter must come into contact with other matter.  Space is a vacuum.  That means that there is no matter there to come into contact with.  Therefore Earth cannot experience friction or drag as it spins in space and orbits the Sun. Perhaps we should be looking for the big brake calipers in the sky. Regarding the second ...

"Satellites are allegedly floating around in the thermosphere where temperatures are claimed to be upwards of 4,530 degrees Fahrenheit. The metals used in satellites, however, such as aluminum, gold and titanium have melting points of 1,221, 1,948, and 3,034 degrees respectively, all far lower than they could possibly handle." Does not understand how temperature in a gas works (To be fair neither did I until I looked it up) Temperature of a gas is defined as  “The temperature of a gas is a measure of the average translational kinetic energy of the molecules.” The thing to understand about the thermosphere is that the atmosphere is very very thin.  I.e. There are very few molecules.  So even though the air molecules have a high temperature (i.e. each molecule has a lot of energy) the overall energy in a given volume is relatively low. Think of it this way ...  If you heat up a frying pan filled with oil and the hot oil spits so that a drop lands...

"NASA claims one can observe the International Space Station pass by overhead proving its existence, yet analysis of the “ISS” seen through zoom cameras proves it to be some type of hologram/drone, not a physical floating space-base. As you can see in my documentary “ISS Hoax,” when zooming in/out, the “ISS” dramatically and impossibly changes shape and color, displaying a prismatic rainbow effect until coming into focus much like an old television turning on/off.  Through a telescope you can see something that looks like this, synched with the "ISS Tracker" website, claiming it to be the ISS." A hologram?  Really?  It seems that Dubay believes the things in Sci-fi films more than he believes in science.  I wonder if he is aware that the "fi" stands for "fiction". The analysis that Dubay pretended to do can’t have been very thorough if he can’t tell the difference between a drone and a hologram.  Maybe it could also have been …. A space s...

"It is impossible for rockets or any type of jet propulsion engines to work in the alleged non-atmosphere of vacuum space because without air/atmosphere to push against there is nothing to propel the vehicle forwards.  Instead the rockets and shuttles would be sent spinning around their own axis uncontrollably in all directions like a gyroscope. It would be impossible to fly to the Moon or go in any direction whatsoever, especially if “gravity” were real and constantly sucking you towards the closest densest body." Dubay does not understand how rockets work Jet engines do not work in space.  Wooo hooo Dubay gets something right.  However that is the only thing that he gets right.   Jet engines go on jets.  Jets don't go to space.  Hopefully that is simple enough for Dubay to understand. Now we've dealt with jet engines we can move onto rockets.  Rocket engines do not “push against” air/atmosphere.  They work by virtue of Newton's th...

"If there were progressively faster and faster spinning atmosphere the higher the altitude that would mean it would have to abruptly end at some key altitude where the fastest layer of gravitized spinning atmosphere meets the supposed non-gravitized non-spinning non-atmosphere of infinite vacuum space! NASA has never mentioned what altitude this impossible feat allegedly happens, but it is easily philosophically refuted by the simple fact that vacuums cannot exist connected to non- vacuums while maintaining the properties of a vacuum - not to mention, the effect such a transition would have on a rocket “space ship” would be disastrous." Utter nonsense from Dubay betraying a total ignorance of anything scientific Where to start?  This has to count as one of Dubay’s most stupid arguments. "... [The atmosphere] would have to abruptly end at some key altitude ..." The atmosphere would not need to end abruptly on a spinning Earth, and does not. The pressure...

"The ball-Earth model claims the Sun is precisely 400 times larger than the Moon and 400 times further away from Earth making them “falsely” appear exactly the same size.  Once again, the ball model asks us to accept as coincidence something that cannot be explained other than by natural design. The Sun and the Moon occupy the same amount of space in the sky and have been measured with sextants to be of equal size and equal distance, so claiming otherwise is against our eyes, experience, experiments and common sense." The common sense fallacy again Dubay stating that it is "something that cannot be explained other than by natural design"  does not constitute a proof. The argument as to whether the universe was designed is also irrelevant to the proof.  A spherical Earth orbiting the Sun with an orbiting Moon that appears the same size as the Sun because of perspective could just as easily have been designed as a flat Earth. So we are once again left with … ...

"The ball-Earth model claims the Moon orbits around the Earth once every 28 days, yet it is plain for anyone to see that the Moon orbits around the Earth every single day! The Moon’s orbit is slightly slower than the Sun’s, but follows the Sun’s same path from Tropic to Tropic, solstice to solstice, making a full circle over the Earth in just under 25 hours."  Doesn’t understand frame of reference Yes it is possible to approximate the motions of the Sun and the Moon with both orbiting the Earth using the timings that Dubay uses.  Ptolemy figured this out 2000 years ago, but even he knew that for the motions to be properly explained the Earth had to be a sphere rather than flat. Just because Dubay/s vague propositions sort of work does not prove anything.  Make precise predictions with a flat Earth model regarding the exact position in the sky of celestial bodies and then measure what you actually observe and check that they both agree exactly, then we can all tak...

"Heliocentrists believe the Moon is a ball, even though its appearance is clearly that of a flat luminous disc. We only ever see the same one face (albeit at various inclinations) of the Moon, yet it is claimed that there is another “dark side of the Moon” which remains hidden. NASA states the Moon spins opposite the spin of the Earth in such a perfectly synchronized way that the motions cancel  each other out so we will conveniently never be able to  observe the supposed dark-side of the Moon outside of their  terrible fake CGI images. The fact of the matter is,  however, if the Moon were a sphere, observers in Antarctica  would see a different face from those at the equator, yet they  do not - just the same flat face rotated at various degrees. " Apparently thinks that simply stating that the Moon's appearance is "clearly that of a flat luminous disc" constitutes a proof.  It doesn't. "We only ever see the same one face ..." True, but the M...

"The “Coriolis Effect” is often said to cause sinks and toilet bowls in the Northern Hemisphere to drain spinning in one direction while in the Southern Hemisphere causing them to spin the opposite way, thus providing proof of the spinning ball-Earth. Once again, however, just like Foucault’s Pendulums spinning either which way, sinks and toilets in the Northern and Southern hemispheres do not consistently spin in any one direction! Sinks and toilets in the very same household are often found to spin opposite directions, depending entirely upon the shape of the basin and the angle of the water’s entry, not the supposed rotation of the Earth. " Dubay confuses old wives tales with science Scientists DO NOT maintain that the Coriolis effect will cause water to drain down a plug hold in a specific direction.  The effect is way too small for this. < Prev      141-150     Next >

"Not only is the disappearance of ship’s hulls explained by the Law of Perspective on flat surfaces, it is proven undeniably true with the aid of a good telescope. If you watch a ship sailing away into the horizon with the naked eye until its hull has completely disappeared from view under the supposed “curvature of the Earth,” then look through a telescope, you will notice the entire ship quickly zooms back into view, hull and all, proving that the disappearance was caused by the Law of Perspective, not by a wall of curved water! This also proves that the horizon is simply the vanishing line of perspective from your point of view, NOT the alleged “curvature” of Earth."  Another unsubstantiated claim The "law" of perspective of course does not explain this phenomenon.  Saying it does repeadedly does not make it so.  Perspective will make things smaller the further away they are.  It will not make them appear to disappear over a horizon.  It would be good if ...

"Another favorite “proof’ of ball-Earthers is the appearance from an observer on shore of ships’ hulls being obfuscated by the water and disappearing from view when sailing away towards the horizon. Their claim is that ships’ hulls disappear before their mast-heads because the ship is beginning its declination around the convex curvature of the ball-Earth. Once again, however, their hasty conclusion is drawn from a faulty premise, namely that only on a ball-Earth could this phenomenon occur. The fact of the matter is that the Law of Perspective on plane surfaces dictates and necessitates the exact same occurrence. For example a girl wearing a dress walking away towards the horizon will appear to sink into the Earth the farther away she walks.  Her feet will disappear from view first and the distance between the ground and the bottom of her dress will gradually diminish until after about half a mile it seems like her dress is touching the ground as she walks on invisible legs. Such...

"Another assumption and supposed proof of Earth’s shape, heliocentrists claim that lunar eclipses are caused by the shadow of the ball-Earth occulting the Moon. They claim the Sun, Earth, and Moon spheres perfectly align like three billiard balls in a row so that the Sun’s light casts the Earth’s shadow onto the Moon. Unfortunately for heliocentrists, this explanation is rendered completely invalid due to the fact that lunar eclipses have happened and continue to happen regularly when both the Sun and Moon are still visible together above the horizon! For the Sun’s light to be casting Earth’s shadow onto the Moon, the three bodies must be aligned in a straight 1 80 degree syzygy , but as early as the time of Pliny, there are records of lunar eclipses happening while both the Sun and Moon are visible in the sky. Therefore the eclipsor of the Moon cannot be the Earth/Earth’s shadow and some other explanation must be sought."  Dubay again ignores atmospheric refraction as ...

"Furthermore the Moon itself cannot physically be both a spherical body and a reflector of the Sun’s light.  Reflectors must be flat or concave for light rays to have any angle of incidence; If a reflector’s surface is convex then every ray of light points in a direct line with the radius perpendicular to the surface resulting in no reflection." This is a flawed argument because Dubay does not understand how reflections operate The reflection described in the proof is called specular reflection.  This type of reflection takes place with mirror like surfaces.  The Moon’s surface is not mirror like.  If you look through a telescope you can see that the Moon’s surface is not regular, but what is actually important is the roughness at the microscopic level determined by the material (Moon dust and rock) itself. The roughness of the material at the microscopic level results in the majority of the light reflected being diffuse rather than specular. This means that ...

"From “Earth Not a Globe!” by Samuel Rowbotham, " Take two carefully-bored metallic tubes, not less than six feet in length, and place them one yard asunder, on the opposite sides of a wooden frame, or a solid block of wood or stone: so adjust them that their centres or axes of vision shall be perfectly parallel to each other. Now, direct them to the plane of some notable fixed star, a few seconds previous to its meridian time. Let an observer be stationed at each tube and the moment the star appears in the first tube let a loud knock or other signal be given, to be repeated by the observer at the second tube when he first sees the same star.  A distinct period of time will elapse between the signals given. The signals will follow each other in very rapid succession, but still, the time between is sufficient to show that the same star is not visible at the same moment by two parallel lines of sight when only one yard asunder. A slight inclination of the second tube towards th...

"Another proof the Sun is not millions of miles away is found by tracing the angle of sun-rays back to their source above the clouds. There are thousands of pictures showing how sunlight comes down through cloud-cover at a variance of converging angles. The area of convergence is of course the Sun, and is clearly NOT millions of miles away, but rather relatively close to Earth just above the clouds." Dubay does not understand what Cepuscular rays are What Dubay is describing is a visual effect due to perspective Dubay’s claim comes from mistakenly interpreting what is being seen as the Sun’s rays shining vertically straight down directly through the holes in the clouds.  They are not.  You only see sunbeams when the sun is relatively low in the sky. The sunbeams are sunlight that is reflecting off particles in the atmosphere and is angled towards you.  Lower down the sunbeam corresponds to closer to you. The beams are all parallel because the sun is so far awa...

"Amateur balloon footage taken above the clouds has provided stunning visual proof that the Sun cannot be millions of miles away. In several shots you can see a clear hot-spot reflecting on the clouds directly below the Sun’s spotlight-like influence. If the Sun were actually millions of miles away such a small, localized hot-spot could not occur. " This has to be one of Dubay's silliest proofs The image in question shows an orange spot on the topside of a cloud.   According to Dubay this is a hot spot caused by the sun.  I wonder what Dubay thinks clouds are made of?  It is made of drops of water and ice.  Does Dubay imagine that if you heat up water and ice it will begin to glow red hot like a lump of iron?  It will of course just evaporate.  Mr Dubay, all you have to do is look inside your kettle the next time you make a cup of coffee. So what is the orange spot?  It is of course just a reflection of the light from the Sun that has tr...

"Furthermore, the velocity and path of the Moon are uniform and should therefore exert a uniform influence on the Earth’s tides, when in actuality the Earth’s tides vary greatly and do not follow the Moon. Earth’s lakes, ponds, marshes and other inland bodies of water also inexplicably remain forever outside the Moon’s gravitational grasp! If  “gravity” was truly drawing Earth’s oceans up to it, all lakes, ponds and other bodies of standing water should certainly have tides as well." Dubay does not understand the mechanism that creates tides Dubay imagines that at high tide the Moon would always be at its apex.  However Dubays thinking is simplistic as usual because the tides are affected by other things than just the gravity of the Moon. The gravity of the Sun.  This is less of an effect than the Moon due to its distance, but it is there. The shape of the Earth.  The Earth is not a perfect sphere which causes gravity to vary slightly in different locations....

"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 at a certain point the line of sight and the seemingly uprising surface of the Earth converges to a vanishing point (i.e. the horizon line) beyond which the object is invisible. In the ball-Earth model the horizon is claimed to be the curvature of the Earth, whereas in reality,  the horizon is known to be simply the vanishing line of perspective based on the strength of your eyes, instruments, weather and altitude."  Dubay does not understand perspective Perspective works in all directions, not just vertically Perspective does reduc...

“Quoting Gabrielle Henriet, “The theory of the rotation of the earth may once and for all be definitely disposed of as impracticable by pointing out the following inadvertence. It is said that the rotation takes twenty-four hours and that its speed is uniform, in which case, necessarily, days and nights should have an identical duration of twelve hours each all the year round. The sun should invariably rise in the morning and set in the evening at the same hours, with the result that it would be the equinox every day from the 1st of January to the 31st of December. One should stop and reflect on this before saying that the earth has a movement of rotation. How does the system of gravitation account for the seasonal variations in the lengths of days and nights if the earth rotates at a uniform speed in twenty-four hours!?”. How does the system of gravitation account for the seasonal variations in the lengths of days and nights if the earth rotates at a uniform speed in twenty-four hours...

“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 t...