200 Proofs that Eric Dubay is a liar and an idiot

"If Earth were a spinning ball revolving around the Sun it would actually be impossible for star-trail photos to show perfect circles even at the North Pole! Since the Earth is also allegedly moving 67,000 mph around the Sun, the Sun moving 500,000 mph around the Milky Way, and the entire galaxy going 670,000,000 mph, these four contradictory motions would make star-trail time-lapses all show irregular curved lines." Dubay does not understand  far away stars are and how that affects our ability to see their motion. It is true, the Earth orbits the Sun, The Sun orbits our Galaxy, the stars within our galaxy move relative to each other in seemingly random directions and our galaxy moves relative to other galaxies in relatively random directions. However, what Dubay fails to understand yet again is that the distances involved are absolutely huge. The Earth's orbit around the Sun Let us first consider the movement that we would see caused by the Earth's orbit...

"Throughout thousands of years the same constellations have remained fixed in their same patterns without moving out of position whatsoever. If the Earth were a big ball spinning around a bigger Sun spinning around a bigger galaxy shooting off from the Biggest Bang as NASA claims, it is impossible that the constellations would remain so fixed. Based on their model, we should, in fact, have an entirely different night sky every single night and never repeat exactly the same star pattern twice."  Dubay does not understand how huge the universe is If we look at an airplane from a distance flying at several hundred miles an hour it appears to move relatively slowly because it is so far away. The further away a moving object is the slower it will appear to move to us. The universe is absolutely huge.  So even though our star and earth is moving at speed relative to other stars they are way too far away to make a difference to their position in the sky Our nearest star is a...

"Aquarius and Libra can be seen from 65 degrees North  to 90 degrees South! The constellation Virgo is visible from  80 degrees North down to 80 degrees South, and Orion can  be seen from 85 degrees North all the way to 75 degrees  South latitude! These are all only possible because the  “hemispheres” are not spheres at all but concentric circles of  latitude extending outwards from the central North Pole with  the stars rotating over and around. " Source:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declination Dubay does not understand basic trigonometry Dubay is making the same spurious point as  proof 103   and proof 104 with different constellations.  The reasons why the proof is nonsense remains the same. You will always be able to see a constellation at some point in the year if the difference between its declination (angle above the equator) and the observer’s latitude is not more than 90 degrees. The differ...

"The constellation Vulpecula can be seen from 90  degrees North latitude, all the way to 55 degrees South  latitude. Taurus, Pisces and Leo can be seen from 90  degrees North all the way to 65 degrees South. An observer  on a ball-Earth, regardless of any tilt or inclination, should  not logically be able to see this far. " Source:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declination Dubay does not understand basic trigonometry Dubay is making the same spurious point as proof 103 with different constellations.  The reasons why the proof is nonsense remains the same. You will always be able to see a constellation at some point in the year if the difference between its declination (angle above the equator) and the observer’s latitude is not more than 90 degrees. a. Vulpecula: Declination +25° which is 90° from an observer at 65° south b. Taurus: Declination +15° which is 80° from an observer at 65° south c. ...

"There are several constellations which can be seen from far greater distances over the face of the Earth than should be possible if the world were a rotating, revolving, wobbling ball. For instance, Ursa Major, very close to Polaris, can be seen from 90 degrees North latitude (the North Pole) all the way down to 30 degrees South latitude. For this to be possible on a ball-Earth the Southern observers would have to be seeing through hundreds or thousands of miles of bulging Earth to the Northern sky." Source:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declination Dubay does not understand basic trigonometry As I recall my kids had this nailed at age 13, so it should not be too complicated even for Eric Dubay if he puts his mind to it.  You will always be able to see a constellation at some point in the year if the difference between its declination (angle above the equator) and the observer’s latitude is not more than 90 degrees. Ursa Major has a declination of +55.38°....

“From “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe” by William Carpenter, “If we take a journey down the Chesapeake Bay, by night, we shall see the ‘light’ exhibited at Sharpe's Island for an hour before the steamer gets to it. We may take up a position on the deck so that the rail of the vessel's side will be in a line with the ‘light’ and in the line of sight; and we shall find that in the whole journey the light won’t vary in the slightest degree in its apparent elevation. But, say that a distance of thirteen miles has been traversed, the astronomers’ theory of ‘curvature’ demands a difference (one way or the other!) in the apparent elevation of the light, of 112 feet 8 inches! Since, however, there is not a difference of 100 hair's breadths, we have a plain proof that the water of the Chesapeake Bay is not curved, which is a proof that the Earth is not a globe .””  This is an obviously fabricated observation Chesapeake Bay is generally calm, but the idea that a steamer unde...

"On a clear day from the highland near Douglas Harbor on the Isle of Man, the whole length of the coast of North Wales is often plainly visible to the naked eye. From the Point of Ayr at the mouth of the River Dee to Holyhead comprises a 50 mile stretch which has also been repeatedly found to be perfectly horizontal. If the Earth actually had curvature of 8 inches per mile squared, as NASA and  modern astronomy claim, the 50 mile length of Welsh coast seen along the horizon in Liverpool Bay would have to decline from the center-point an easily detectable 416 feet on each side!" Dubay again fails to take into account the elevation of the observer and that the Earth is huge. Dubay does not mention from where on the Welsh coast the Isle of Man is visible, but I have found independent testimonies of the Isle of Man being visible from Great Orme's Head, so we will use that.  If you use the correct calculations  we find that we fully expect the Isle of Man to be visible on ...

"From the highland near Portsmouth Harbor in Hampshire, England looking across Spithead to the Isle of  Wight, the entire base of the island, where water and land come together composes a perfectly straight line 22 statute miles long. According to the ball-Earth theory, the Isle of Wight should decline 80 feet from the center on each side to account for the necessary curvature. The cross-hairs of a good theodolite directed there, however, have repeatedly shown the land and water line to be perfectly level." Dubay again fails to comprehend the size of the Earth and how this affects our ability to see the Earth's curve. Although Dubay gives no information about distance or elevation, the only elevated point I can find with a clear view of the Isle of Wight is Portsdown Hill at an elevation of 429 feet, 4 miles from Portsmouth Harbour and 11 miles from the Isle of Wight. Source:  https://a3traveller.com/2015/06/09/portsdown-hill-best-viewpoint-over-portsmouth/ ...

“The Statue of Liberty in New York stands 326 feet  above sea level and on a clear day can be seen as far as 60  miles away. If the Earth were a globe, that would put Lady  Liberty at an impossible 2,074 feet below the horizon.” Dubay can't do trigonometry and provides no evidence As usual his calculations are incorrect. Using the correct figure and calculation, the observer on the ship would have to be at a height of 957 feet. However Dubay does not state where his claim comes from and I have not been able to find any testimonials that state that the Statue of Liberty was sighted from 60 miles away. I suggest that Dubay conduct an experiment and provide us with some evidence in order to construct a credible proof. < Prev     81-90    Next >

“The lighthouse steeple of St Botolph's Parish Church in Boston is 290 feet tall and visible from over 40 miles away, where it should be hidden a full 800 feet below the horizon.” Probably a bogus observation, but in any case Dubay and Samuel Rowbotham can't do trigonometry. For evidence that the quoted observation is bogus, click here: Why Dubay's lighthouse quotes are bogus However, if you want to take the observation as genuine read on to see why this still does not add up to a proof. Using the correct figure and calculation, the observer on the ship would have to be at a height of 244 feet.  From the deck of a ship that would mean that the observer would be about 238 feet too low to see the lighthouse. According to Thomas Winship ( Zetetic Consmogeny ) this proof is taken from an 2nd May 1896 publication called "Answers".  In 1886 the ships that would be observing the lighthouse would be sailing ships or steam ships that still had sails...

“The light at Cape Bonavista, Newfoundland is 150 feet above sea-level and visible at 35 miles, where it should be 491 feet below the horizon.” Probably a bogus observation, but in any case Dubay and Samuel Rowbotham can't do trigonometry. For evidence that the quoted observation is bogus, click here: Why Dubay's lighthouse quotes are bogus However, if you want to take the observation as genuine read on to see why this still does not add up to a proof. The focal height of the light is actually 167 feet not 150. Using the correct figure and calculation, the observer on the ship would have to be at a height of 245 feet.  From the deck of a ship that would mean that the observer would be about 239 feet too low to see the lighthouse. However, as  with so many of Dubays "proofs" this is taken from Samuel Rowbotham's "Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not a Globe" published in 1881. The relevant paragraphs from the book are: "Many instances ...

“The Cordonan Light on the west coast of France is 207 feet high and visible from 31 miles away, where it should be 280 feet below the line of sight.” Probably a bogus observation, but in any case Dubay and Samuel Rowbotham can't do trigonometry. For evidence that the quoted observation is bogus, click here: Why Dubay's lighthouse quotes are bogus However, if you want to take the observation as genuine read on to see why this still does not add up to a proof. Using the correct calculation, the observer on the ship would have to be at a height of 119 feet. From the deck of a ship that would mean that the observer would be about 103 feet too low to see the lighthouse. However, as  with so many of Dubays "proofs" this is taken from Samuel Rowbotham's "Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not a Globe" published in 1881. The relevant paragraphs from the book are: "Many instances could be given of lights being visible at sea for distances whic...

“The Light at Madras on the Esplanade, is 132 feet high and visible from 28 miles away, where it should be 250 feet below the line of sight.” Probably a bogus observation, but in any case Dubay and Samuel Rowbotham can't do trigonometry. For evidence that the quoted observation is bogus, click here: Why Dubay's lighthouse quotes are bogus However, if you want to take the observation as genuine read on to see why this still does not add up to a proof. Using the correct calculation, the observer on the ship would have to be at a height of 129 feet. From the deck of a ship that would mean that the observer would be about 114 feet too low to see the lighthouse. However, as  with so many of Dubays "proofs" this is taken from Samuel Rowbotham's "Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not a Globe" published in 1881. The relevant paragraphs from the book are: "Many instances could be given of lights being visible at sea for distances which would b...

“The Egerö Light in Norway is 154 feet above high water and visible from 28 miles statute miles where it should be 230 feet below the horizon.” Probably a bogus observation, but in any case Dubay and Samuel Rowbotham can't do trigonometry. For evidence that the quoted observation is bogus, click here: Why Dubay's lighthouse quotes are bogus However, if you want to take the observation as genuine read on to see why this still does not add up to a proof. Using the correct calculation, the observer on the ship would have to be at a height of 109 feet. From the deck of a ship that would mean that the observer would be about 90 feet too low to see the lighthouse. However, as  with so many of Dubays "proofs" this is taken from Samuel Rowbotham's "Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not a Globe" published in 1881. The relevant paragraphs from the book are: "Many instances could be given of lights being visible at sea for distances which would b...

“The Port Nicholson Light in New Zealand is 420 feet above sea-level and visible from 35 miles away where it should be 220 feet below the horizon.” Probably a bogus observation, but in any case Dubay and Samuel Rowbotham can't do trigonometry. For evidence that the quoted observation is bogus, click here: Why Dubay's lighthouse quotes are bogus However, if you want to take the observation as genuine read on to see why this still does not add up to a proof. Dubay again uses the incorrect calculation to determine how high the observer needs to be to see the light. Using the correct calculation, the observer on the ship would have to be at a height of 65 feet. From the deck of a ship that would mean that the observer would be about 50 feet too low to see the lighthouse. However, as  with so many of Dubays "proofs" this is taken from Samuel Rowbotham's "Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not a Globe" published in 1881. The relevant paragraphs f...

“The distance from which various lighthouse lights around the world are visible at sea far exceeds what could be found on a ball-Earth 25,000 miles in circumference. For example, the Dunkerque Light in southern France at an altitude of 194 feet is visible from a boat (10 feet above sea-level) 28 miles away. Spherical trigonometry dictates that if the Earth was a globe with the given curvature of 8 inches per mile squared, this light should be hidden 190 feet below the horizon.” Probably a bogus observation, but in any case Dubay and Samuel Rowbotham can't do trigonometry. For evidence that the quoted observation is bogus, click here: Why Dubay's lighthouse quotes are bogus However, if you want to take the observation as genuine read on to see why this still does not add up to a proof. . Firstly Dubay again uses the incorrect calculation to determine how high the observer needs to be to see the light.  Using the correct calculation, the observer on the ship ...

“From Anchorage, Alaska at an elevation of 102 feet, on clear days Mount McKinley can be seen with the naked eye from 130 miles away. If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, Mount McKinley’s 20,320 foot summit should be leaning back away from the observer and almost half covered by 9,220 feet of curved Earth. In reality, however, the entire mountain can be quite easily seen standing straight from base to summit.” Dubay gets his calculations wrong again. Dubay's miscalculation occurs because he does not understand that the height of the observer makes a huge difference to the visibility of objects beyond the horizon. Using the correct calculation, with an observer at 102 feet, and at a distance if 133 miles, the obscured height of Mt McKinley is 9808 feet.  This will leave 10,612 feet of the mountain visible. Looking at the following profile of Mt McKinley (on the right) you can clearly see that the visible part of the mountain in Dubay's image is on...

“From Anchorage, Alaska at an elevation of 102 feet, on clear days Mount Foraker can be seen with the naked eye 120 miles away. If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, Mount Foraker’s 17,400 summit should be leaning back away from the observer covered by 7,719 feet of curved Earth. In reality, however, the entire mountain can be quite easily seen standing straight from base to summit.” Dubay can't do trigonometry.  Mount Foraker is definitely visible from Anchorage on a spherical Earth. Dubay's miscalculation occurs because he does not understand that the height of the observer makes a huge difference to the visibility of objects beyond the horizon. Using the correct calculation, with an observer at 102 feet, and at a distance if 130 miles (not 120 as Dubay states), the obscured height of Mt Foraker is 9231 feet.  This will leave 8169 feet of the mountain visible. Looking at the following profile of Mt Foraker you can clearly see that the visible par...