It's not compulsory to post replies, Stan. My aim is just to get you to THINK about it, so you can see where you are in error. It is very hard, as you refuse to consider alternatives, but I'm reasonably patient. If you can't handle the truth, then walk away.


Whilst they could predict LUNAR eclipses with some degree of accuracy, they struggled with SOLAr eclipses, and to say that they could predict either with equal accuracy to modern astronomy is, simply put, completely wrong, so why make that claim up?


Any fool can see that the Moon is a globe by observing it nightly, in particular the shadows cast on the moon, and the terminator area. It only takes a second to consider a view like this (which you can do with your own eyes, binoculars or telescope) to KNOW that the Moon is a globe:


You could only think that it is not a globe, once you consider for a minute what you can see, if you were spectacularly stupid.


Sorry but it is not legitimate to simply make such a bold "statement of fact" without explaining in what way they "prove" this. So-called supermoons (meaning the moon looks a bit bigger than at most other times) mean simply that. They occur at full moons when the Moon is at its closest approach to Earth, and occur because the orbit is not perfectly circular.


The reason I have asked you this dozens of times is to make you THINK about it. But as I have already debunked your simplistic and frankly childish "explanation", you clearly refuse to think.

If you take a paper plate and blue-tack it to the ceiling and mark the top with your pen, you will have performed a miracle. Once you have blu-tacked it to the ceiling you obviously cannot mark the top. You'd need to remove it from the ceiling again, before you could mark the top.

What you are doing is repeating the same fundamental logical error that I already pointed out . Why?

What you seem to think is that by writing "TOP" on the bottom of the plate, this miraculously makes the point where you write "the top of the plate". It doesn't. Once the plate is blu-tacked to your ceiling, you can only ever see the BOTTOM of the plate! Writing "TOP" on it does not alter this simple and obvious fact, any more than writing "CAT" on a dog would make it a cat.

You should consider having a globe model of the moon suspended from your ceiling. Walk around that, and see what the effect is. It's exactly the same as if you hang a person from the ceiling, their "top" (head) will always look to be at the top. Their feet will always be at the bottom. Writing "TOP" on the soles of their shoes will not magically make them upside down.

You are failing to understand an extremely basic point. The effect seen from Australia would be that a hypothetical giant plate stuck to the "bottom" of the Moon as seen from the UK would to an Australian look to be stuck to the "top" of the Moon. That is the effect you need to explain. A "TOP becomes BOTTOM" effect. Like this Moon as viewed from Australia. From the UK, it's the "other way up". (You'll love this pic Stan since as luck would have it, it also shows the silhouette of the ISS)

This image, incidentally is by an amateur Australian astrophotographer, Dylan O'Donnell, who appears to have no known connection with NASA or any other space agency, but just enjoys taking photos and putting them in the public domain. You can see more of his work here: http://deography.com/



No Stan, you don't get it - not at all. I am trying to help, but you do need to think about it for a moment.

If the Earth is flat, and the moon is flat, then you have a huge problem. Imagine I am looking at the Moon as it is very low in the South. You say it is a flat plane. Yet I see it as a perfect circle. that must mean it was not parallel to the ground I stand on, it must be almost at right angles to the ground. Right? Otherwise, it wouldn't look perfectly round.

This here Moon is, from my perspective, in the direction of Australia. If it looks flat to me, than nobody from Australia will be able to see it at all, now will they? Because they would only be able to see the OTHER side of that flat disc.

The other simple debunk of a "flat Moon" model is that except if the Moon were directly above your head, it would NEVER look round, I would look increasingly oval the further away from it you walked. Just like that plate stuck to your ceiling.

I fact, if the Moon were a flat plate, then it would only ever appear totally round to one person on Earth, and that is the person directly opposite where the plate was facing. To everyone else, it would be an oval, and if they were so far away that the Moon was near the horizon, then it would be a very elongated thin oval.

The full moon never looks like an oval from any point on Earth, ever.

Now all I ask is you THINK about these things. If you do, you will inevitably see the hopeless fallacy of your "explanation" and that it cannot be squared with the facts as you actually observe them.

It's not compulsory to post replies, Stan. My aim is just to get you to THINK about it, so you can see where you are in error. It is very hard, as you refuse to consider alternatives, but I'm reasonably patient. If you can't handle the truth, then walk away.


Whilst they could predict LUNAR eclipses with some degree of accuracy, they struggled with SOLAr eclipses, and to say that they could predict either with equal accuracy to modern astronomy is, simply put, completely wrong, so why make that claim up?


Any fool can see that the Moon is a globe by observing it nightly, in particular the shadows cast on the moon, and the terminator area. It only takes a second to consider a view like this (which you can do with your own eyes, binoculars or telescope) to KNOW that the Moon is a globe:


You could only think that it is not a globe, once you consider for a minute what you can see, if you were spectacularly stupid.


Sorry but it is not legitimate to simply make such a bold "statement of fact" without explaining in what way they "prove" this. So-called supermoons (meaning the moon looks a bit bigger than at most other times) mean simply that. They occur at full moons when the Moon is at its closest approach to Earth, and occur because the orbit is not perfectly circular.


The reason I have asked you this dozens of times is to make you THINK about it. But as I have already debunked your simplistic and frankly childish "explanation", you clearly refuse to think.

If you take a paper plate and blue-tack it to the ceiling and mark the top with your pen, you will have performed a miracle. Once you have blu-tacked it to the ceiling you obviously cannot mark the top. You'd need to remove it from the ceiling again, before you could mark the top.

What you are doing is repeating the same fundamental logical error that I already pointed out . Why?

What you seem to think is that by writing "TOP" on the bottom of the plate, this miraculously makes the point where you write "the top of the plate". It doesn't. Once the plate is blu-tacked to your ceiling, you can only ever see the BOTTOM of the plate! Writing "TOP" on it does not alter this simple and obvious fact, any more than writing "CAT" on a dog would make it a cat.

You should consider having a globe model of the moon suspended from your ceiling. Walk around that, and see what the effect is. It's exactly the same as if you hang a person from the ceiling, their "top" (head) will always look to be at the top. Their feet will always be at the bottom. Writing "TOP" on the soles of their shoes will not magically make them upside down.

You are failing to understand an extremely basic point. The effect seen from Australia would be that a hypothetical giant plate stuck to the "bottom" of the Moon as seen from the UK would to an Australian look to be stuck to the "top" of the Moon. That is the effect you need to explain. A "TOP becomes BOTTOM" effect. Like this Moon as viewed from Australia. From the UK, it's the "other way up". (You'll love this pic Stan since as luck would have it, it also shows the silhouette of the ISS)

This image, incidentally is by an amateur Australian astrophotographer, Dylan O'Donnell, who appears to have no known connection with NASA or any other space agency, but just enjoys taking photos and putting them in the public domain. You can see more of his work here: http://deography.com/



No Stan, you don't get it - not at all. I am trying to help, but you do need to think about it for a moment.

If the Earth is flat, and the moon is flat, then you have a huge problem. Imagine I am looking at the Moon as it is very low in the South. You say it is a flat plane. Yet I see it as a perfect circle. that must mean it was not parallel to the ground I stand on, it must be almost at right angles to the ground. Right? Otherwise, it wouldn't look perfectly round.

This here Moon is, from my perspective, in the direction of Australia. If it looks flat to me, than nobody from Australia will be able to see it at all, now will they? Because they would only be able to see the OTHER side of that flat disc.

The other simple debunk of a "flat Moon" model is that except if the Moon were directly above your head, it would NEVER look round, I would look increasingly oval the further away from it you walked. Just like that plate stuck to your ceiling.

I fact, if the Moon were a flat plate, then it would only ever appear totally round to one person on Earth, and that is the person directly opposite where the plate was facing. To everyone else, it would be an oval, and if they were so far away that the Moon was near the horizon, then it would be a very elongated thin oval.

The full moon never looks like an oval from any point on Earth, ever.

Now all I ask is you THINK about these things. If you do, you will inevitably see the hopeless fallacy of your "explanation" and that it cannot be squared with the facts as you actually observe them.