Kevin Skinner
Big Think
comments
Comments by "Kevin Skinner" (@kevinskinner4986) on "3 scientists school flat Earthers on the evidence | Neil deGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye, Michelle Thaller" video.
12
6
I hate to break it to you, but Dubay's firmly in the Mantras For Money camp himself. His work is garbage. You can say something in a way that sounds logical all you want, but that doesn't make it true. In reality, on top of largely being plagiarized from other sources, including a man who dropped out of school at the age of 9, it mostly falls apart if you put any sort of pressure on it.
I remember when he put out a 10,000 challenge (note that these anti-science challenges are ALWAYS rigged) to prove the Earth was round, in which he promised that he would give detailed responses to would be claimers. He instead gave one-line links to his other videos, which had already been contested, and made up claims such as, and I quote "You can't learn anything about the shape of the ground beneath your feet by looking at the sky." By the way, this immeidately invalidates all Flat Earth claims about polaris and constellations not moving.
I remember watching his "Lighthouse curvature distance" video and the first thing that crossed my mind was that not one single time did he provide any evidence that they were ACTUALLY VISIBLE at those distances. He could have made it up and nobody would have questioned him.
I remember skimming through his "moon hoax" video and thinking "This is the same list of debunked garbage that every other hoax video has made and which has been disproved for 20 years. Is there not an original thought in his head?"
Here's a good reading of how committed Dubay is to the truth: has he published a public list of all of the "proofs" from his "200" proofs that are false or need to be clarified? Surely he's at least removed the unproven hearsay, the "Bla Blah Conspiracy Blah Blah Jews Are Evil" rants, the "no curvature" photograph that got caught cropping out that curvature shown in the original, and the "Faking the distance to the Moon" considering that the original creator of that, Bart Sibrel, is a con artist and got caught red-handed lying about it ten years ago (and which if true, immediately disproves Flat Earth because the claim is that the astronauts were faking the distance from orbit.)
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
@flatearth5821 First of all, Eric Dubay is notorious for using sketchy, unsubstantiated claims and hearsay as "proof" and using the work of proven frauds such as Bart Sibrel, then banning anybody that calls him out on it. He has zero credibility.
Okay, so Australia has an airline called Qantas that, in addition to flying across the ocean to LA and Santiago and such (which creates more problems), makes daily flights between Syndey on the east coast and Perth on the west coast. These flights take about 4 1/2 hours.
If Australia were the size it appears on YOUR map, the flight would need to take about 10-12 hours making the deception impossible to hide. And no, you can't just fly faster, because supersonic airplanes have a completely different appearance to everyday 787s AND make a loud BANG when they cross 767 mph, the speed of sound.
Furthermore, anybody driving between those two cities would certainly notice because it would take far, far longer than it should and cars have a device called an odometer that measures how far you drive. The trucking industry will notice immediately because they log their milage.
Sorry, I suspect your "railroad measurer" is either bad at math or lying.
--------------
Also, Australia has another problem in that it can see the Southern celestial pole, which circles around a point in the sky due south of every location in the hemisphere simultaneously. When you try and draw the movement of the stars in the Southern Hemisphere on YOUR map, it creates a a paradox where objects are in multiple places at the same time and moving in an impossible geometry direction that would make M.C. Escher cream his pants.
Maybe you should decontaminate yourself from your brainwashing and keep an open mind to the possibility that your "truth" movement is a fraud.
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
@platygaia5303 You realize that your side's promotion of Michelson-Morley is a blatant lie, right?
Michelson-Morley DIDN'T TRY to find evidence of the Earth's movement. It was a test to find luminiferous aether, a magical gas-energy from the 1800s used for light propagation, and failed to find it. The Flat Earther took the experiment, claimed that Aether existed, and used that to "disprove" the foundations that the actual test were supposedly based on.
Aether was already falling out of favor before Einstein came along, by the way.
Why is it impossible? Your "impossible" claim makes the assumption that the movement is random. However, if the other stars are moving the same speed and direction as us, they will stay in place forever. You have, of course, seen soldiers or marching bands in formation, right? If the stars are in a pattern your "impossible" goes straight out the window
Furthermore, do you know what parallax is? It's the difference in position caused by moving positions. The thing about parallax is that the further away an object is, the more movement you need until a change is seen. If an object is far enough away, you need to move extremely, extremely large distances to make even a small change.
Take one step forward. Tell me, how much different does China look to you (if you're in China and on the internet.... somehow... how does the China exhibit at Epcot look).
This is of course ignoring the procession of the stars indicated by astronomical records from Ancient Greece (who described the spot Polaris currently is as barren) through the Islamic Golden Age and Renaissance that you people conveniently ignore.
You want to know something even more impossible? If you go to the Southern Hemisphere and look south, the south-facing constellations circle around a point directly in front of you that doesn't move just like Polaris, and yet are somehow, magically 90 degrees to the side, 180 degrees behind you, and every direction in between simultaneously. How does that work? Because that's what happens when the position and movement of the stars is drawn on YOUR map.
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
You should rename that app to Deception in Plane Sight. The screenshots of it on their very own apps page debunks their own model. Tell me, how does a spotlight sun create a CONCAVE light pattern, and if night is caused by the sun moving out of range, how the flying fuck does it magically illuminate more of the Southern Hemisphere during the southern winter months when your own app shows the sun moving closer to the edge - and therefore FARTHER AWAY from the opposite side.
No offense, but if you believe that this challenge is real, you probably shouldn't have financial independence. All of these anti-science challenges are scams. They exist solely to claim that "Nobody claimed our challenge money" and strut around like peacocks, no matter how many lies they have to tell to keep that position.
Eric Dubay put out one of these challenges about 2-3 years ago. When people confronted him about the fact that it's impossible to have two celestial poles on a flat Earth, he started blatantly lying and making excuses such as, and I quote: "You cannot learn anything about the shape of the ground beneath your feet by looking up at the sky". This, of course, means that anybody that tries to use "Polaris doesn't move" is lying too, but he's rather mum on that.
Also, isn't Weiss one of the Flat Earthers that delete the comments of people that try and debate him? I know Dubay does. I know that Weiss refuses to debate the big science debunking channels so what makes you think he has any intention of having a serious debate now? Oh right, because he's wagered money he probably doesn't have and won't show. Got it.
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
@jacobmilgromiii7729 Nice story, but you left out the fact that Michelson-Morley was NOT claimed to have disproved the motion of the Earth, but was in fact a failure to find luminiferous aether, a magical undetectable incorporeal energy-gas... thing used for the propagation of light. You know, what you're claiming that Dark Matter and such are.
But you can't have that because Nikola Tesla, Holy is is Name, used Aether in his failed alternatives to gravity and Nikola Tesla is essentially the second son of god, so you LIED, claimed that aether existed, and used the opposite of the test's original conclusion to reverse engineer the logic behind the test to claim it "proved the Earth doesn't move."
----------------
You know, you should be happy when science makes stuff up to make their math work. At least they're putting in effort.
When a Flat Earther is asked why their math doens't work, they usually just shout "Shut up sheeple!" and change the subject.
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
@Lad_Clan And the formula for how far away an object can be seen is....... oh right, it can't be calculated.
Also, you are aware that it takes literally one minute to find videos on youtube where they can "bring back" one boat but FAIL to bring back another one in the same scene no matter how much you zoom because it just... cuts off an arbitrary point? HOW DOES THIS WORK???
----------
.... why wouldn't we be able to see the reflection.? As long as it's angled properly, it will be 'above" the sea.
By the way, at 3,000 miles high, the distance your own side claims the sun is, it would need to be approximately 35,000 miles from the observer to fall below 5 degrees. The sun should never set on Flat Earth.
-----------
They're perfect circles because the distance the Earth moves during it is too small compared to how far away they are to matter. The farther an object gets from you, the smaller the angle becomes until it approaches zero. Also, the other stars are moving in the same rough direction that we are. I'm sure you've seen a marching band before right?
By the way, you do realize that perfect circles disproves YOU right?
If the stars are close to the earth, then the position you are looking at them from would be at an angle and not directly beneath them. This angle will increase the lower they are and the farther you are away from the North Pole.
On Flat Earth, the only place on the entire planet you would ever see perfect circles from is Santa's Workshop; everybody else will see star OVALS that become flatter and flatter the farther south you go.
Also, it's impossible to have star circles above the South Pole. This causes paradoxes . Your leaders know this.
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
It's not just Flat Earth being "censored". No offense, but ignoring the fact that Flat Earth requires mental gymnastics worthy of a psionic circus to even function, conspiracy theorists in general are kind of viewed as dangerous lunatics. Not only are they associated with right wing extremists, Neo-Nazis, and white supremacists (because they tend to frequently be the same people and are often promoted in the same shady parts of the internet), you kind of have people shooting up pizza parlors looking for abused children that don't exist, derailing trains over Coronavirus, and threatening the families of terrorist attacks and shootings and frankly the rest of the "movement" is too cowardly to take responsibility and call them out on it, instead pretending that any wackos among them are "government psyops" to save face.
Eric Dubay keeps getting removed for antisemitism, not Flat Earth "censorship" by the way. It's because he's a Hitler-loving Nazi.
But you like censorship, right? Did you know that Jarrah White, the #1 Apollo hoax youtuber, not only blacklists people that challenge him on his channel, but tried to CENSOR YOUTUBE ITSELF by deliberately flagging hundreds of his critics' videos with abusive false copyright strikes against their videos to get their accounts banned? Why censor something if it's a lie?
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
@timdescher2606 Then why are there lots of videos where you can clearly see the ship being obscured? Why are there videos where they "bring the object back', then pan over to another further ship that looks like it's sinking, zoom in on that, and FAIL to change the waterline?
Do you know why the ship isn't being obscured? Because your Flat Earth Masters choose not to show the ones where they are.
---------------
We've already checked out Eric Dubay, thank you very much and he was full of more shit than an outhouse the last ten times. Why on Earth do you think people haven't?
-----------------
Tim, objects in physics maintain their forward momentum when launched from a moving object. The planes are traveling at the COMBINED speed, 1500 vs 500. Yes, that means to an outside observer, the plane flying in the opposite direction would appear to be flying backwards.
This is a well-known quirk of physics relating to a law called the Conservation of Momentum and it's literally half of the Freshman midterm. Might I remind you that the people taking these classes are the engineers that build your buildings, vehicles, and bridges, so teaching them false physics to "maintain the globe conspiracy" is SUICIDAL because people will DIE when shit doesn't work properly.
That's why objects dropped out of a car window continue moving forward. That's why when you launch an object backwards at the same speed that you're moving forward, it appears to fall straight down. That's why you can jump inside that airplane without being squashed like a bug on a windshield against the back wall as the plane moves under you.
This has been tested to death, and I do mean literal corpses. Planes have to take this into account to keep from missing their targets by miles because their bombs will continue moving forward after released.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
@set3777 Sin, you literally have to pretend that half the planet doesn't exist for your model to work. That's a a red flag large enough to send semaphore messages to the moon.
By the way, if the Earth were flat, you'd see star OVALS, not circles. Close stars as your model claims would only appear to make circles if you were looking at them at a 90 degree perpendicular; anybody else would see it as ELLIPTICAL because a circle viewed from an angle is an oval, and they would get flatter the farther south you go.
The only place you can see the star circles at a perpendicular is, of course, the North Pole looking straight up, so unless your name is Santa Claus, sorry, no circles for you.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
@pasway-ea Okay...... it would be impossible to hide the shape of the Earth from the shipping company because the transoceanic differences between Africa, Australia, and South America are much, much longer on Flat Earth than on a globe.
The shipping companies would not put up with the "hiding the shape" nonsense, because that costs them money, since in order maintain the illusion, they'd have to lie about their times and downplay their fees to match other rates of shorter distances. That means undercharging, and losing customers when their stuff doesn't arriving on time.
How long would that last before they turn on the Elite with the ultimatum of "You pay us for the wages we miss, plus a bonus, or we bust your hoax wide open?" And the Elite would pay because they have no choice. There's too many of them to control, too many of them to silence, and technology has progressed to the point that the college intern could rig a dead man's switch.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
@steveb6718 Steve, no matter how far away you move your paper, the hole will never appear to be half-covered.
The "Changing continents" is a PERSPECTIVE trick. The zoom and distance on the camera changes how much of the viisble surface you can see, which causes the features to "grow" and "shrink" because they'll take up more or less of the portion that is actually visible. There are videos and pictures I'm too lazy to find right now of this trick being done with a desktop globe.
ALL pictures are images. An image ANY visual representation, whether it's a photograph, movie still, CGI vector logo, 3d model, painting, hand illustration, scratch board drawing hologram, sidewalk chalk doodle, Etch A Sketch dust drawing, or the fucking Nazca Lines.
Also, I work in a print center. I don't know about other people, but we colloquially call both photographs (digital or scanned) and computer artwork images.. I expect most other people use the two interchangeably as well unless they're either a conspiracy theorist or have a redwood up their ass.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1