Comments by "MrSirhcsellor" (@MrSirhcsellor) on "Invicta" channel.

Only if you wrongfully assume the shadow phases of the Moon are created by Earth’s shadow…which they of course are not. The example in the video was not talking about the Moon phases, it was describing a Lunar Eclipse…which Flat Earth has no explanation for. Go ahead and ponder that awhile…if Earth never comes between the Sun and Moon, if nothing comes between the Sun and Moon (as in the Flat Earth model), then how does a Lunar Eclipse occur in the first place? 🧐
6
@BriansLogic No it has not, just a lot of over confident and paranoid layman, making claims about things they have no actual experience with. Or conmen, selling a grift. So which one are you? Try actually taking a navigations class…you learn pretty quickly which model the entire system of navigation is built around. Lines of longitude that intersect at TWO poles, and lines of latitude that curve a consistent 1 degree every 69 miles, that are equal for TWO hemispheres. You have to ignore a lot about the fundamentals of perspective, to shoehorn that in as a response.
6
Soooo...rather then think about it rationally and reach conclusions based on the facts and evidence, you side with whatever position is being pummeled the most? Great strategy, let us know when your method of reasoning invents, innovates, engineers, discovers, or navigates anything. Do ya ever stop to think that MAYBE people are challenging the claims made by Flat Earth...because they actually know and understand where they're going wrong and maybe they feel that bullshit and misinformation shouldn't fly by the radar so easily? Does that thought ever cross your mind...or do you just instantly fall back on paranoia whenever you don't understand something very well?
5
@PNFResearchgroup All observation and experimentation and basic physics says that it is...so what do you want us to do? Would you prefer we all just ignore all of that science (the same science used in the framework of pretty much all applied science and navigation), because a few people (like yourself) are too ignorant, incredulous and stupid to bother looking at all that evidence for themselves? Your argument here is just an argument from personal incredulity...which is a fallacy of logic, not an actual argument.
5
We’ve had telescopes for centuries…and sailors and scientists have been using them for centuries. Like jesus man. 🤦‍♂️
5
@BriansLogic Listen man…it’s cute to pretend, but you need to snap out of it. Every pilot and sailor in the world uses the same geographical coordinates system, designed for a globe…this is a fact, not an opinion. If you think it’s inaccurate, then I dare you too navigate across a vast ocean, without using it. :/ Go right ahead. Until then, you’re just pissing into the wind…and deep down you know it too.
5
He didn't need too, he knew exactly where the Sun would be during the summer solstice at noon, right above that well in Syene, like it was every year, which is why that well was so interesting to him, it fell upon the direct solar path of the Sun, putting it at 0 degrees to the Sun every summer solstice. All he needed to do was go there first during one summer solstice to confirm that the Sun angle there was indeed 0 degrees, then he just had to wait a year for the next summer solstice, and then take a shadow measurement in his home city of Alexandria at the same time. The Greeks created some of the first calendars, and time keeping devices (sun dials), the summer solstice arrived like clock work every year, it wasn't hard for him to know when it was coming again. So he didn't need a phone or a second person to help him out...just needed to be clever. Hardly matters though, because today we do have that technology and this experiment is very easy to repeat today. If you're interested, here's a group of people who did just that, except this time they took a lot more then 2 data sets, they took several from all around the world during the same time at Equinox. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V03eF0bcYno&t The interesting thing about taking more than 2 data sets with this experiment, with 3 or more data sets you can actually pin point the location of the Sun in 3D space, which helps confirm whether the Earth is flat or globe. If you're pressed for time, the last 2 minutes of video is where he shares the results...spoilers, it doesn't end well for Flat Earth.
2
What Flat Earth fails to realize here, is that they weren't making naked eye observations of a boat going over horizon...because you physically can't, boat reaches vanishing point before it ever reaches horizon and vanishing point doesn't make things disappear bottom first, it just vanishes from view, becomes to small for your eye to process the light. When people were making these long distance observations of boats back in 14th-15th century, they were using retractable telescopes that were common with ship captains and fishermen of the time. So they were making these observations with a device that would bring boats back into view as well...but then they kept watching the boats and THAT is when they noticed boats would start to disappear bottom first, as seen here at full zoom with the camera left rolling. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gi23xZmS03Q Flat Earth fails here, cause they tend to turn the camera off instead of leaving it rolling. And you're claim here that if you got a more powerful zoom you could bring these boats back again...is not true at all. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKQI18jr8Oc You really think you could bring these wind turbines back into view with more zoom? Cause I very much doubt that. Vanishing point doesn't explain this, because vanishing point does not pick and choose what to make disappear first, vanishing point converges from all angles equally and at the same rate of instance. For even more problems with Flat Earth claims, explain to me how THOUSANDS of feet of mountains go missing in long distance imagery of mountain ranges. Perspective can't do that...but a curvature sure could. Here's a great video that demonstrates what I mean. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK93TfSYeQU
2
Boy...you are not even aware of the seasonal stars that lie along the ecliptic plane...and yet you make this blind claim anyway. They are different and any astronomer who actually looks at the stars night after night could tell you this. You are however aware of many of the names of the constellations that are seasonal, you are born under a zodiac sign just like we all are. Look it up...there are two kinds of stars and constellations. Circumpolar, which are the ones locked the celestial poles that do not change throughout the year and then the Seasonal stars and Constellations...that change throughout the year, just as you described above. You people REALLY need to stop talking about things you know nothing about...you're spreading misinformation and people are growing intellectually bankrupt for it.
2
You can be the most intelligent person in the world, but if you don't have all the information needed to solve a puzzle, then you can not hope to ever solve that puzzle. Flat Earth does ask some good questions I find, but then I've found that they also do not provide all the information you need to answer these questions...because they either don't want to see that information, or they are aware of the information and would rather ignore it...or in some cases even straight up lie about it and deny it. This to me is a sign of confirmation bias...which is something people no matter how intelligent they are, tend to fall victim too. This is why peer review was added to the scientific method, to weed out such things like bias research. But I won't patronize you any further, Flat Earth does ask some good questions sometimes, but a lot of the information they share I feel, falls closer to confirmation bias that ignores a lot of information that could falsify the many claims made. I'll share some examples. I watched all of the videos you shared, so I'll go through some of the claims made and answer for them...cause Rob Skiba is the worst for sharing just enough information to get your head scratching...but then never going deeper to try and see if there is maybe some information he's just not considering or aware of. In fact, to me it feels like he does this intentionally, pretending to be an honest researcher, but then purposefully withholding some details in pretty much every presentation he does. He makes a claim in that first video that there should be a noticeable arc on the horizon left to right on a curved Earth, if boats go over horizon on the z axis then it should also look curved on the horizon. I see his point, and it sounds logical on the surface, but then this can easily be modeled in 3D software to see if this claim is accurate. I think he's made an assumption, assuming this is what should be seen...but then I find it odd that he never tests his assumption, rendering something to scale to see if maybe he's just missing something in his conclusion. He rendered a boat going over a horizon, I'm sure he'd know how to render a simple sphere and then zoom in and place a camera at ground level. Here's a great blog that has created a very cool interactive Globe simulator. walter.bislins.ch/Curve If you click on the first yellow tab marked as "Curve" and watch the demonstration, it shows you this simulated Globe and how it works. You'll notice that at ground level, when the camera pans left to right, the horizon appears Flat. It even goes up in elevation a few times and matches that elevation to actual pictures taken in the real world, the horizon matches with each picture, with their verified elevations. So Rob makes a claim in his video...but I find it odd that he never tests it. This blog puts that claim to the test. You have to understand that the Earth is MASSIVE. if you could see a curvature from left to right, then how big would the Earth be? Bring up that video again, and start to draw a circle from the curve he's made on the horizon with the boat going over it left to right...so the Earth is a few hundred miles maybe in diameter by his logic? No, the Earth is huge and that's why you don't see curvature along the horizon. The reason for that, is because you're looking at the horizontal of a circle. If you look straight ahead and it's only 3 miles out, then understand as you turn 360 degrees around, from every single point you look, you are seeing exactly 3 miles out, which creates a circle...the horizon drops in a circle around you, not a straight line left to right...that would mean we lived on a cylinder, we do not live on a cylinder. So imagine now, what would that circle look like from a perfectly side view? it would look flat, like a horizontal line. If the curvature drops down out of view from every point on that circle around, then it would look flat from your perspective. So this is a problem of scale, perspective and geometry, Rob has a problem with visualizing all these things...but then he could have just tested this with something that could help him visualize it, instead of making an empty claim without testing it. I urge you check out that blog I shared, you can stop the presentations with the Reset tab at the top right and then you can play around with the sliders to make your own observations, it's a pretty handy tool and it is perfectly to scale to the Globe Earth model. It can also switch to Flat Earth, and show you how horizon and such things should work on a Flat Earth. It also has a lot of other great observations of curvature, my favorite being the Soundly observations of Lake Pontchartrain, if you click any of the other tabs there, I recommend that one if you want some great evidence of measurable curvature. Alright, so the second video is a little easier to demonstrate and articulate what's happening. Rob makes another claim here...and again, doesn't test it. He claims that a local Sun above a Flat Earth would give the same results of the Eratosthenes experiment. Again, that sounds convincing on the surface...and it's logical to assume that, but then why doesn't he test it to make sure his claim is sound? Here's what happens when you do test the shadow angles of the Sun in the real world. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V03eF0bcYno&t=423s - if you're pressed for time, just watch the final 2 minutes of this video where he shares the results. Basically though, what they did was take shadow angles during the Equinox, from places all over the world and then plotted those positions on a Flat Earth with a Local Sun and then on a Globe. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nzEhDX-xzg - Here is another content creator who did the same thing, using data from time and date dot com. This adds a 3rd dimension and it's even more damning for Rob Skiba's claim of a local Sun, because the lines don't point to a local Sun at all upon this AE projection, but matches perfectly on the Globe when tested. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2quy8ur6Io&t=462s - Here's Sly again in an earlier test he did of the Equinox shadow angles, only this time mapping them on a few other Flat Earth maps and then comparing them again on a Globe. This is a just a few of the people who have done these experiments and found FE's claim of a local Sun working in the Eratosthenes experiment to be false. If you actually test those shadow angles and then produce them on a Flat Earth map or model, they do not point to a local Sun, but they do match perfectly with the Globe model. Jos Leys does many videos like that with many other observations, some with the Sun, some with the Moon, some with eclipses, they're all quite interesting and I do recommend them to anyone looking to remain objective about this topic. Now those last two videos would take a lot of analysis to go through every claim Rob makes...cause there is a lot there, but I will point out just one of the many claims he makes cause it pertains to what I'm talking about with Flat Earth not disclosing some details when selling their claims to people. The point in the first NASA video there where he talks about the "strange boxes" surrounding the images of the Earth in photos from space. What he never mentions to the viewer, is photo compression and what that does to an image file. Especially a low res jpeg, it leaves over what are called jpeg artifacts, which are compressed data that simplifies an image making it into a smaller image file. When you compress a file, it leaves behind these artifacts that are found around the edges between dark and light areas. Rob never mentions this...and he never discloses the image size of those photographs. Why? Here's someone who did the same thing, but he found higher resolution images and gave the same thing a try. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GV1nBkWR-Q At around the 6 or 7 minute mark you'll see his results of doing the same thing Rob did in PS, but this time with an HD photo that is not as compressed. So my analysis is that Rob...is a bullshitter. One of the worst researchers out there in the Flat Earth community...because he's sneaky and manipulative. He uses the classic misdirection trick to fool people, showing you what he wants you to see and never sharing or disclosing the information that would render his claims moot. If I wanted too, I could take the time to go through every point he makes in those NASA debunk videos, but that would take some doing...and I'm pretty sure I've made my case for now. I hope you find this information at the very least interesting. I don't share this information to mock you or belittle your intelligence, but I do fear the source in which you're gathering information, is not a good one. I find this is pretty common with most if not all of the Flat Earth proponents on YouTube...nothing more then scam artists and bullshitters. So take some time and put their claims to task, just as thoroughly as you now do with the Globe. Feel free to let me know if you feel I've overlooked something or if you have any counter points to make feel free to share. I don't mind taking a look and I enjoy the discussion, so long as its civil, which is why I decided to respond because you seemed very level headed and civil and that can be hard to find in this discussion.
1
There are polar circumnavigations, the last one that was done was really recent in fact. It was called "One More Orbit" and it occured in June of this year and it broke the previous pole to pole circumnavigation record. Look it up...we've done this circumnavigation many times now.
1
Only when you take 2 shadow location measurements...but take more than 2 and Flat Earth falls apart pretty quickly. Eratosthenes already knew the shape of the Earth, so his experiment was just to measure its circumference, you only need 2 locations to do that.
1
"objects get smaller with distance" Yes they do, remember that the next time you look at the Sun and Moon as they rise and set. You can't cherry pick perspective to explain one occurrence and then ignore that same fundamental truth about perspective during another observation. The Sun and Moon do not change in angular size throughout a day, but if they were local and circling above, they absolutely would...but they don't.
1
@BriansLogic Yup, cause long dragged out conversations with little Nathan Oakley Jr’s are pointless. At the end of the day, you’re just keyboard warriors, with zero real world experience. You know it and so do I. You repeat a bunch of keywords to appear knowledgeable, some is legit, some is completely made up, but it’s all for show. And it’s all pointless rambling…science is pointless if you can’t apply the knowledge. So, if you’re so confident, then save us both the bullshit, and navigate across an ocean successfully with your superior understanding, without any aide from the globe model and current systems of navigation (which all use the globe), and document the trip, then you can argue. Until then, it’s pointless to chat with you people. :/ I’ve travelled the world…I’ve made observations in both hemispheres, that are not possible on a Flat Earth. You have to abandon all common sense (and basic geometry) to ever believe they could be, or too believe any pilot or sailor could ever navigate anywhere successfully without accurate knowledge of the surface they navigate. Stop wasting everyone’s time…navigate somewhere.
1
Well...we didn't start with the heliocentric model...you numpty. We deduced the SHAPE of the planet first, using simple observations, the heliocentric model and all its movements became known and understood MUCH later. But the shape can't be denied...by thinking the Earth is Flat you ignore Sun sets and sun rises (same goes for the Moon), they always maintain the same angular size throughout a day and then dip into the horizon...this would not occur on a Flat Earth. You also ignore that we have TWO equal hemispheres that are the same size, also impossible on a Flat Earth. These two hemispheres also see different stars and have TWO celestial rotations around their own central pole stars, this is exactly what we'd expect to see occur on a Globe, but does not make any sense on a Flat Earth. None of these things work on a Flat Earth...but you're happy to ignore them anyway for some reason. The list goes on, there are hundreds of simple observations like this...that you people have to ignore, in order to accept the Earth is Flat. Also, it's not the fault of science that you are too stupid to understand how relative motion and conservation of momentum work...that's your problem, but you don't care, Flat Earth brings you closer to your imaginary friend in the sky, so you're just looking for ANY reason to make it feel more real to you. I get it...but that's called CONFIRMATION BIAS! And it's not very objective...thankfully, the scientific community knows better to leave religion out of these discussions. Apparently you didn't get the memo.
1