This blog is for nonprofit, educational purposes - media is incorporated for educational purposes as outlined in § 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act.

Monday, May 22, 2017

ISS Solar Panels are a "Blatant fraud"

ISS Solar Panels are a "Blatant fraud"

At least according to Howard Gilmour of YouTube.

Here is his "proof" of this.

I see NO significant difference that isn't related to distance, perspective (angles and camera field of view), and lighting.

I've even zoomed way in and counted the little dots and looked at the dot pattern.

His assertion seems to be they "just look fake" but he cannot say why, other than they look 'photo realistic'.

Let's VOTE.


We know astronauts are lying because they wouldn't swear on a Bible...

I keep seeing this bit of trash make the rounds and while I normally avoid "Moon Hoaxers" (I have enough to do, I leave that to folks like Astrobrant2) I thought I would at least take down this one bit of stupidity since it's so easy and it'll make it easier for me to reference later and I get to point everyone to Astrobrant2 :) ...

Does Bart Sibrel make money off claiming they didn't?

#1 Here is one doing so:

#2 And from Moon Hoax: Debunked! we see 3 cases where they did:

[link to a lot of debunking]

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

The Antarctic Treaty

Ok Globulists

What about that Antarctic Treaty!?  You'll NOT escape this wall of text and ice!

Wait... You mean this one? [1959 Antarctic Treaty PDF]

Read the whole thing - it's only 11 pages with wide spacing.

It very simply establishes that:

  • Antarctica shall be used for peaceful purposes only (Art. I)
  • Freedom of scientific investigation in Antarctica and cooperation toward that end … shall continue (Art. II).
  • Scientific observations and results from Antarctica shall be exchanged and made freely available (Art. III).

And it says that designated Observers from each country are absolutely free to go anywhere and observe (even the activities of other countries) and it establishes

It also says:

This need to make sure everyone is informed is why you need 'permission' to go there.  Somehow the benefit of such an open process escapes Flat Earthers.

But Absolutely NOTHING in the Treaty prevents normal people from going there, indeed there are flights to the South Pole that anyone can purchase a ticket for.

It FORBIDS military action which means there is no massive military of billions of people guarding Antarctica.

There are law enforcement personnel because the US has millions of dollars of research equipment there and during the summer there are a few thousand people there who need reasonable protection.  Indeed, after an incident in 1996 the National Science Foundation performed a review [PDF].  As a US Citizen in Antarctica you fall under US Federal Law which is enforced primarily by the US Marshals.  So they are the appropriate resource to be on site.

So why doesn't some rich & famous Flat Earther just go?  Because they know Flat Earth is lie is my guess and cannot bring themselves to test their biased and ignorant assumptions.

There are also supplemental treaties for environmental protection [PDF], protecting the Seals [PDF], and marine resources [PDF] which address those specific concerns -- which is where this claim about 'trespass' into protected areas comes from.

By spinning this into some fake (and yet openly documented) conspiracy is just Flat Earth nonsense.

Anyone can go -- buy a ticket and stop whining (and lying) about it.

Tuesday, May 16, 2017

1958 Encyclopedia Americana quote "[Antarctic] DOME 13,000 feet high" / Admiral Byrd quote

Flat Earth Claim

"The (Antarctic) flights proved the inland areas to be featureless in character with a DOME 13,000 feet high at about latitude 80 degrees south
(You should feel kind of mad right about now?)


Here is what he actually said about this:

superimposed by a great dome of snow and ice, and toward its center reaching in excess of 13,000 feet elevation.

Confirmed by modern elevation maps of Antarctica.

Domes are geologic features.

We done with Flat Earth yet? I doubt it, their ignorance is fathomless.

Monday, May 15, 2017

Does government document Pub. 200 prove the Earth is Flat?

Flat Earth Claim

Government Document claims you can see mountains despite "56,527 feet" of Earth Curvature.


I have to admit, this one surprised me a little bit and I had to do a little research.

First of all, Pub 200 Sailing Directions (Planning Guide and Enroute) Antarctica does, in fact, actually say this -- right in the middle of a whole bunch of other stuff about Refraction and extreme conditions and how difficult this makes it to judge distances...

Of course, it ALSO shows Antarctica is a small continent that is only about 10,000 miles around which makes it utterly impossible to be the far outside edge of a circle some 12,000 miles in radius!

According to the Flat Earth model that should be about 75,000 miles around and concave instead of 10,000 miles around and convex.  So good job Flat Earthers!  Give them a round of applause.

Next, look at the text more carefully:

There is almost no dust or solid particles in the Antarctic air and the prevailing winds blowing off the continent have small moisture content. Consequently, the visibility is usually very good and often exceptional, a fact which, if not appreciated, may lead the observer into serious error when judging distances.
Mirages—Abnormal Refraction.—An unusual lapse rate of temperature (and therefore density as well) with height immediately above the sea (or land) surface produces a distortion in the appearance of objects near the horizon; such a phenomenon is known as mirage.

They are saying that the viewing distance is very great due to extremely clear air conditions and that there are often usual amount of refraction and under some extreme and specific set of viewing conditions you can see SOME mountain at 300 miles.  They do not say you can see ALL mountains from 300 miles away.

Now the question is -- is it possible under REASONABLE conditions to see a mountain from 300 miles -- assuming the air is sufficiently clear to allow viewing of that distance?

The first thing of note here is there are vast swaths of Antarctica that are 3000 meters and points that are closer to 4000 meters, and peaks up to 4892 meters (16,050').  We're not at sea level with our eyes half-way under water looking at something 300 miles away!  Why must Flat Earthers continue to make this same mistake time and time again?

As we have shown MANY times previously, you MUST take into account the observer height to find the amount of a distance object that would be hidden by Earth's curvature.

If we're way up high, and there is a lower elevation area between and some other point is way up high YOU CAN SEE THAT DISTANT PEAK MUCH FURTHER AWAY THAN YOUR HORIZON.

This should be OBVIOUS with even a trivial sketch of the geometry in question.

There are also a lot of fairly high mountains that rise up over the land.

And if you add in even a MODICUM of refraction (which is called out in the article in question in the VERY next paragraph seeing a mountain peak from 300 miles away shouldn't be impossible:

That said I would like someone to PROVE to me they are seeing a seeing a mountain from 300 miles away -- from what exact latitude and longitude and which mountain are they seeing and what does it look like (a photograph perhaps)?

Give me those details and then we can see how things work out.

Until then we can only guess -- maybe it was really 280 miles away and not 300?  What actual observation backs up this claim?  We don't know, this is just some random statement, it's not a factual claim nor backed by any data at all.

But what I have shown here is that there ARE mountains over 14,400' high on Antarctica and it's POSSIBLE to see something 14,400' high from 300 miles away, given PLAUSIBLE conditions. Standard refraction is 14% -- I lowered it to 5% here for this example.  Even a small amount of refraction makes a big deal over 300 miles of atmosphere - 14% would lower obscured to under 10,000' making the tops of whole mountain ranges visible.

Saturday, May 13, 2017

Impossible Moon/Earth Images show NASA lies

Flat Earth Claim


I assume 'Nicholas' has some kind of issue with the scale of the Moon and Earth -- because I've seen this about 1000 times now.


Second of all -- that wasn't 1968 (not that it matters) but let's at least PRETEND to do some research if you are going to constantly tell everyone else to 'Do Your Research' (which is what Flat Earthers say when they can't actually respond to a point).

That image was from Apollo 11 - July 20, 1969 circa 04:00:15Z (frame AS11-44-6550, Apollo 11 Index, Apollo 11 Journal, -- and for fun: Apollo 17 Index, Apollo 17 Photography)

You can see here in Celestia where I wound back time to match the original and sure enough, there is Austraila, right where it should be.  It's amazing how accurate that 'fake ball math' is.  Celestia is Open Source dear Flat Earthers.

not too bad for FIVE MINUTES OF WORK.

Now, how about the perspective concern?

Well, EPIC (Earth Polychromatic Imaging Camera) resides in a tilted Lissajous orbit about the L‐1 point - which puts it about 1 million miles from Earth.  It has a Field of View of about 0.62 degrees, so it has a fairly long focal length.

So, a friendly ADVISORY notice to my Flat Earther friends.

This guy is NOT literally crushing your head with his giant hand.

When the hand is CLOSE to the camera it only SEEMS bigger than more distant objects.

When the moon is CLOSE to the camera it only SEEMS bigger than more distant Earth.

Ok, But WHERE is South America

Oh shoot, you got me fur sure this time!

Gosh, maybe study some geography?  It's not where you drew that big circle, that's for sure!

Literally 15 seconds on my phone shows that would be under those clouds and barely visible:

But let's do a little better than that for the blog post.

This is why Flat Earthers fail over and over and over again -- they leap to conclusions not supported by the data and they don't bother to stop and think before yelling "100% PROOF, ABSOLUTELY CONFIRMED FLAT".

It's a national embarrassment.

Friday, May 12, 2017

Perspective Explained For Flat Earthers

At the core of perspective is a very simple mapping of a 3D point [x, y, z] into 2D [x/z, y/z] by dividing the x and y parameters by z.

For full 3D rendering you would need additional matrices for rotation about each axis and translation but if we already have the scene aligned where we want it then this is the essence of the process. We can see what happens just mapping a few points into 3D.

Let's orient our 3D space like so:

x-axis = left(-)/right(+)
y-axis = up(-)/down(+)
z-axis = behind(-)/forward(+)
viewer is [x=0, y=0, z=0]

Astute readers should recognize this as a slope (rise/run) and you can picture it as projecting the point onto the plane at z=1 by finding where a line from the observer to each point intersects the z=1 plane.

Or in 3 dimensions with x/z and y/z slopes:

From this it is easy to see a more distant line would look progressively smaller in our field of view with an increase distance (z).

Consider a line from [0, 0, 1] (which just maps to 0,0 on our 2D grid because it's directly along our line of vision) to [0, -1, 1]  It is trivial to see that this line would be 1 unit high.  And then if we simply move it out to z=2 it becomes 1/2 unit high, and at z=4 it becomes 1/4 unit high.

[0, -1, 1] -> [0, -1]

[0, -1, 2] -> [0, -0.5]

[0, -1, 4] -> [0, -0.25]

Indeed,  we can see from this that each time we double our distance we cut the apparent size in half.

This is the 'Law of Perspective' that Flat Earthers go on about without understanding it.

We can also see from this that if a flat and level surface like the water were actually flat it could NEVER hide the bottoms of buildings and mountains as we observe with increased distance which we see over...  Because x=0, y=0 is along our line of vision and a positive y divided by a positive z will NEVER become a negative y value, so it would not be possible for it to block our line of sight towards any distant point above that line of vision.

And we see the impact of curvature over...

and over...

and over...

and over...

and over...

and over...

and over...


Flat Earthers claim zoom will magically bring this back we can see here that zoom does nothing to bring back the bottoms of the buildings which are over the horizon.  And I've shown above that this cannot be explained away as perspective because that isn't how perspective works.

But does Zoom actually work?

No, it very clearly doesn't.

What Flat Earthers have done is confused a ship being too small for their eye or some camera to RESOLVE with the ship actually going over the horizon.  For example, this video shows a boat that is very near the horizon line but NOT appreciably past the horizon line.

And they claim this is "100% proof" - it's just absurd levels of Dunning-Kruger on display in the Flat Earth community.  They also usually ignore the fact that since their camera lens isn't half-way under the water the 'drop' calculation alone tells you nothing.  You have to know the exact distance, and you have to take into account the elevation of the observer, and you have to account for the refraction of the air at that time to get a good estimate for distance to the horizon.

Unless you get down pretty low to the ground and have an extremely clear day it's very hard to verify that the ship is, in fact, going over the horizon.  You can see this series here the water level is rising as we scale and align the same point on the ship.  Now this COULD be refraction - I can't 'prove' it with this image series because the effect size here is too small.  But you cannot miss it when 2/3 of the mountain is missing as I showed in the series above.


From Andrew T Young's papers on Ray Bending and Refraction we know that the ray curvature on the Earth is about 15% of Earth's curvature in a normal atmosphere.

In free convection, the (adiabatic) lapse rate is about 10.6°/km or γ = 0.0106 K/m. The numerator of the formula above becomes .034 − .0106 = .0234, so the ratio k is about 1/6.6 or 0.152. In other words, the ray curvature is about 15% that of the Earth; the radius of curvature of the ray is about 6.6 times the Earth's radius. This is close to the condition of the atmosphere near the ground in the middle of the day, when most surveying is done; the value calculated is close to the values found in practical survey work.

This is also right around the value used for surveying adjustments when proper optical methods cannot be used (surveying both directions, under the same conditions, will help negate out both refraction and Earth curvature, this is called Reciprocal Leveling).

Image Credit:

However, despite the name 'Standard Refraction', we rarely encounter exactly such ideal conditions, as any text on Geodesy will affirm.  Without exact data about the atmosphere at the time of observation, the best we can do is approximate it.

That's why my horizon calculator allows you to enter refraction.


In the worst cases I find that about 15% refraction is sufficient to account for observations - and only rarely is that much needed,  Meanwhile, Flat Earthers fail to account for 100% of the missing mountains - they falsely appeal to 'Perspective' as the answer but they are unable to explain how it manages to do this (and I have shown here that it cannot).

I appeal to refraction for the small amount of difference between a pure sphere and the reality of what we see on Earth.  If we didn't know it was refraction we would think the Earth was about 15% larger than it is -- but we KNOW that is wrong because we know how to measure it more carefully than these gross observations made by Flat Earthers.