# Lifestyles & Discussion > Science & Technology >  The Best Flat Earth Documentary by Eric Dubay 6 hours 13 minutes

## Jim Casey

This was just posted on youtube.  The foremost flat earth researcher, Eric Dubay, has covered all the angles on the flat earth model.  If nothing else, you can at least enjoy the rap song at the beginning of the documentary.  I'm 27 minutes into the video so far.  



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhRiLP32qfs

The flat earth awakening continues, now over 7,400,000 youtube search results for flat earth.  I bet flat earth youtube search results will surpass Pokémon youtube search results by the year 2020.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

Bookmarked. Could be interesting.

----------


## Suzanimal

oblate spheroid

----------


## Origanalist

> oblate spheroid


Sure, that's what they want you to think.

----------


## Suzanimal

> Sure, that's what they want you to think.


I read it on the internet - on this website (H/T AF). It must be true.

----------


## TheTexan

> oblate spheroid


Source ?

----------


## TheTexan

The Earth being flat is pretty obvious when you think about it.  It's surprising it's taken us this long to figure this out.

----------


## jllundqu

Hate to piss on people's cheerios, but physics explains just about everything... I don't know about the pushers of this flat earth crap, but I know physics.  And Mass and Gravity are funny things... Center of Gravity is a simple phenomenon to understand.  That's why you are able to stand up straight no matter where you are on the planet:



If we were on a flat plane (or even oblate spheroid lmao)... gravity would vary depending on where you were standing in relation to the center of the plane.  People dropping apples in Australia don't see them flying sideways... pretty sure they fall down no matter where you are.



Won't spend much more time on this but I amazes me people still consider this plausible or even probable.  I can see with my telescope all the spheres of our local system... physics work folks.  And I believe we flew to the moon and back.  There's a billion other ways to debunk this silliness but I won't waste anymore of your time.

And NO I'm not going to waste 6 hours of my life watching a crackpot try to convince me that what humans have known for millennia is not true...

----------


## jllundqu

> First, a brief tour of the worldview of a flat-earther: While writing off buckets of concrete evidence that Earth is spherical, they readily accept a laundry list of propositions that some would call ludicrous. *The leading flat-earther theory holds that Earth is a disc with the Arctic Circle in the center and Antarctica, a 150-foot-tall wall of ice, around the rim. NASA employees, they say, guard this ice wall to prevent people from climbing over and falling off the disc. Earth's day and night cycle is explained by positing that the sun and moon are spheres measuring 32 miles (51 kilometers) that move in circles 3,000 miles (4,828 km) above the plane of the Earth. (Stars, they say, move in a plane 3,100 miles up.) Like spotlights, these celestial spheres illuminate different portions of the planet in a 24-hour cycle. Flat-earthers believe there must also be an invisible "antimoon" that obscures the moon during lunar eclipses*.
> 
> Furthermore, *Earth's gravity is an illusion*, they say. Objects do not accelerate downward; instead, the disc of Earth accelerates upward at 32 feet per second squared (9.8 meters per second squared), driven up by a mysterious force called dark energy. Currently, there is disagreement among flat-earthers about whether or not Einstein's theory of relativity permits Earth to accelerate upward indefinitely without the planet eventually surpassing the speed of light. (Einstein's laws apparently still hold in this alternate version of reality.)
> 
> As for what lies underneath the disc of Earth, this is unknown, but most flat-earthers believe it is composed of "rocks." [Religion and Science: 6 Visions of Earth's Core]
> 
> Then, there's the conspiracy theory: Flat-earthers believe photos of the globe are photoshopped; GPS devices are rigged to make airplane pilots think they are flying in straight lines around a sphere when they are actually flying in circles above a disc. The motive for world governments' concealment of the true shape of the Earth has not been ascertained, but flat-earthers believe it is probably financial. "In a nutshell, it would logically cost much less to fake a space program than to actually have one, so those in on the Conspiracy profit from the funding NASA and other space agencies receive from the government," the flat-earther website's FAQ page explains.
> 
> It's no joke
> ...


lol

----------


## Zippyjuan

Only six hours?  Better to go for the Ring Trilogy.  Wager- not Tolkien. Though that could be entertaining as well.

----------


## TheTexan

> Won't spend much more time on this but I amazes me people still consider this plausible or even probable.  I can see with my telescope all the spheres of our local system... physics work folks.  And I believe we flew to the moon and back.  There's a billion other ways to debunk this silliness but I won't waste anymore of your time.


I'd be the first to admit, there is at least some evidence to support the round-earth theory.  But at the end of the day, it is, just a theory

----------


## Suzanimal



----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Only six hours?  Better to go for the Ring Trilogy.  Wager- not Tolkien


It's not a trilogy -- it's a tetrad.

----------


## Danke

If the earth was round, how would a bidet work?

----------


## Suzanimal

> If the earth was round, how would a bidet work?


The bidet works because your ass is curved, too. It's science.

----------


## Danke

> The bidet works because your ass is curved, too. It's science.


Then How does it work on your flat ass?

----------


## Suzanimal

> Then How does it work on your flat ass?


It doesn't. I still have to buy tp.

----------


## Jamesiv1

This is an interesting question:



```
If the Earth is spinning at 1,000 mph as it revolves around the Sun at 66,600 mph while the Sun shoots through space at 450,000 mph... Why haven't the constellations changed in thousands of years?
```

And this:





```
Polaris, the North Pole star remains perfectly fixed in place night after night, year after year, century after century.....
```

----------


## jllundqu

> This is an interesting question:
> 
> 
> 
> ```
> If the Earth is spinning at 1,000 mph as it revolves around the Sun at 66,600 mph while the Sun shoots through space at 450,000 mph... Why haven't the constellations changed in thousands of years?
> ```
> 
> And this:
> ...


Read up on your Einstein... one word.... relativity.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> Read up on your Einstein... one word.... relativity.


How about you explain it in terms an 8-year old can understand.

Because you can't...?

As Ronin Truth [RIP] used to say... Over-complexity is the art of the con.



edit: I'll cut you a little slack - let's make it 12-year old.

----------


## Danke

> It doesn't. I still have to buy tp.


Which brings up a curious question. How does the blind man know when to stop wiping?

----------


## Suzanimal

> Which brings up a curious question. How does the blind man know when to stop wiping?


I dunno. When his finger goes up his butt hole?

----------


## Danke

> How about you explain it in terms an 8-year old can understand.
> 
> Because you can't...?
> 
> As Ronin Truth used to say [RIP]... Over-complexity is the art of the con.
> 
> 
> 
> edit: I'll cut you a little slack - let's make it 12-year old.


I predicted that response.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> I predicted that response.


I predicted your prediction.

----------


## Danke

> I dunno. When his finger goes up his butt hole?


Or maybe when the toilet paper doesn't taste like s**t anymore

----------


## Danke

> I predicted your prediction.


I predicted that response.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> I predicted that response.


Back in the summer of '79, I actually had a vision of you typing that.

----------


## Danke

> Back in the summer of '79, I actually had a vision of you typing that.


I knew that.

----------


## Suzanimal

> Or maybe when the toilet paper doesn't taste like s**t anymore


- rep

----------


## jllundqu

> How about you explain it in terms an 8-year old can understand.
> 
> Because you can't...?
> 
> As Ronin Truth [RIP] used to say... Over-complexity is the art of the con.
> 
> 
> 
> edit: I'll cut you a little slack - let's make it 12-year old.


Here.... I'll make it really freaking simple (say a five year old because that's the apparent level of critical thinking in this thread)

http://www.theatlantic.com/technolog...is-way/382721/




> At some point as children, many people learn to identify one or two star patterns: The Big Dipper, Scorpius, Orion’s Belt. As adults, they see those same shapes again, the star patterns seeming distant and eternal. So it’s easy to forget that the seemingly immutable shapes in the sky are,* in fact, always changing. Stars haven’t always been in the position in the sky as they are now, nor will they be in that position forever.*
> At a recent hackathon at the American Museum of Natural History, one team made an app to remind us of that fact. Using Space Time, users can travel forward and back in time (using a little Delorian slider) to see how the stars, and their corresponding constellations, transform throughout the years.
> 
> Not only does Space Time reveal that in the *1800s B.C., when the Babylonians were first developing the star charts that the Greeks later adopted and passed down to us, the stars were in slightly different places. And when anatomically modern humans arose in the form of **** sapiens 200,000 years ago, the stars were in vastly different places. Should we humans manage to not destroy ourselves in the coming 200,000 years, our ancestors will look up into the sky and see not a scorpion and a bear, but a totally different arrangement of stars. The constellations we see today (which already, if we’re honest, don’t actually look like bears or scorpions or any of those things) will be even harder to identify.*
> 
> Jana Grcevich, a post-doctoral researcher in astrophysics at the museum who worked with the team to develop the app, says that the projections have some limitations. “Each star has a complicated orbit within our galaxy that we're approximating as a straight line through space from the perspective of a viewer on earth,” Grcevich told me in an email. “Many stars don't orbit nicely around the center of galaxy in an ellipse, some have crazy spirograph orbits that take them out of the plane and alter how far they are from the center of the galaxy.” And the app shows the stars moving on a single plane, but in reality they’re actually moving in three dimensions. And, of course, the way people see stars when they simply look up isn’t quite the same as what astronomers see when they look through their telescopes.
> 
> All that said, Grcevich still thinks the app is showing interesting and useful data. “Despite all my caveats, you can definitely get a sense for how the constellations will change shape over time with the app,” she said, “and I think ancient Egyptians or even the first modern humans could recognize the sky we plot, if you taught them to use a computer.”


http://earthsky.org/astronomy-essent...-star-movement




> What’s more, the star we know as Polaris hasn’t been the only North Star.
> 
> *A motion of Earth called precession causes our axis to trace out an imaginary circle on the celestial sphere every 26,000 years. Thousands of years ago, when the pyramids were rising from the sands of ancient Egypt, the North Star was an inconspicuous star called Thuban in the constellation Draco the Dragon. Twelve thousand years from now, the blue-white star Vega in the constellation Lyra will be a much brighter North Star than our current Polaris.* 
> 
> Polaris could be a name for any North Star. Our current Polaris used to be called Phoenice.
> 
> By the way, Polaris – like all stars – has more than one kind of motion. *The stars we see in our night sky are all members of our Milky Way galaxy. All of these stars are moving through space, but they’re so far away we can’t easily see them move relative to each other. That’s why the stars appear fixed relative to each other. And it’s why, for the most part, we see the same constellations as our ancestors. So when you’re talking about stars “moving” or staying “fixed,” remember … they are all moving through the vastness of space. It’s just the relatively short time of a human lifespan that prevents us from seeing this grand motion*.

----------


## Danke

> - rep


(Mod edit)

----------


## timosman

> Hate to piss on people's cheerios, but physics explains just about everything... I don't know about the pushers of this flat earth crap, but I know physics.  And Mass and Gravity are funny things... Center of Gravity is a simple phenomenon to understand.  That's why you are able to stand up straight no matter where you are on the planet:


So how does gravity work? Have we discovered the graviton yet? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Hate to piss on people's cheerios, but physics explains just about everything... I don't know about the pushers of this flat earth crap, but I know physics.  And Mass and Gravity are funny things... Center of Gravity is a simple phenomenon to understand.  That's why you are able to stand up straight no matter where you are on the planet:
> 
> 
> 
> If we were on a flat plane (or even oblate spheroid lmao)... gravity would vary depending on where you were standing in relation to the center of the plane.  People dropping apples in Australia don't see them flying sideways... pretty sure they fall down no matter where you are.
> 
> 
> 
> Won't spend much more time on this but I amazes me people still consider this plausible or even probable.  I can see with my telescope all the spheres of our local system... physics work folks.  And I believe we flew to the moon and back.  There's a billion other ways to debunk this silliness but I won't waste anymore of your time.
> ...


We flew to the Moon thousands of years ago.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> How about you explain it in terms an 8-year old can understand.
> 
> Because you can't...?
> 
> As Ronin Truth [RIP] used to say... Over-complexity is the art of the con.
> 
> 
> 
> edit: I'll cut you a little slack - let's make it 12-year old.


Ronin Truth died?

----------


## dannno

> Ronin Truth died?


Banned

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

> We flew to the Moon thousands of years ago.


"We"?  Do you have a mouse in your pocket??

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Banned


Really? Too bad.  He kept things interesting.  Temporary? (I missed that thread on him!)

----------


## angelatc

> How about you explain it in terms an 8-year old can understand.
> 
> Because you can't...?
> 
> As Ronin Truth [RIP] used to say... Over-complexity is the art of the con.
> 
> 
> 
> edit: I'll cut you a little slack - let's make it 12-year old.


http://ns.umich.edu/Releases/1997/Jul97/chr071697b.html




> Thuban was the North Star 4,800 years ago at the time of the 'Old Kingdom' in Egypta period when most of the pyramids were built," Teske said. "The exact pole has crept from Thuban to its present position near Polaris and now is headed toward gamma Cephei, which will be the North Star in about 2,000 years.

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

> http://ns.umich.edu/Releases/1997/Jul97/chr071697b.html


Yeah, these types of reads are interesting but they always cause me to ponder "how can they know where the North pole was pointing 12k years ago"?  These types of papers are "educated guesses" and they have a good probability to be correct but they are always presented as "fact" because some egghead wrote it.  Really folks, how does anyone know where the poles pointed even 5k years ago??  There are no records that far back and orbital simulation is only so accurate and does not take into account a possible close call from an asteroid or such.  And yet the "tone" of all these papers is "THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED".

----------


## Jim Casey

Eric Dubay posted this 2 minute flat earth explanation video no more than 4 days ago.

----------


## Danke

How do flat earthers explain this:

----------


## oyarde

> How do flat earthers explain this:


No flat earther can explain it .

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Banned


Oh thanks.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> "We"?  Do you have a mouse in your pocket??


We as in humans.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Yeah, these types of reads are interesting but they always cause me to ponder "how can they know where the North pole was pointing 12k years ago"?  These types of papers are "educated guesses" and they have a good probability to be correct but they are always presented as "fact" because some egghead wrote it.  Really folks, how does anyone know where the poles pointed even 5k years ago??  There are no records that far back and orbital simulation is only so accurate and does not take into account a possible close call from an asteroid or such.  And yet the "tone" of all these papers is "THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED".


I've always hated that. We dont know if the Earth is really 4.5 billion years old, since there isn't anyone who has lived and recorded that much history. We don't know exaclt how far away stars and planets are, since we can't travel there to measure the distance.

----------


## BamaAla

> How do flat earthers explain this:


I'd watch a six hour video of that!

----------


## Chester Copperpot

this looks like a bunch of crap..of coure constellations have changed in thousands of years....

----------


## puppetmaster

> Or maybe when the toilet paper doesn't taste like s**t anymore


 winner

----------


## Origanalist

> How do flat earthers explain this:


If you went to the edge you would fall off.

----------


## BamaAla

> If you went to the edge you would fall off.



Much like flat earth, the best location is right in the middle.

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

> We as in humans.


And you are "their" spokesman?

----------


## Danke



----------


## TheTexan

> Eric Dubay posted this 2 minute flat earth explanation video no more than 4 days ago.


It's hard to believe, that in this day & age, of science, internet, and technology, that this really even needs to be explained anymore.  I mean it should be common sense at this point.  People need to wake up and open their eyes, and only then can we start exploring the vast unexplored expanses of antarctica that they're trying to hide from us currently

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> And you are "their" spokesman?

----------


## Jim Casey

> How do flat earthers explain this:


Silly string theory.  Are you ready for more?

----------

