this is another episode of the Flat
Earth conference debunked you will
notice that flat earthers really only
have one argument for their Flat Earth
belief. "it looks flat'. that's it that's
all they have they do not actually have
a working Flat Earth model that explains
any real observations passes any tests
or makes any accurate predictions they
don't even have a working map so instead
of actually trying to prove their belief
they usually resort to trying to poke
holes in the scientific evidence for the
spherical earth and the heliocentric
model as you're about to see at the
recent conference a group of flat
earthers that call themselves the globe
busters tried to bust many scientific
facts in this episode I will cover their
claims about the moon will their claims
hold up to scrutiny or will it just be
more lunacy some of the incongruencies
that we have additional incongruencies I should say with the
heliocentric model would be first up
would be the moon okay
we're told in the heliocentric model
that the moon is basically reflecting
the light from the Sun and it goes
through different phases and you know
depending on what angle it is to the Sun
that's what we get our different phases
throughout the month but the one thing
that I want to focus on primarily is
what happens on a full moon now we've
all seen a full moon we've seen the
Harvest Moon we've seen a gigantic we've
seen on all different sides we've seen
many photographs of it and when the moon
is full it is absolutely brilliantly
bright and it is lit evenly well pretty
much evenly from the center to the edges
and in fact really the edges seem to be
a little bit brighter for the most part
at least and most of the moon
photography that I've done but what you
really need to do is you need to think
about that for a minute
it's like if you were to take a
flashlight and you were to point it at a
basketball or any type of a ball what
would you see well what you would see
you would see at the front of the ball
the sphere something like we're showing
right here you would see a hot spot okay
the very brightest part would be right
in the center and beyond that you would
see a diminishing light going back
towards the equatorial region okay we
never see that with the moon and that is
a huge incongruence the lighting of the
moon simply cannot be caused by
reflecting sunlight it just makes
absolutely no sense there is no law of
physics that explains that and that is a
huge incongruity currency so so Bob
knodel wants us to point a flashlight at
a basketball to test what the sunlit
full moon should look like but he
doesn't show us a basketball he shows us
this 3d rendering of a smooth shiny ball
so let's look at a basketball in bright
direct lighting it is a bit brighter in
the center and darker toward the edges
but much less though than his digital
ball basketballs have somewhat shiny
surfaces so they do show some variation
in the lighting across the surface and
even a bit of a hot spot depending on
the ball's surface and the lighting but
the surface of the Moon is not like the
surface of a basketball there is more to
consider than just the shape of an
object reflecting the light when
determining what it will look like we
have to look at two other things its
smoothness and its reflectivity a very
smooth surface as seen on these billiard
balls reflects light at steep angles
back to the source of light resulting in
a bright hot spot and it gets darker
toward the edges this is called specular
reflection more commonly we would just
call it shiny and in case you're not
sure what that is here are two other
examples of dense objects exhibiting
some shiny specular reflection but
rougher surfaces reflect light
differently as they tend to scatter the
light in all directions like these
unpolished stone balls
this is called diffuse reflection you
can see there is no hot spot and almost
no darkening toward the edges this is
more like the moon it is not smooth and
shiny the moon is covered by a powdery
dirt called regolith which reflects the
light very diffusely in fact the moon's
regolith is so diffusely reflecting it
is described as Lambertian which means
you see very close to the same amount of
light no matter at what angle you view
the surface so this explains why you
don't see variation of brightness from
the center to the edges and the moon
appears as if it were a flat disc and
additionally the moon has very low
reflectivity the moon is actually quite
dark in color an object's color and
texture affects its albedo which is a
measure of how much light it reflects
the albedo of the moon is actually quite
low
it is only 0.12 meaning that it only
reflects about 12% of the light that it
receives this is about the same albedo
as old asphalt or dark wet soil in
contrast the earth averages an albedo of
0.37 which is about three times brighter
with such a low albedo any subtle
variation in light reflectivity of the
moon due to the varying viewing angle
between the center and the edges becomes
even harder to see so once again flat
earthers fail because they are willfully
ignorant of science leading them to have
incorrect expectations and as you're
about to see their Flat Earth belief is
so poorly defined and it is so useless
for explaining any observations that
they cannot even agree with each other
about the most basic facts I would still
argue you know not to be the not to be
like a devil's advocate but I would
argue that moonlight being reflected
sunlight may off may actually be the
case I mean it's not incompatible with
the notion of a Flat Earth but I mean it
does bring up a good point
although you know in reflected light
there could be some of that energy
absorbed by the moon and other you know
frequencies of that energy reflected but
just wanted to mention that because that
is a point of contention for a lot of
people or at least when people say that
you know the moon light couldn't pause
and this goes all the way back to is
attended from the 1860s even robots have
argued that moonlight couldn't possibly
be reflected sunlight because you know
it's a cooling light it has future
frying effects as opposed to you know
moonlight has future frying effects
where sunlight has preserved a
preservative effect so there are
different properties between sunlight
and moonlight but I don't think I think
it is a bit of a leap to say that
therefore you know moonlight couldn't
possibly be reflected sunlight because
there to me at least there is a lot of
evidence that the moon's phases are
somehow correlated to its relationship
position to the Sun but yeah my sense
yeah and you'll find that you know
obviously straight up I disagree with
that but that's okay because and you'll
find that there's a lot of a lot of
thought and conjecture about you know
the nature of things and amongst flat
earthers and that's you know mostly
because we don't have a fifty-two
million dollar a day budget to to go on
research on this so what we're
presenting to you today at least in our
opinions is common sense and in my mind
common sense tells me that that if I
shine a light on a ball it's going to
have a hot spot and it's going to
diminish back towards the back now a lot
of other flat-earthers have said that
the moon is a self lighting source and
if you want to look at that biblically
you know that god created the two great
lights in the sky he doesn't say
anything about the moon reflecting the
sunlight or anything like that they're
supposedly their own individual lights
so there's obviously several different
perspectives on it and that's why you
will not always get to flat earthers
agreeing on the same model
I love to listen to to flat-earthers
argue about who is more wrong John the
more guile and this is the first time
I've ever said this about him is right
that the moon reflects sunlight of
course it does
reflected light of the Sun perfectly
explains all moon observations
particularly the phases and the idea of
the moon generating its own light is
patently absurd there is no mechanism
that could possibly cause the moon to
self generate the phases in sync with
the sun's position while leaving shadows
in the craters but he's also wrong when
he says it is not incompatible with the
Flat Earth of course it is there is no
possible positioning of the Sun Moon and
an observer that could even result in a
full moon on a flat earth think about it
a full moon requires viewing the moon
from very nearly the direction of the
Sun but that is impossible on a flat
earth if the moon were only a few
thousand miles above the surface and
only a few thousand miles away as they
claim then you would never view it at an
angle that is close enough to the light
source for it to look full and that
angle would drastically change
throughout the night as the Moon moves
overhead and furthermore if you could
see a full moon in the northern
hemisphere on a flat earth then the moon
would be close to a new moon phase at
the same time when viewed from the
southern hemisphere on the other side of
the Flat Earth since you would be
looking at it from the other side but of
course we never see that the moon is
seen in the same phase in all locations
on the earth in the same day so they
both are demonstrably wrong in different
ways in fact observations of the moon
are devastating to the idea of a flat
earth as I've explained before which is
why they desperately try to refute it
and anyone can make these observations
ok so next thing up that that I want to
talk about is eclipses I think are a
problem
one of the biggest arguments that we get
from globe believers is you know how do
eclipses work on a flat earth well there
are several schools of thought on that
but I think what we want to start out
with first is looking at why the
heliocentric Eclipse model is
unrealistic okay
and if you look at this diagram here
basically what it's showing is it's
showing the sunlight coming in at
straight lines you know to the moon but
yet the shadow is focused down to a very
small point okay now last year I think
was August of last year then we had the
solar eclipse myself and my family we
all went to Nebraska to see the Sun
eclipse in its totality and one of the
interesting things that they told us
that was predicted and verified by us
with our balloon that we launched was
that the Umbra would be about 70 miles
and if you don't know what the Umbra is
that's the part of essentially totality
the very darkest part then they're
supposed to be what's called a penumbra
which is kind of a Twilight Zone but we
never really actually witnessed a
penumbra we saw a shadow of a number ax
and then back to daylight okay knodel's
shows he doesn't understand why the shed
of the moon during a solar eclipse is
smaller than the moon he doesn't even
understand the illustration he is using
this is because he leaves out a critical
fact the size of the light source the
Sun is about 400 times bigger than the
moon so let me illustrate why that
results in a small shadow the sunlight
is not just a single beam of light going
in one direction like a laser beam you
have to realize that every part of the
Sun generates light that beams out in
every direction so picture each spot on
the Sun sweeping out a wide swath of
light not just a single beam toward the
moon and Earth during a lunar eclipse
the light from each part of the Sun is
blocked by the moon at a slightly
different angle
as illustrated in this animation which
of course is not to scale but
illustrates the concept you can see that
because of the different angles of the
light coming from different parts of the
Sun the net result is a cone-shaped
shadow the Umbra between the moon and
the earth in which none of the sunlight
can directly get to and this also
explains why there is a pen Umbra which
is a region which is blocked from some
of the direct sunlight but not all of it
by the way I watched last year solar
eclipse in person also and I definitely
experienced the penumbra from the time
the moon starts to partially block the
Sun from our perspective you are in the
penumbra and the sky gradually gets
darker during that time as the Umbra
gets closer and more of the Sun is
blocked I really don't know what knodel
was expecting to see but it was obvious
to me and the other people around me but
the interesting thing about that is if
the moon is only casting a 70 mile wide
shadow on the earth then you know the
logical thought would would make you
wonder well if you turn that around and
we're looking at a lunar eclipse where
the the earth is supposedly blocking the
sunlight from the moon then you you
would expect to see something on the
order of about four times that size it's
a little bit less than that of a shadow
on the moon Wow no that is not how it
works you cannot just multiply the moon
shadow by four to get to the size of the
Earth's shadow that is a gross
oversimplification yes it's true that
the earth is about four times bigger
than the moon and the distances involved
of course are about the same in solar
and lunar eclipses but the angles are
different the relative sizes of the Sun
and earth and the relative sizes of the
Sun and Moon are very different so the
angles of the sunlight are very
different his so-called common sense
analysis ignores the angular differences
the Earth's shadow when it reaches the
moon and a lunar eclipse is exactly as
predicted by the distances sizes and
angles involved
this unique composite image of a recent
lunar eclipse shows the size of the
whole shadow relative to the moon
sorry nodal but your common sense is not
good enough for science you have to look
with better eyes than that understand
the geometry and sometimes you have to
do the math
the the Globers will tell you well the
mathematics all works out for but
they're basing that that math on these
type of angles which are absolutely
unrealistic this is not how shadows are
cast astoundingly knodel admits that the
math works out but he prefers to go with
his flawed intuition instead I have
rarely seen a more blatant admission
from a flat earther that they are not
doing science but rather they are trying
to support a belief system by attacking
science yes the math works out when you
understand it and you get the distances
sizes and angles correct in fact most of
the time we all see if you have a light
source and we're casting a shadow I'm
seeing my shadow now the shadow is
typically bigger than the object that's
casting it again when the light source
is bigger than the object the shadow can
be smaller than the object they just
have never tried it but I did and it's
easy to do
I used this photography light and a
small plate you can see I drew the
outline of the plate on this paper and
as I move the plate away the dark part
of the shadow the Umbra is definitely
smaller than the plate you can easily
try this yourself you just need a light
bigger than the object casting the
shadow so again this explains why the
moon shadow during a solar eclipse is
smaller than the moon
but there's been a few times where
during solar eclipses the shadow of the
moon on the earth was less than two
miles in diameter which really begs the
question you know how is an object
that's supposedly what is it a thousand
miles they say in diameter or radius or
whatever for the moon how is it possible
for an object that large to cast a
shadow that's only two or even fifty or
seventy miles in diameter yes this is
true the size of the moon shadow does
vary a lot in different eclipses because
the moon's orbit is not circular but
elliptical so the varying distances
result in varying shadow sizes in fact
when a solar eclipse occurs when the
moon is near its farthest distance from
the earth called apogee the umbra does
not even reach the earth and therefore
we see an annular eclipse instead of a
total eclipse in which the moon does not
entirely block our view of the Sun again
when you include all the facts
it works and let's not forget they have
no explanation for any of this I took
this quote directly from from Wikipedia
and of course like you said so that the
selenelion eclipse
that's hard to say for me eclipses occur
when both the Sun and the moon are above
the horizon in the sky they're rare but
they absolutely do happen so the
mainstream explanation from Wikipedia
tells us that they say although the moon
is in Earth's Umbra both the Sun and
eclipsed moon can sight can be
simultaneously seen because atmospheric
refraction causes each body to appear
higher in the sky than their true
geometric positions and to that I say BS
alert
yes that is absolutely
preposterous that there is no way that
you would get that type of refraction
especially looking up you know up in the
sky
there's just nothing about that that
makes any sense and again you have to
research a little bit into atmospheric
refraction to understand why that is
absolutely impossible
whenever flat-earthers bring up the
selenelion eclipse in which both the
Sun and Moon can be seen at the same
time above the horizon during the
Eclipse they always leave out a critical
fact are you starting to notice a
pattern here they leave out that it only
occurs for about two to nine minutes
before the Sun or moon sets and only if
you are viewing from just the right
location
indeed it is caused by atmospheric
refraction both the Sun and Moon are
just above the horizon when this occurs
so the light is travelling through the
atmosphere at a very low angle which is
well known to frequently cause
refraction effects knodel says it cannot
happen when looking up at the moon but
you wouldn't be looking up you would be
looking just above the horizon and the
refraction allows both the Sun and Moon
to momentarily be visible at the same
time
okay there is more of this but I think
I've covered enough for one video the
most astounding thing to me is that this
team of globe busters really admit that
they do not have a working model that
explains any moon observations and yet
they are sure the heliocentric globe
model is false no there is only one way
to debunk science and that is with
better science I think I have
conclusively shown that that is not what
they are doing thanks for watching
please check out these other Flat Earth
debunking videos and remember to Like
share and subscribe
