They don’t doubt a 24-hour Sun in Summer in the North Pole. They don’t even believe in a South Pole, let alone 24-hours of sunlight that somehow wraps around the outer edges of a circle leaving a cone of darkness on the North Pole.
You sure about that? It’s not what I’m reading:
While most of the Flat Earthers didn’t consider the experience definitive proof that the Earth is spherical, they accepted the existence of the 24-hour Sun in Antarctica – a phenomenon that poses significant challenges for most of their flat Earth theories.
Ah thanks for the correction. My understanding was based on a couple of comments from Will in his videos, but I should have checked from the horse(shit)'s mouths.
I think Will has been a bit naive with this if he thought this would genuinely settle things. He says repeatedly that we will be able to “move on” from the “debate” about the shape of the earth. But of course there is no real debate because the evidence of a round earth has been definitively shown in hundreds of ways over thousands of years.
Not to be too critical of him. I have no reason not to think he has taken considerable personal cost and risk for the right motives.
Creaky often runs a segment of the flat earthers saying a 24 hour sun at the South Pole is impossible in a flat earth model. They all seem to have put this statement in the memory hole. Even before the FE proved it, since they certainly knew they were wrong.
Grifters the lot of them.
Watch this. Does this person believe what they are saying? It’s hard to tell. If you are 3 years old, it would make sense, so it’s not completely impossible. But he’s not 3 years old.
h**ps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1D7KLW69ucI
While we’re posting examples, note that there was recently a “debate” on whether flat earth was now untenable following the final experiment (as if it were still tenable before).
I would tend to believe that Brian is a true believer, as I can’t fathom anyone putting this much energy into trolling.
He basically comes across like one of those videos where someone is stopped for a routine traffic violation but is freaking out so much and not listening, and so yell their way into jail.
I’d recommend just watching a few minutes somewhere in the middle. It’s in no way an enjoyable watch because mctoon can’t get his words out and has to give up trying to explain anything.
I obect to what the mainstream flat earthers say.
In reality, the Antarctic, not the Artic, is the centre of the world.
It is even a continent! The “north” just has ice! Piled up in the sea all around the rim.
Enough of this borealean chauvenism.
You know the earth is 71% water that’s uncarbonated.
That is accurate.
So, technically flat!
71% flat. The rest is … something else.
So very, very much of the FE point of view is N. hemisphere centric.
E.g., why is always the Australians that are mysteriously not “falling off” the round Earth? Why aren’t people in Canada falling off?
Take the constellation Octans. The southern equivalent of Ursa Minor. The south celestial pole is within it. You know, the point directly over the south pole. A point that doesn’t exist in the common FE model.
(Unfortunately it’s made up of dim stars and is not nearly as impressive as the northern version.)
So what is Octans over? And why does it obviously rotate around a point “down there”? Why can people in South Africa and Argentina, for example, be able to see it at different rotational angles at the same time? (Never mind the usual elevation above the horizon issue.) And on and on.
The FE maps I usually see have a very stretched out southern temperate zone. Australia is quite stretched out E-W. Which must be really surprising to people who drive the Australian National Highway near the southern coast who’s odometers and gas usage don’t at all correspond to the FE maps. And that extra wide Indian Ocean must be a real headache to the regularly scheduled airline flights between SA and Australia. How do they hide the fact that they are flying at supersonic speeds and burning a ton more fuel to make their arrival time from everybody?
I know the answer to this one. High tail winds. Both ways. And some say the flights between Santiago and Sydney don’t really exist, to the amusement of those who have been on them.
If you climb to 90,000 feet and snap a pic, it will clearly show Earth curvature?
It will show a circular horizon, but the sea horizon is always a circle, from whatever altitude. So your picture shows a part of a circle – a flat circular disc, says the flat-Earther. Looking at the picture, how do you convince him it’s not flat? Where in the pic is there a line that would be straight, on a flat earth, and is visibly curved in your pic from 90,000 ft?
What do you need to do to prove the Earth is flat than looking at the Chicago skyline across Lake Michigan. I mean, growing up in a very flat part of the country, it seemed pretty obvious to me that there was curvature.
Its obvious to any one with the slightest bit of curiosity that has ever traveled away from any tall thing and looked back at it, or watched a boat.
Instead of curiosity flat earthers have arrogance.
I assume that is is supposed to be an isn’t?
Reading that I can’t not conclude that you don’t follow the debate since Flerfs argue that seeing that skyline proves the Earth is flat.
When it comes to the flat earth debates, I only see posts that I block on Facebook. I’ve seen the skyline of Chicago from across Lake Michigan mentioned in these posts before I block them. I’ve seen the skyline of Chicago from across Lake Michigan. And I’ve seen the skyline of Chicago from across Lake Michigan from approximately the same location from a few stories up. I don’t know if anyone could view that and say, honestly, that the Earth is flat because it’s flat out obvious that it isn’t.
And we haven’t even started talking about whether or not you can see the skyline from further up the coast.
Kind of like ancient sea farers with their crows’ nests. They knew that the earth wasn’t flat because the only way to explain how a crows nest works is if there is curvature.
And we haven’t even started talking about the stars.
This. It is simply pointless to mention flat earth and anything logical in the same sentence.
All that can be usefully said is these folks have decided to believe nonsense for … reasons. Which reasons have no basis in fact, just in fantasy.
Kinda like the bumper sticker that says “God said it, I believe it, and that settles it.” You have now encountered a psychological immovable object. Don’t even think about pushing on it; that’s purely wasted effort. Just write that flerfer off as yet another utterly worthless human and move on.
Yes, but being in the know and qualifying as a brave but persecuted minority inevitably leads to a bit of arrogance at being so obviously correct, while duped mainstreamers fooled by the fake media just derp along.
It’s been my observation with flat earth “discussions” that any horizon-based argument like the Chicago skyline or crow’s nests or anything are entirely ineffectual. Every single time they are “refuted” with the mere mention of refraction. Since refraction is a real thing that does actually skew measurements and observations of the horizon, flat earthers will simply declare victory the moment you bring up the horizon.
If you want to make an argument they cannot refute, the Southern Hemisphere is their real Achilles heel. They cannot explain the movement of the stars south of the equator, and they absolutely have no idea how the summer solstice works in the southern hemisphere.