Thursday 17 March 2016

196) Quoting Marshall Hall, “In short, the sun, moon, and stars are actually doing precisely what everyone throughout all history has seen them do. We do not believe what our eyes tell us because we have been taught a counterfeit system which demands that we believe what has never been confirmed by observation or experiment. That counterfeit system demands that the Earth rotate on an 'axis' every 24 hours at a speed of over 1000 MPH at the equator. No one has ever, ever, ever seen or felt such movement (nor seen or felt the 67,000MPH speed of the Earth's alleged orbit around the sun or its 500,000 MPH alleged speed around a galaxy or its retreat from an alleged 'Big Bang' at over 670,000,000 MPH!). Remember, no experiment has ever shown the earth to be moving. Add to that the fact that the alleged rotational speed we've all been taught as scientific fact MUST decrease every inch or mile one goes north or south of the equator, and it becomes readily apparent that such things as accurate aerial bombing in WWII (down a chimney from 25,000 feet with a plane going any direction at high speed) would have been impossible if calculated on an earth moving below at several hundred MPH and changing constantly with the latitude."

All these points have been raised and refuted in this blog.

How does Dubay have the sheer nerve to claim that he has give "200 proofs" when he repeats the same points again, and again, and again....

On a different tone: at Point 188 in the video and 196 in the text version, Mr Dubay uses rabid anti-Semitic posters and propaganda as his backdrop to his claims of a world conspiracy. That puts him in bed with the Nazis and regardless of the dreadful historical and scientific nonsense he is spouting, he is taking a position so morally disgusting that no Christian or moral person should want to have anything to do with him. Sickening, in a way that the simple stupidity of the rest is not.

More of the same at, where he promotes his  video “Adolf Hitler versus the Jew World Order”

Yes, Dubay makes no secret of his admiration of Hitler

It is clear that the Jew shills have had enough…”

 He also endorses the views of David Duke, American white nationalist, antisemitic conspiracy theorist,  and former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. 

195) “Astronomers say the magical magnetism of gravity is what keeps all the oceans of the world stuck to the ball-Earth. They claim that because the Earth is so massive, by virtue of this mass it creates a magic force able to hold people, oceans and atmosphere tightly clung to the underside of the spinning ball. Unfortunately, however, they cannot provide any practical example of this on a scale smaller than the planetary. A spinning wet tennis ball, for instance, has the exact opposite effect of the supposed ball-Earth! Any water poured over it simply falls off the sides, and giving it a spin results in water flying off 360 degrees like a dog shaking after a bath. Astronomers concede the wet tennis ball example displays the opposite effect of their supposed ball-Earth, but claim that at some unknown mass, the magic adhesive properties of gravity suddenly kick in allowing the spinning wet tennis ball-Earth to keep every drop of “gravitized” water stuck to the surface. When such an unproven theory goes against all experiments, experience and common sense, it is high time to drop the theory.

OK, it seems Mr Dubay is trying to get as many mistakes into one passage as he can.

  • Magnetism and gravity are quite different forces.

  • As usual Dubay uses the word 'magical' for anything he doesn't understand and doesn't like. Not an argument.

  • 'Gravitized' is a word that he seems to have made up. It's meaningless. All matter exerts a gravitational force in proportion to it's mass.

If you wet a tennis ball and then attach it to a drill, spin it at 1,000 rpm, what would happen? Most of the water would fly off, of course! But so what? That is in no way the same case as the earth.

There are at least two enormous differences;
  1. A tennis ball has very little mass compared to the whole earth, and gravitational attraction is proportional to mass.
  2. At 1000 rpm the ball is spinning very much faster than the earth

So in Dubay’s tennis ball example the balance between inertia and gravity is vastly difference to the real situation of the earth.

 As usual, Mr Dubay doesn’t take account of numbers, degree or quantity, and doesn’t understand why that matters.

And gravity is far from unproven . For instance, there is the Cavendish experiment, replicated countless times over centuries. See Point 116 
194) “From David Wardlaw Scott, “I remember being taught when a boy, that the Earth was a great ball, revolving at a very rapid rate around the Sun, and, when I expressed to my teacher my fears that the waters of the oceans would tumble off, I was told that they were prevented from doing so by Newton’s great law of Gravitation, which kept everything in its proper place. I presume that my countenance must have shown some signs of incredulity, for my teacher immediately added - I can show you a direct proof of this; a man can whirl around his head a pail filled with water without its being spilt, and so, in like manner, can the oceans be carried round the Sun without losing a drop. As this illustration was evidently intended to settle the matter, I then said no more upon the subject. Had such been proposed to me afterwards as a man, I would have answered somewhat as follows - Sir, I beg to say that the illustration you have given of a man whirling a pail of water round his head, and the oceans revolving round the Sun, does not in any degree confirm your argument, because the water in the two cases is placed under entirely different circumstances, but, to be of any value, the conditions in each case must be the same, which here they are not. The pail is a hollow vessel which holds the water inside it, whereas, according to your teaching, the Earth is a ball, with a continuous curvature outside, which, in agreement with the laws of nature, could not retain any water.””

 A flat earther in an old book describes, accurately or otherwise, how a teacher once made a bad argument against the flat earth. And?

193) “No child or un-indoctrinated man in their right-mind would ever conclude or even conceive given to their own devices, based on their own personal observations, that the Earth was a spinning ball revolving around the Sun! Such imaginative theories nowhere present in anyone’s daily experience require and have required massive amounts of constant propaganda to uphold the illusion.”

And yet it was observation that lead to just such a conclusion, starting with Eratosthenes.

This is simply the fallacy of argument from personal incredulity:

That's the argument; no child would come up with this by himself or herself.

Children don't regularly travel about, they believe in Santa Claus, and usually don't look about enough to figure out science, physics or what not. 

I'm not sure why a Child's perception would be an argument. Are you?

 192) “Quoting “Terra Firma” by David Wardlaw Scott, “The system of the Universe, as taught by Modern Astronomers, being founded entirely on theory, for the truth of which they are unable to advance one single real proof, they have entrenched themselves in a conspiracy of silence, and decline to answer any objections which may be made to their hypotheses … Copernicus himself, who revived the theory of the heathen philosopher Pythagoras, and his great exponent Sir Isaac Newton, confessed that their system of a revolving Earth was only a possibility, and could not be proved by facts. It is only their followers who have decorated it with the name of an ‘exact science,’ yea, according to them, ‘the most exact of all the sciences.’ Yet one Astronomer Royal for England once said, speaking of the motion of the whole Solar system: ‘The matter is left in a most delightful state of uncertainty, and I shall be very glad if any one can help me out of it.’ What a very sad position for an ‘exact science’ to be in is this!””

Some unsubstantiated claims from an old flat-earther's book. Some quotations, as usual with no clear ascription to a particular person or source, and very clearly quoted out of context to deceive us. Otherwise he would have given us the references so that we could check them, as honest writers do.  Yet another failure to understand how science works.

This hardly deserves a further answer.
191) “From Pythagoras to Copernicus, Galileo and Newton, to modern astronauts like Aldrin, Armstrong and Collins, to director of NASA and Grand Commander of the 33rd degree C. Fred Kleinknecht, the founding fathers of the spinning ball mythos have all been Freemasons! The fact that so many members of this, the largest and oldest secret society in existence have all been co-conspirators bringing about this literal “planetary revolution” is beyond the possibility of coincidence and provides proof of organized collusion in creating and maintaining this multi-generational deception.”

Again, this is not the place to explore the folly of the conspiracy theory about freemasonry. 

However, I'll spend a short time discussing this illustration that Mr Dubay uses:

The only evidence he offers that all these thinkers were Freemasons is the presence of  a pair of compasses, or sometimes a square, in portraits of them. 

Now, it's certainly true that Freemasons use the square and compasses as a symbol. That's because actual masons, that is builders in stone, have used these for many centuries as tools in their work. 

So did anyone whose work involved measuring  and drawing accurately. In fact, that is the meaning of  the compasses  or setsquare in these pictures: they denote precision and care in measurement.

It's a little like the way that many present-day photos or TV interviews of thinkers include a computer in the picture.

These are standard tools used by builders, architects, map-makers, artists, architects, navigators and many others. Often, they have been used as symbols of those trades, too.

By pure chance, I noticed an example of this while I was thinking about Dubay's claim. I am a volunteer steward in a local museum, and I noticed this map on the wall there. 

Here again is the symbol of the compasses marking out the scale on the map, and implying accurate and careful measurement. There's no necessary connection with the Freemasons when you see that.

Later, I noticed these compasses in a display of coopers’ tool  for making barrels. Does this imply that barrel makers were freemasons? 

And, while I was tidying up the map photo above to post it, I noticed the icon for the tool I used to crop out the surrounding wall: 

Yes, it's the square from the square and compasses, as seen beside Pythagoras, Copernicus and Galileo in Dubay's "evidence". Does this mean that this standard symbol in my image editor program is a secret tool of the Freemasons? No, it means that it depicts the tool traditionally used to get right-angles straight. As it does in Dubay's pictures.

By the way, is Dubay really claiming that Freemasonry existed more than 2500 years ago, at the time of Pythagoras?

190) “Cultures the world over throughout history have all described and purported the existence of a geocentric, stationary flat Earth. Egyptians, Indians, Mayans, Chinese, Native Americans and literally every ancient civilization on Earth had a geocentric flat-Earth cosmology. Before Pythagoras, the idea of a spinning ball-Earth was non-existent and even after Pythagoras it remained an obscure minority view until 2000 years later when Copernicus began reviving the heliocentric theory.”

It is not true that flat-earthism was dominant until the time of Copernicus. or that it was "an obscure minority view" that the earth was spherical after Pythagoras.  If it had been, we would have a historical record of many objections to heliocentrism on flat-earth grounds, and we don't.
"So, for the last 2500 years, in Europe and in the Middle East, the flat-earthers were in a very small minority. At least, this is what the historian Jeffrey Burton Russell, of the University of California at Santa Barbara, reckons.
His book, In Inventing the Flat Earth, claims that since the third century BC, practically all educated people in the western world believed in a spherical earth.

Looking as a historian into the historical record, he found tens of thousands of Christian theologians, poets, artists and scientists who believed that the earth was a sphere.

On the other hand, he could find only five Christian authorities who believed in a flat earth.
Dr Russell wrote:

In fact, Burton found that the myth was started in the 1830s by a Frenchman and an American, acting independently.

The Frenchman was Antoine-Jean Letronne (1787–1848), an antireligious academic of great renown. He wroteOn the Cosmographical Ideas of the Church Fathers in 1834.

He deliberately misrepresented medieval Christians as being scientifically ignorant, and his supposed proof for this incorrect claim was that they believed in a flat earth. But of course they did not believe in a flat earth.
The American identified by Burton was Washington Irving (1783–1859), who wrote his history of Christopher Columbus in 1828. Columbus wanted to sail west to China, Japan and India.

Irving painted a colourful and dramatic word picture of Columbus trying to convince a board of flat-earther inquisitors (the Council of Salamanca) that the earth was round, so that he could get funding.

Like all good myths, there is an element of truth here. Columbus did meet with a board of scientists. The scientists claimed that Columbus' distances for getting to the east by sailing west were wildly wrong — actually 20,000 nautical miles, rather than the 5000 claimed by Columbus."
"In the first fifteen centuries of the Christian era, five writers seem to have denied the globe, and a few others were ambiguous or uninterested in the question. But nearly unanimous scholarly opinion pronounced the earth spherical, and by the fifteenth century all doubt had disappeared."

You will find a reasonable summary of the false nature of claims that flat earth belief was widespread in Myth of the flat Earth at

"Late AntiquityKnowledge of the spherical shape of the Earth was received in scholarship of Late Antiquity as a matter of course, in both Neoplatonism and Early ChristianityCalcidius's fourth-century Latin commentary on and translation of Plato'sTimaeus, which was one of the few examples of Greek scientific thought that was known in the Early Middle Ages, discussed Hipparchus's use of the geometrical circumstances of eclipses to compute the relative diameters of the Sun, Earth, and Moon.[30][31]
Theological doubt informed by the flat Earth model implied in the Hebrew Bible inspired some early Christian scholars such as LactantiusJohn Chrysostom and Athanasius of Alexandria, but this remained an eccentric current. Learned Christian authors such as Basil of CaesareaAmbrose and Augustine of Hippo were clearly aware of the sphericity of the Earth. "Flat Earthism" lingered longest in Syriac Christianity, which tradition laid greater importance on a literalist interpretation of the Old Testament. 
Authors from that tradition, such as Cosmas Indicopleustes, presented the Earth as flat as late as in the 6th century. This last remnant of the ancient model of the cosmos disappeared during the 7th century. From the 8th century and the beginning medieval period, "no cosmographer worthy of note has called into question the sphericity of the Earth."[32]
IndiaWith the spread of Greek culture in the east, Hellenistic astronomy filtered eastwards to ancient India where its profound influence became apparent in the early centuries AD.[33] The Greek concept of an Earth surrounded by the spheres of the planets and that of the fixed stars, vehemently supported by stronomers like Varahamihir and Brahmagupta, strengthened the astronomical principles. Some ideas were found possible to preserve, although in altered form.[33][34]
The works of the classical Indian astronomer and mathematicianAryabhatta (476–550 AD), deal with the sphericity of the Earth and the motion of the planets. The final two parts of his Sanskrit magnum opus, the Aryabhatiya, which were named the Kalakriya ("reckoning of time") and the Gol ("sphere"), state that the Earth is spherical and that its circumference is 4,967 yojanas. In modern units this is 39,968 km (24,835 mi), close to the current equatorial value of 40,075 km (24,901 mi).[35][36] 
Middle AgesKnowledge of the sphericity of the Earth survived into the medieval corpus of knowledge by direct transmission of the texts of Greek antiquity (Aristotle), and via authors such as Isidore of Seville and Beda Venerabilis. It became increasingly traceable with the rise of scholasticism and medieval learning.[25] Spread of this knowledge beyond the immediate sphere of Greco-Roman scholarship was necessarily gradual, associated with the pace of Christianisation of Europe. For example, the first evidence of knowledge of the spherical shape of the Earth in Scandinavia is a 12th-century Old Icelandic translation of Elucidarius.[37] 
A non-exhaustive list of more than a hundred Latin and vernacular writers from Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages who were aware that the earth was spherical, has been compiled by Reinhard Krüger, professor for Romance literature at the University of Stuttgart.[25]
Late Antiquity

Early Middle Ages

High Middle Ages

Late Middle Ages

189) “The Bible, Koran, Srimad Bhagavatam, and many other holy books describe and purport the existence of a geocentric, stationary flat Earth. For example, 1 Chronicles 16:30 and Psalm 96:10 both read, “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.” And Psalm 93:1 says, “The world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.” The Bible also repeatedly affirms that the Earth is “outstretched” as a plane, with the outstretched heavens everywhere above (not all around) giving a scriptural proof the Earth is not a spinning ball.”

 I don't propose to go into questions of biblical inerrancy, or to list the many inconsistencies and contradictions in various holy texts.  here and now. In the words of that great authority, George Gershwin 
"It ain't necessarily so
 The t'ings dat yo' li'ble 
 To read in de Bible,
 It ain't necessarily so."

As Daimonie writes:

"So? There's also a story that a turtle, carrying the world on its back, crawled from the primeval soup. The Aztec believed a man's beating heart had to be ripped from his chest, every morning, to make the sun rise (I don't know how true that is, but human sacrifice did feature there).
There's religious people out there that think the lot of us should die. At the moment of writing, the world is in uproar because of several religious terrorist attacks (November 2015 Paris attacks and Beirut attacks), mostly the first and the second as a fashion statement. 
And you think that there is such a thing as 'scriptural proof'? That it has any credibility beyond the church?"

The world view of the old testament and of other religious scripts from more than 2000 years ago certainly assumed a flat earth in most cases. It was the Greek and Hellenistic world that first studied the realities of the universe as we see closely enough to question those assumptions.

Pythagoras (6th century BC) was among those said to have originated the idea, but this may reflect the ancient Greek practice of ascribing every discovery to one or another of their ancient wise men.[10] Some idea of the sphericity of the Earth seems to have been known to both Parmenides and Empedocles in the 5th century BC,[15] and although the idea cannot reliably be ascribed to Pythagoras,[16] it may, nevertheless have been formulated in the Pythagorean school in the 5th century BC[10][15] although some disagree.[17] After the 5th century BC, no Greek writer of repute thought the world was anything but round.[14]

Eratosthenes, a Greek astronomer from Hellenistic Libya (276–194 BC), estimated Earth's circumference around 240 BC. He had heard that in Syene the Sun was directly overhead at the summer solstice whereas in Alexandria it still cast a shadow. Using the differing angles the shadows made as the basis of his trigonometric calculations he estimated a circumference of around 250,000 stades. The length of a 'stade' is not precisely known, but Eratosthenes's figure only has an error of around five to fifteen percent.[22][23][24] Eratosthenes used rough estimates and round numbers, but depending on the length of the stadion, his result is within a margin of between 2% and 20% of the actual meridionalcircumference, 40,008 kilometres (24,860 mi). Note that Eratosthenes could only measure the circumference of the Earth by assuming that the distance to the Sun is so great that the rays of sunlight are essentially parallel.

Seleucus of Seleucia
Seleucus of Seleucia (c. 190 BC), who lived in the city of Seleucia in Mesopotamia, wrote that the Earth is spherical (and actually orbits the Sun, influenced by the heliocentric theory of Aristarchus of Samos).

Posidonius (c. 135 – 51 BC) put faith in Eratosthenes's method, though by observing the star Canopus, rather than the sun in establishing the Earth's circumference. In Ptolemy's Geographia, his result was favoured over that of Eratosthenes. Posidonius furthermore expressed the distance of the sun in earth radii.

By the middle ages, few educated people expressed any doubt that the earth was a sphere. 
During the debates about the size of the world before Columbus sailed, and over heliocentrism at the time of Copernicus and Galileo , nobody said "hang, on, isn't the world flat?" 

188) “Over the years NASA has twice changed their story regarding the shape of the Earth. At first they maintained Earth was a perfect sphere, which later changed to an “oblate spheroid” flattened at the poles, and then changed again to being “pear-shaped” as the Southern hemisphere allegedly bulges out as well. Unfortunately for NASA, however, none of their official pictures show an oblate spheroid or pear-shaped Earth! All their pictures, contrary to their words, show a spherical (and clearly CGI fake) Earth.”

The fact that the earth is not quite a sphere is another finding of science. However, you won’t see it in a photo of the earth. That is because the “bulge” is so tiny compared to the size of the globe that it would be smaller than a pixel in a standard size photo.  It's so small  that it rarely makes any difference to mapmaking.

In fact, it is about 5 miles extra width, in a diameter of nearly 8000 miles. Can you detect a difference of 1 in 1583 by eye?  We are talking about a difference in shape that takes enormous precision to detect it. Which Dubay would have known already if he’d tried to find out, instead of blindly repeating an empty talking point.

Oblateness is the very slight bulge at the equator. The answer is that water is subject to the same forces that the rest of the earth is. The equator is very slightly further from the centre than the poles because the Earth’s spin makes it bulge.

Ever watched pizza dough being spun out into a disk?  Same principle, with very much less stretching in proportion to size.

As a matter of fact, it's almost impossible to see the flattening at the poles (the diameter of the earth along the polar axis is approximately  1/300th of a diameter shorter than the diameter through the equator). This has been accepted fact since at least 1910. On the other hand, the "pear shaped" quality is described as "a subject of much discussion" in a page called "Geodesy for the Layman" published in 1983, and then dismissed as being too small to make any difference in normal geodesy (surveying/map making) practice.

Pear shaped" is a bit of an exaggeration. The amount the earth varies from a ellipsoid at any point on the earth's surface is minuscule compared to the size of the earth, so you wouldn't see it if you were far enough away to see the whole earth.

The Earth is only approximately spherical, so no single value serves as its natural radius. Distances from points on the surface to the center range from 6,353 km to 6,384 km (3,947 – 3,968 mi). Several different ways of modeling the Earth as a sphere each yield a mean radius of 6,371 kilometers (3,959 mi). Regardless of the model, any radius falls between the polar minimum of about 6,357 km and the equatorial maximum of about 6,378 km (3,950 – 3,963 mi)
Exactly how round is the Earth?
The shape of the Geode, as it is called, is nearly a perfect sphere, but because the earth is spinning, it is about 21.5 kilometers flatter at the poles, and bulged-out at the equator by about the same amount.
There are also other 'higher-order' shape deviations which make the Earth slightly pear- shaped with a larger southern hemisphere surface area than in the northern hemisphere, but at a level of a kilometer or so in radial girth. The biggest effect, though, is its polar flattening. If you had a basketball to represent the Earth's spherical average shape, the flattening would be 21/6500 = about 1/300 the radius of the basketball or 1/32 of an inch...give or take.

187) “The second law of thermodynamics, otherwise known as the law of entropy, along with the fundamental principles of friction/resistance determine the impossibility of Earth being a uniformly spinning ball. Over time, the spinning ball Earth would experience measurable amounts of drag constantly slowing the spin and lengthening the amount of hours per day. As not the slightest such change has ever been observed in all of recorded history it is absurd to assume the Earth has ever moved an inch. “

Except that there is no surrounding medium to slow the earth down. There's nothing in the near-vacuum of surrounding space to exert drag on the earth and its atmosphere. And the earth has already accelerated the atmosphere to match its rotation. 

Notice that Dubay does not mention what substance he believes would exert drag on the rotating earth.

This is yet more proof that Dubay does not understand the science he claims to disprove.

And Dubay is very confused indeed.

It's interesting that Dubay acknowledges the existence and effect of drag here. Yet way back in point 158, he called it "magical" (the word he uses when he doesn't understand something or when he wants to pretend it doesn't exist).

And back in points 20, 21 and 22 Dubay puts a series of claims that assume that the atmosphere isn't rotating along with the earth. But since he acknowledges the effects of drag between the earth's surface and the air, how could the atmosphere remain stationary while the ground rotates? What would prevent the drag between ground and air from accelerating the atmosphere until the atmosphere was rotating at the same speed as  the ground. Perhaps he thinks that something magically keeps the atmosphere motionless despite the drag of its 196.9 million square miles of rotating surface ? Now that really would be magic!