In January 2016 an article was posted on popsci that claimed to debunk the flat earth. Let’s give this article some due diligence and topple its supposed proofs of curvature! You can find the article here.

Every so often we will see the eager glob post a blog article to attempt disproof of our theories. I have found that usually they have not spent the proper time even learning of ours! So often the globularist likes to take evidence and draw it wide enough to claim it is proof. We will show case by case why these ‘evidences’ are not proofs and how many are actually incorrect.

This week we will be looking from the point of view of the Rowbotham school of flatist thought.

Shadow of the earth on the moon? No one has ever seen it in its entirety. - Charles Fort, Book of the Damned

Does the shadow on the moon prove the Earth is round? First we must examine if the shadow is actually the shadow of the Earth! We have some compelling reasons to think it’s not.

When we look into Flat Earth Literature, we see that the model of lunar eclipses given to us make absolutely no sense what-so-ever. We must conclude as William Carpenter did in One Hundred Proofs That The Earth Is Not A Globe.

The Newtonian hypotheses involves the necessity of the Sun, in the case of a lunar eclipse, being on the opposite side of a globular earth, to cast its shadow on the Moon: but, since eclipses of the Moon have taken place with both the Sun and the Moon above the horizon, it follows that it cannot be the shadow of the Earth that eclipses the Moon; that the theory is a blund; and that it is nothing less than a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

We will borrow here from Samuel Rowbotham who talked at length about this in his work Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not A Globe. He supplies for us several instances where both the sun and moon were visible during a lunar eclipse. As he puts it “is it possible that a ‘shadow’ of the earth could be thrown upon the moon, when sun, earth, and moon were not in the same line?”

You may wish to see some of the citations that this indeed happens as it will likely surprise the globularist who holds his faith very tightly. One occurred in Paris, 19th of July, 1750 as reported to Rowbotham through Astronomy and Astronomical Instruments by George G Carey. Again on 20th April, 1837 and the 20th of September 1717 reported through McCullochs Geography. The list goes on, citing as far back as Pliny.

The explanation of this given by round earth science is that it has been caused by refraction. This at first seems very likely and a solid answer. When we examine the situation further though, as Rowbotham did, we see this to be utter balderdash. He supplies this simple experiment any man can do on page 102.

An object by refraction is bent upwards; but the shadow of any object is bent downwards, as will be seen by the following very simple experiment. Take a plain white shallow basin, and place it ten or twelve inches from a light in such a position that the shadow of the edge of the basin touches the centre of the bottom. Hold a rod vertically over and on the edge of the shadow, to denote its true position. Now let water be gradually poured into the basin, and the shadow will be seen to recede or shorten inwards and downwards; but if a rod or a spoon is allowed to rest, with its upper end towards the light, and the lower end in the bottom of the vessel, it will be seen, as the water is poured in, to bend upwards - thus proving that if refraction operated at all, it would do so by elevating the moon above its true position and throwing the earth’s shadow downwards, or directly away from the moon’s surface. Hence it is clear that a lunar eclipse by a shadow of the earth is an utter impossibility.

Additionally we have other inconsistencies with the lunar eclipse and round earth orthodoxy. Rowbotham again shows us one of these paradoxes -the moon’s entire surface has been distinctly seen during the whole time of a total lunar eclipse!

He provides the following account:

The appearances were as usual till twenty minutes past nine; at that period, and for the space of the next hour, instead of an eclipse, or the shadow of the earth being the cause of the total obscurity of the moon, the whole phase of that body became very quickly and most beautifully illuminated, and assumed the appearance of the glowing heat of fire from the furnace, rather tinged with a deep red… The whole disc of the moon being as perfect with light as if there had been no eclipse whatever!... The moon positively gave good light from its disc during the total eclipse.

If this seems anecdotal to you, I suggest you grab a copy of Earth: Not A Globe as he goes on for a good 4 or 5 pages with additional citations. The globularist here may say it is light refracted from the earth. The red color supposedly comes from Rayleigh scattering. So often the positivist attempts to shove the round hole into the square block! So often he does so with refraction! From here he takes his assumption of the round earth and calculates what the variables would need to be to allow for a red moon. Then against all reason he declares it true - without a second thought. This may suit him well, if only the light from the earth was a deep bright red! Go out and observe it dear reader. Do you truly believe this is light that was Rayleigh scattered through the atmosphere?

Of course not. This is evidenced by the fact that the sky night is not red, but black! Should this light be bending this way and that to travel around the earth, we would see some of this light scattered within our atmosphere giving us a red night sky. Of what fun it is to watch the mental gymnastics of the round earther determined to keep hold of his faith.

Moving on to some more modern works, we can look at Mark Sargent’s Dome model which also shows the experiment to be meaningless. In his book Flat Earth Clues, we see that "All eclipses in the enclosed world model are artificial, like they would be in a planetarium.” So faithful of his view, the globularist will not suffer to hear the opposing view. This is why he presents only strawmen for himself to beat down instead of addressing the real claims of Flat Earth Theory. In reality, every notable flat earth theory of the last 100+ years has had an explanation for this.

Next week we will be toppling down Eratosthenes and his infamous sticks.