Ask Questions to Make Debunkers Think (If That is Possible)

We all know the mass of people who are addicted to the religion of scientism is overwhelming. Those people usually subscribe to all those “science channels” on youtube and worship people like Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye (which I think is the absolute worst of them all), Michio Kaku, Richard Dawkins and so on.

People like that (and probably most people anyway) will not listen to any legitimate flat earth scientific proofs. So before you can actually engage them in any kind of debate they are long gone (and probably think you are some kind of a prankster who was attempting to steal their time). This means that even mentioning flat earth will turn them away immediately and they will never question their whole “scientific”world view.

So why not disrupt their science religion and giving them a headache by asking simple questions that they have never really thought of and make them at least go….hm? The key here is to come off really interested in their opinion and make them believe that they might be able to really help you understand their ludicrous ball-earth “science.”

Just hit them with one question at a time and make sure you don’t show your support for the flat earth (because if you do that in any way – conversation probably is over).

Here are some examples:

Begin like this: “Hey ______, I really like your ___work/youtube science channel/blabla/whatever_____. I have question that I hope you could answer me: ……”

1) ….How is it that there are no tides in lakes, ponds, rivers, etc. (not even in a glass of water) and why is it that the moon’s gravity doesn’t seem to have any effect on the gases in our atmosphere?

Are there some kind of winds that follow the moon’s path over the earth? (and people on the side of the low tide might be gasping for air, lol…just kidding)

2) …Can you please explain me how it is possible to see a blood moon (lunar eclipse) at daytime?

also: lunar eclipse at sunrise

3) …I would like to know how is it that the durations of twilight are shorter in the southern hemisphere and longer in the northern hemisphere?

For example look at the duration of civil twilight:

http://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/australia/sydney (southern hemisphere)

vs.

http://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/sweden/stockholm (northern hemisphere)

vs.

http://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/ecuador/quito (near the equator)

Never could get my head around that. Please someone explain in a simple way so that I understand. Maybe I’m too dumb, but simply turning my toy globe doesn’t help me find the solution. So, please help 😉

4) ….Why does the atmosphere rotate with the earth? I mean the mass below it stays the same no matter of the location, so therefore I just don’t get the “Because of gravity”-answer. In other words, why does the cloud care whether Africa, New Zealand or Antarctica is below it, when there is always the mass of the whole world below it? So why is the atmosphere so “glued to the ground”? How does this work? Could you please explain?

5) ….I noticed that the continents on the globe of google earth (which claims to have a mathematically correct model of the earth) do not match up with the NASA photos of earth from space.

just one example

How can google be so wrong? What kind of mistakes are those guys making? I mean, I know that there are all kind of different projections of earth for 2D-maps where the sizes of the continents are all wrong and so on, but with the globe itself this cannot happen, right? *confused*

6) ….Shining light on a spherical object always creates a hot spot, right? So why do we not see such a hot spot on the moon or on any NASA picture from the earth or the other planets?

7) ….When airplanes fly straight, the earth underneath them curves, right? So to keep a constant altitude, do they actually have to descent all the time? I mean, otherwise they would end up higher and higher and eventually leave the atmosphere just by flying straight, right? How much do they have to descent?

8) ….Where exactly is the barrier between the atmosphere and the vacuum of space? How does it work and why is the vacuum of space not powerful enough to suck the atmosphere from the earth?

Has somebody ever tried to build for example a high cylinder where the inside is under vacuum and there is a valve (as an air-inlet) at the bottom? The goal of course would be to measure the pressure on top vs. on the bottom of the cylinder with different amounts of air put into the cylinder via the inlet at the bottom.

Hopefully this will at least get them to try to think for themselves a little bit.

As I don’t have a youtube account (and I do not want to have one), I will not contact those YT channels. But I will try to do it via e-mail to some science websites.

So if you like this idea, please join me.

Some more questions:

To continue my approach of hitting all those science experts with questions that will lead them to at least think a little bit for themselves, here are some more questions. I hope you guys will come up with new ones as well.

Here we go….

9) …in my everyday experience I feel that there is a big difference between sunrise and sunset. Sunrise to me looks more bright, golden and energetic, whereas sunset feels more quiet and reddish. So they look and feel completely different, although they should be the same right? (Like a film that you play backwards looks the same.)

So what are the factors that play into this perception? Has it to do with temperature? Is it more a psychological thing (hard to imagine, because if you just look at google images you will see the difference there as well)? What’s the reason exactly?

10) ….as we all know, we cannot see a new moon from the earth. At night that’s totally logical of course, but what about daytime? The moon is between the sun and the earth. You can only see it when it’s directly aligned with the sun during a solar eclipse. However you can often see the complete moon at daytime when it is crescent. You mostly see the illuminated part, but you can also see the rest (faint but still visible). Any picture that tells you it is a depiction of a new moon at daylight always has one side brighter than the other – therefore it can only be a crescent moon not a (full) new moon.

Why isn’t it possible to see a faint (full) new moon at daytime (like holding any object between my eyes and any bright enough light source, I can always make out its shape)?

In other words, shouldn’t the light-scattering of the atmosphere not obscure the (bigger) faint part of a crescent moon like it does with a new moon? By the way, you can also see the faint part of a crescent moon at night time. Can someone please explain?

more questions regarding the global warming hoax:

11) ….as we all know the density of CO2 is higher than that of the normal atmosphere (air). Otherwise CO2 fire extinguishers won’t work and if you throw dry ice into water the “steam” would just rise and not fall over the edge of the glass, right?.

So if the concentration of CO2 in the surface area is about 400 ppm of the atmosphere, then how much is it let’s say in 20 km height?

And if this height is the place where most of the heating up of the atmosphere is happening (global warming – reflection of heat back to earth) and the little amount of CO2 up there (should be way way less than 400 ppm) is so potent to heat up the entire planet as it does, then why don’t we just use CO2 to isolate our homes? For example make double glass windows and fill them with pure 100% CO2. Shouldn’t that have a super strong effect in reflecting the heat back into your home? Am I missing something or shouldn’t this work just like it does in the upper atmosphere? ?????

12)…I have learned that heat always flows from hot to cold, never the opposite way. Can somebody please explain why this seems to be different in all those explanations for global warming? How can the heat be reflected at 20 km height where the temperature is much colder than on the relatively hot surface of earth? If it is just because of the reflection of infra-red radiation, then why is the layer of CO2 in the atmosphere not reflecting all the incoming infra-red radiation from the sun back to into space, so it doesn’t get to earth in the first place? In other words, shouldn’t CO2 have a cooling effect instead of heating? Or at least shouldn’t the reflected IR rays from the earth and the sun just cancel each other out?

Earth is the Center of the Universe

The Earth is Not Moving

They then claim that the Flat Earth model does not explain the Sun’s movement over and around the stationary Earth, which of course it explains far better than the ridiculous heliocentric model. The Sun and Moon luminaries revolve around the flat Earth once every 24 hours illuminating like spotlights the areas over which they pass. The Sun’s annual journey from tropic to tropic, solstice to solstice, is what determines the length and character of days, nights and seasons. This is why equatorial regions experience almost year-round summer and heat while higher latitudes North and especially South experience more distinct seasons with harsh winters. The heliocentric model claims seasons change based on the ball-Earth’s alleged “axial tilt” and “elliptical orbit” around the Sun. Their flawed current model even places us closest to the Sun (91,400,000 miles) in January when its actually winter, and farthest from the Sun (94,500,000 miles) in July when its actually summer throughout much of the Earth. They say due to the ball-Earth’s tilt, different places receive different amounts of direct sunlight and that is what produces the seasonal and temperature changes. This makes little sense, however, because if the Sun’s heat travels over ninety million miles to reach the ball-Earth, how could a slight tilt, a mere few thousand miles maximum, negate the Sun’s ninety million mile journey, giving us simultaneous tropical summers and Antarctic winters?

“The earth is a stretched-out structure, which diverges from the central north in all directions towards the south. The equator, being midway between the north center and the southern circumference, divides the course of the sun into north and south declination. The longest circle round the world which the sun makes, is when it has reached its greatest southern declination. Gradually going northwards the circle is contracted. In about three months after the southern extremity of its path has been reached, the sun makes a circle round the equator. Still pursuing a northerly course as it goes round and above the world, in another three months the greatest northern declination is reached, when the sun again begins to go towards the south. In north latitudes, when the sun is going north, it rises earlier each day, is higher at noon and sets later; while in southern latitudes at the same time, the sun as a matter of course rises later, reaches a lesser altitude at noon and sets earlier. In northern latitudes during the southern summer, say from September to December, the sun rises later each day, is lower at noon and sets earlier; while in the south he rises earlier, reaches a higher altitude at noon, and sets later each day. This movement round the earth daily is the cause of the alternations of day and night; while his northerly and southerly courses produce the seasons. When the sun is south of the equator it is summer in the south and winter in the north; and vice versa. The fact of the alternation of the seasons flatly contradicts the Newtonian delusion that the earth revolves in an orbit round the sun. It is said that summer is caused by the earth being nearest the sun, and winter by its being farthest from the sun. But if the reader will follow the argument in any text book he will see that according to the theory, when the earth is nearest the sun there must be summer in both northern and southern latitudes; and in like manner when it is farthest from the sun, it must be winter all over the earth at the same time, because the whole of the globe-earth would then be farthest from the sun!!! In short, it is impossible to account for the recurrence of the seasons on the assumption that the earth is globular and that it revolves in an orbit around the sun.” –Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (124-125)

Next up, The Young Turks, YouTube channel that has over 1 million subscribers, give the controlled opposition Flat Earth Society bullshit fake flat Earth argument of “Universal Acceleration” of the flat-Earth disc constantly accelerating upwards to account for gravity. This same ridiculous false flat-Earth argument also appears on Wikipedia and the FES homepage. It is provably wrong as the “upwards accelerating disc” would smash into all helicopters, planes and hot-air balloons making sustained flight of any kind impossible, but they purposely promote these strawman arguments so flat Earth neophytes will rightly laugh off their dumb explanations, and then following suit, write off the entire subject. In reality, Gravity Does Not Exist, and everything purported to be explained by gravity is in fact a property of Density.

They next explain their “red-shifting” non-sense color method of determining distances to stars! Modern astronomy’s highly “scientific” way of determining the distances to the stars is by matching the color of light coming from the star on the electro-magnetic spectrum with an alleged distance starting with the closest star being 25 trillion miles away! In actuality you can watch stars twinkle and change color regularly, and if they have never even been to the closest star, then measuring based on the color of light is complete speculation. Geocentrists for centuries, however, have used sextants and plane trigonometry to determine the distance of the celestial bodies and found them to be within a few thousand miles from the surface of the Earth, NOT a ridiculous 25+ trillion miles away!

“If there were not any satellites in space, you could not be watching this video.” No. All supposed “satellite” technology is done via ground-based towers and technologies. Fibre-optic cables running across the oceans are responsible for worldwide internet (as shown in my video below) NOT satellites. Google images of satellites and you’ll find nothing but cartoons and photoshop bull. Not to mention, the components in satellites would completely melt in the thermosphere where they’re said to exist. The lights you see moving across the sky are planes, drones, stars, or other unidentified flying objects, NOT “satellites” or space stations “floating” in the vacuum of infinite space (which as I’ve explained in every interview, is philosophically/physically impossible).

Next they lie again and claim that I claim that “there are no flights to the South Pole.” I’ve never claimed this, I’m well-aware and speak of the guided tourist photo-ops they make to an arbitrary point along the Antarctic ice and call the “South Pole.” It’s just a red/white barbershop pole with a ball-Earth on top they encircled with the flags of all the sell-out nations that signed the Antarctic treaty. This is provably NOT the South Pole.

Of course, much more can be said of the different allegations the debunkers throw at flat earthers, but this will be covered at another time or as these allegations arise.