The Moon Is Upside Down

When viewed from the southern hemisphere, the moon appears to be upside down.  If viewed from the equator, it appears to be lying on its side.

How can this be on a flat earth.  Surely the fact that the moon appears to rotate as you travel from northern to southern hemisphere means the earth must be curved.

Surely this proves the earth is a spherical object?

Any opinions?

When viewed from the southern hemisphere, the moon appears to be upside down.  If viewed from the equator, it appears to be lying on its side.

How can this be on a flat earth.  Surely the fact that the moon appears to rotate as you travel from northern to southern hemisphere means the earth must be curved.

Surely this proves the earth is a spherical object?

Any opinions?

There are some photos of that in Re: observation of orientation of the spots on moon or sun from south pole of earth.
Here are the photos from that article:

On the flat earth it would look quite different because the observers in the two hemispheres would see quite different faces, not just the same face upside down.
.
This is from an earlier post:

Quote from: Cinnamon buns on August 07, 2018, 02:19:08 AM

Why from the southern hemisphere do images of the moon appear upside down? You can verify the change if you travel north and south taking pictures of the moon.

Technically, that would still work on a flat earth.
The only problem is why we do not see the sides of the moon. If the moon were closer people on different continents would be seeing different sides of the moon.

I asked that with this post: Why isn't there a working fully functional flat earth model yet? « Reply #3 on: August 06, 2018, 09:14:30 PM ».
With the moon only 5000 km above the earth, people in different locations should see quite different faces of the moon as in:
The people in the USA see would see a face of the moon that is about 90° different from the face seen by people in South America.
But on the "real earth" they do not - everyone sees the same phase and the same face!
Just possibly the earth is not flat with the moon only 5000 km above?

On the flat earth it would look quite different because the observers in the two hemispheres would see quite different faces, not just the same face upside down.

Which is my observation.  So how can the earth be flat?  You DO see exactly the same face...  from everywhere.  What COULD be possible, or theorised about is all very well, but in reality, no matter where you are on earth, you see precisely the same face..  all the time.

I'm curious to understand how the FE model accounts for this.

Quote from: rabinoz on September 29, 2018, 03:24:04 AM

On the flat earth it would look quite different because the observers in the two hemispheres would see quite different faces, not just the same face upside down.

Which is my observation.  So how can the earth be flat?  You DO see exactly the same face...  from everywhere.  What COULD be possible, or theorised about is all very well, but in reality, no matter where you are on earth, you see precisely the same face..  all the time.

I'm curious to understand how the FE model accounts for this.

They usually ignore all contrary evidence but just wait and see. There might be some weird bendy light hypothesis.

How can you ignore this?  It's right there for everyone to see.   Surely FE must have, at some point, attempted to explain this in a way that doesn't contradict the FE model....   surely?  If not, then that's it then...  The end of flat earth.  FE is still here, so someone, somewhere must have put a theory together, otherwise there would be no point in believing in a flat earth with evidence to the contrary just hanging right there in the sky for all to see.

There is much better evidence of a globular earth then the Moon’s face flipping.  It is good evidence of a distant Moon lit by the Sun however as we can see a little over 50% of the spherical moon.

The phases of the Moon are only explained by a distant Moon and a much farther away Sun.  If the Sun and Moon were on the same plane orbiting above us, the phases of the Moon would be impossible as seen from Earth.  I have seen no flat earth explanation that accounts for ALL easily observable phases, face, orientation, shape, and distance of the Moon from Earth.

I disagree.  The whole seeing one face thing is not the compelling evidence for me.  It's the fact that it visibly rotates as you travel to lower latitudes. There can, so far as I can fathom, be no other reason for that other than the earth being round.

Thinking logically....  in 3 dimensions...  I can think of absolutely no other reason why that should be.

I ask this, not to start an argument, but I genuinely am curious to see if FE has addressed this, or ignored it. I've seen the FE diagrams etc, but they fail to address the issues of the moon appearing to rotate as you travel from latitude to latitude.  As photographic evidence from space is ignored, is this the same?  Has it just been brushed underneath the carpet and ignored?  I'd love to see how FE explains it.  I'll give FE one thing...  it is certainly inventive when it comes to inventing reasons for things there are already reasons for.

How can you ignore this?

Most FEers can happily stick to one location and dismiss claims of anyone else as fiction.
So while they see the moon, they don't see that it changes orientation without changing the face that is facing up.

Surely FE must have, at some point

The best they have is magic bendy light, sometimes presented as magic perspective.

If not, then that's it then...  The end of flat earth.

FE was over thousands of years ago.
People are just pretending it can still work.

FE is still here, so someone, somewhere must have put a theory together, otherwise there would be no point in believing in a flat earth with evidence to the contrary just hanging right there in the sky for all to see.

You assume people believe with a point.
The best they have is paranoia.

I disagree.  The whole seeing one face thing is not the compelling evidence for me.  It's the fact that it visibly rotates as you travel to lower latitudes. There can, so far as I can fathom, be no other reason for that other than the earth being round.

The rotation is the least compelling.
For a simple explanation of why, draw something on the roof and look at it from different positions.
It will appear rotated.

If it was far, then it would be in the same position for everyone if Earth was flat.
If it was close, and if it was flat it would only appear as a circle for some, for others it would be an ellipse.
If it was close, and it was round, then you would see completely different faces.

I'll give FE one thing...  it is certainly inventive when it comes to inventing reasons for things there are already reasons for.

History is replete with common beliefs being overturned.
There is always intense resistance.

The rotation is the least compelling.
For a simple explanation of why, draw something on the roof and look at it from different positions.
It will appear rotated.

Hmmmm...  Not really.  It may appear to lean one way or the other due to perspective, but it would never be actually upside down unless I stood on my head.  Plus...  If I stuck a 2d representation of the moon on my roof, and walked around from below, as well as leaning one way or the other due to perspective, it would also appear to be no longer perfectly round. It would appear as an ellipse.

It would never be upside down though...  unless I was actually upside down myself.

it's utterly bomb proof..  it simply will not appear upside down unless I am...  ever.

Hmmmm...  Not really.  It may appear to lean one way or the other due to perspective, but it would never be actually upside down unless I stood on my head.

No, as you look at it from different sides it will appear to be upside down.
A good example of that is this:


You aren't hanging an image of the moon from your roof, you are attaching it to your roof, so it is parallel to the roof.

it would also appear to be no longer perfectly round. It would appear as an ellipse.

Which is why that, rather than the rotation, is the more compelling evidence.

it's utterly bomb proof..  it simply will not appear upside down unless I am...  ever.

Or you just look at it from a different side. It is very easy to refute, no where near bomb proof.

I still cannot totally agree - for two reasons. 

1. If, as your cartoon shows, it is a flat object lying on the floor, or upon a flat roof, then you will be able to walk around it through 360 degrees, in whatever direction you want. Something you cannot do in reality.

2.  This cartoon assumes 2 dimensions only: A number 6 painted on the ground.  There would be no such confusion over a 3D object with random and unique surface detail around its circumference.

Also, this idea of someone on the "other side" looking at it and seeing it upside down would only be conceivable if the moon was permanently hanging over the north pole, or centre of the FE map.  The minute you ascribe an "Orbit" to this flat earth moon, and send it on its circular pathway, then we'd all be seeing a different moon, from different angles, all the time, from different places. The idea that you "walk" around it like your number 6 is no longer viable.

The fact that everyone sees the same, identical circular moon slowly rotate as you travel south, IS bomb proof.  The only logical explanation is that you are travelling over a very large, curved surface.

The whole distortion thing you refer to is only a thing, so long as the moon is a 2 dimensional disc.  I'm not sure FE says that it is...   does it?  Woudl be kind of stupid to go down that road.

1. If, as your cartoon shows, it is a flat object lying on the floor, or upon a flat roof, then you will be able to walk around it through 360 degrees, in whatever direction you want. Something you cannot do in reality.

What makes you say you can't do that in reality?
At any point in time the moon will be above some point on Earth. You can go all around it.

2.  This cartoon assumes 2 dimensions only:

Yes, as your problem was focusing on, the rotation of the object, not how it should look different from different positions, i.e. as an ellipse if it is a flat object or different faces of a round object.
The rotation is the least significant piece of evidence.

The minute you ascribe an "Orbit" to this flat earth moon, and send it on its circular pathway, then we'd all be seeing a different moon, from different angles, all the time, from different places.

Which is another major flaw with the moon not appearing in the location that a FE model predicts, which is a separate problem to your issue.

That fact that everyone sees basically the same face, indicating we are all looking at it from basically the same direction, while it appears in completely different locations in the sky is the compelling evidence that Earth is round.
The rotation aspect amounts to basically nothing.

The moon appearing to rotate as you go south is easily explained by the FE models. The other issues are not.
If you want to use them, don't act like the rotation is the important part.

What makes you say you can't do that in reality?
At any point in time the moon will be above some point on Earth. You can go all around it.

Correct, but that point will never be in the same place all the time, so no one person will see one rotational angle constantly. In reality, this will not, and cannot happen.

Yes, as your problem was focusing on, the rotation of the object, not how it should look different from different positions, i.e. as an ellipse if it is a flat object or different faces of a round object.
The rotation is the least significant piece of evidence.

To a logical mind, maybe, but FEers, as you well know, will say that moon "phase" is probably perspective distortion. In other words, what you consider to be the most damning evidence is open to distortion...  if you'll forgive the pun.

Which is another major flaw with the moon not appearing in the location that a FE model predicts, which is a separate problem to your issue.

Agreed.

That fact that everyone sees basically the same face, indicating we are all looking at it from basically the same direction, while it appears in completely different locations in the sky is the compelling evidence that Earth is round.
The rotation aspect amounts to basically nothing.

I disagree.  The fact that we all see the same face leaves it wide open to some crazy holographic projection theory - I've heard equally stupid explanations before now. The rotational aspect also nullifies that argument, as why would any intelligently designed object offer a different rotational aspect by design if the earth is flat? Makes no sense.

The moon appearing to rotate as you go south is easily explained by the FE models.

But it is not. As I stated, it leaves it open to perspective distortion for one thing, but that aside, it would only be a valid argument if the moon was always in a static position over the centre of the FE plane.  As it cannot be (even in the FE model) we would all see a different rotation amount at different times of the day/month etc. The fact that how much the moon is rotated is a constant, and determined by latitude and nothing else, it is impossible for this to happen in any FE model.

There can only be one explanation for the rotation as you travel from north to south (or vice versa), and that is that you are travelling over a curving surface.

I suspect we will not be agreeing on this any time soon however

The most interesting thing about this thread however, is the total lack of FE input...   wouldn't you say?

To a logical mind, maybe, but FEers, as you well know, will say that moon "phase" is probably perspective distortion. In other words, what you consider to be the most damning evidence is open to distortion...  if you'll forgive the pun.

And you think they can't pull the exact same nonsense for the rotation?
The rotation is based upon the apparent angle to the moon. If the FEers have a way around that, they can get around the issue of its rotation as well.
In other words, what you consider to be the damning evidence is in an even worse position.

I disagree.  The fact that we all see the same face leaves it wide open to some crazy holographic projection theory

No it doesn't.
If that was the case some people would see multiple copies. Otherwise it is no better than the moon just being there.

The rotational aspect also nullifies that argument, as why would any intelligently designed object offer a different rotational aspect by design if the earth is flat?

No, it doesn't, not in the slightest.
First you would need to ask what is making this hologram and what is its purpose?
Is this hologram produced by NASA to try and trick people into thinking Earth is round?
Is it rotated as a method for determining latitude?
Why would it be a hologram in the first place?

So again, your argument is even on worse grounds as this "refutes" it just as well.

But it is not.

But it is.
If you focus solely upon how it appears to rotate as you move south rather than the position being completely wrong it is explained easily.
Perspective causing it to be distorted is another argument entirely which you dismissed as not as conclusive.
It appearing in the wrong location (and thus the wrong rotation) is again another argument entirely.

it would only be a valid argument if the moon was always in a static position over the centre of the FE plane.

No it wouldn't.
It is a valid argument with the moon being in a position somewhere above a region near the tropics, ignoring the problem of apparent position.
As you go north or south it causes it to flip. Sending it to the side from that position would cause it to appear rotated as that rotation at different times it really just because it is in different positions in the sky.
At its peak, when it is due north or south it is really just a case of it being upside down as you go from north to south.

It is only if you bring in other issues such as its apparent location being wrong that these other issues come up, where the specific location of the moon in a FE model doesn't predict the correct apparent location and thus rotation for the observer.

Maybe I'm missing something with the FE model here ( I readily admit to NOT being a FE expert)...  but let's say I was south of the equator..  or in FE terms, nearer the ice wall, Would this not mean that (again, using your 6/9 scenario) that it would rise as a 6, tilt over to its side as it passes overhead and set as a 9?  I'm also conveniently ignoring the fact that the FE model would necessitate a change in apparent size for it to work as well here.

How high is the moon meant to be in the FE model any way?

Would this not mean that (again, using your 6/9 scenario) that it would rise as a 6, tilt over to its side as it passes overhead and set as a 9?

That would require you to see it after it has set, and has some other issues (while for a FE you should be able to see it all the time, that is a separate issue to the rotation which relates to the apparent position).

Perhaps the easiest way to picture it (again, ignoring the multitude of other problems) is put it as a 6 when it is due north of you. Prior to then (e.g. as it rises) it would just be tilted based upon how it moves to the horizon and how you turn to face it, so it would be somewhat sideways.

The only way to determine what orientation it should be other than taking it from when it is due north/south, is by knowing where it should be and what apparent position it should have.

How high is the moon meant to be in the FE model any way?

It is typically taken to be around 5000 km, similar to the sun.

Maybe I'm missing something with the FE model here ...

How high is the moon meant to be in the FE model any way?

No, it’s the FE models that are incomplete, their go to defense of a specific issue of FE is they say they have no specific model and instead create bipolar, dual earth, infinite plane, domed, monopole north and south centered maps, the list goes on. None of which have distances clearly marked in any way for both hemispheres. Each map claims to solve some aspect of what we can simply observe with the Sun or the Moon or other issue roundies point out.  Their defense of multiple models is that it means they are more “open” to “alternative” possibilities and therefore superior thinkers as the rest of us are brainwashed REtards.

This is one of the strongest proofs I have ever seen.
It can also generate a long list of complementary considerations (a sort of corollaries), all demonstrating either the consistency of the round Earth, or the inconsistency of the flat Earth.
A very powerful corollary, I think, is the following: on a flat Earth, in a point on the equator where at noon the Sun is on your zenith (for example at equinox), after one hour or two, the Sun would turn towards North. This is totally inconsistent with billions of observations, where the Sun does not turn towards North, but goes straight towards West.

Simple geometry, simply neglected.

This is one of the strongest proofs I have ever seen.
It can also generate a long list of complementary considerations (a sort of corollaries), all demonstrating either the consistency of the round Earth, or the inconsistency of the flat Earth.
A very powerful corollary, I think, is the following: on a flat Earth, in a point on the equator where at noon the Sun is on your zenith (for example at equinox), after one hour or two, the Sun would turn towards North. This is totally inconsistent with billions of observations, where the Sun does not turn towards North, but goes straight towards West.

Simple geometry, simply neglected.

Yes and it is so simple and so easy for anyone to observe, yet flat earthers still cannot see such simple logic.

They should look up from their "Earth no a Globe" sort of books and their YouTube videos and just see the simple things about them and in the heavens above.

It's because it's a reflection from Earth onto the dome and moves over it, which is why it is seen as upside down on one side of the non global Earth.
Think of a bat signal sent out into the sky in front of the person operating the search light.
Now picture the same person tipping up the searchlight so it starts to go vertical above his head and then still moving horizontally as it moves behind him.

If the person has the bat in front of him right side up then it becomes upside down when moved behind him.
There's your so called moon.

Just a reflection/hologram naturally produced from Earth's centre.
That's my speculation..

There's your so called moon.

Wait, so the moon doesn't exist? What we think is the moon is just a reflection of the earth off of the dome?

It's because it's a reflection from Earth onto the dome and moves over it, which is why it is seen as upside down on one side of the non global Earth.
Think of a bat signal sent out into the sky in front of the person operating the search light.
Now picture the same person tipping up the searchlight so it starts to go vertical above his head and then still moving horizontally as it moves behind him.

If the person has the bat in front of him right side up then it becomes upside down when moved behind him.
There's your so called moon.

Just a reflection/hologram naturally produced from Earth's centre.
That's my speculation..

Why would the reflection move like the stars move?  Wait, so the moon shrimp lighting the moon in migratory fashion are in fact ON THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH?  Where can we find them and can we eat them?

It's because it's a reflection from Earth onto the dome and moves over it, which is why it is seen as upside down on one side of the non global Earth.
Think of a bat signal sent out into the sky in front of the person operating the search light.
Now picture the same person tipping up the searchlight so it starts to go vertical above his head and then still moving horizontally as it moves behind him.

If the person has the bat in front of him right side up then it becomes upside down when moved behind him.
There's your so called moon.

Just a reflection/hologram naturally produced from Earth's centre.
That's my speculation..

There are a lot of problems with this.

Why does the moon move with the stars? What gives the moon its grey color? Shouldn't the moon be a shade of blue if it were a mere reflection? How is the Earth reflecting light like a mirror? It should reflect light diffusely like most objects.

The biggest problem is solar eclipses.

How would a reflection on a dome, block sunlight? The only possible option is that the moon is a physical object made out of 'stuff'.