Flat Earth Baloney

On flerfs and disappearing boats: The flerf claim says boats don’t disappear bottom first, they just get “too small to see.” But that’s not what happens in the real world. Watch a ship sail away and the hull goes first while the mast is still visible. That isn’t perspective, it’s geometry. Perspective makes the whole object shrink evenly. It doesn’t selectively remove the bottom while leaving the top visible. That should already raise a red flag.

If a video shows someone zooming in and “bringing the whole boat back,” then the boat was never over the horizon to begin with. That’s the trick. Those clips are cherry picked to stop short of the actual effect. I’ve taken my own photos with proper zoom, and you can clearly see the boat partially obscured by the horizon. Zooming in just makes that partial obstruction clearer, it doesn’t magically reveal a hidden hull.

That’s because on a curved Earth, the water itself blocks your line of sight. As the boat moves farther away, more of it drops behind the curve. The bottom disappears first because it’s the first part to go below your horizon. No amount of zoom can reveal something that is physically hidden behind that curve.

Zooming doesn't look around corners, or have x-ray properties to see through obstructions.

And that’s exactly where those videos fall apart. Zoom only enlarges what is already visible. It cannot restore something that’s obstructed. If the hull is hidden, zooming just gives you a bigger image of the top of the boat sitting above the horizon, exactly like what I’ve observed myself.

This has been tested over and over again, from simple shoreline observations to modern surveying and long-distance photography. Ships, buildings, even wind turbines all show the same pattern. The lower portions disappear first. That’s not perspective. That’s curvature.

If water were truly flat, none of this would happen. The entire boat would just shrink uniformly until it became too small to see. But that’s not what we observe. And pointing to videos where the boat hasn’t reached the horizon yet doesn’t change that. It just avoids the moment where the flerf explanation fails.

So the problem isn’t that anyone “forgot perspective.” It’s that those videos carefully avoid showing actual obstruction. Perspective explains why things look smaller. Curvature explains why parts of them vanish. Once you understand that difference, the whole argument falls apart.

(Images, the first is my own photo, so I have first hand observation. The other images are included to demonstrate the point. Zooming in doesn't remove the water that's in the way. It just shows the effect of curvature more clearly.)

Alright, let’s flip this around for a second. Flerfs spend a lot of time saying what the Earth isn’t, but where’s the actual working model of what it is? Anyone can loudly cast doubt, the real test of the flat earth claim it’s whether your alternative can actually explain what we all observe.

So go on then. How does your flat Earth explain the Sun’s changing path through the year, giving us equinoxes where day and night match everywhere, and solstices where the poles either bake in 24-hour daylight or freeze in total darkness? How does it handle lunar eclipses, where the Earth’s shadow is always perfectly round no matter the angle? What’s the mechanism for tides, with two daily bulges that track the Moon’s position across entire oceans? And while you’re at it, explain why completely different constellations are visible from the northern and southern hemispheres, and why Polaris never sets in the north while it’s completely invisible in the south.

Then there’s the planets. On a flat Earth, what exactly are they doing when they loop backwards in the sky in predictable retrograde motion? What governs their paths, their brightness changes, their phases? And the stars themselves, why do they rotate around opposite poles depending on where you are on Earth, instead of all circling a single point like your model would require?

This is the bit that always gets dodged. It’s easy to say “not a globe.” Fine. But then what is it, in detail, with a model that actually matches reality without contradictions?

So let’s hear it. Not memes, not slogans, not “do your own research.” A full explanation that covers all of it, Sun, Moon, stars, planets, tides, eclipses, seasons. If the globe is wrong, you should be able to replace it with something that works better.

Can you? Or is “it ain’t a globe” as far as it goes?

Funny how the spring equinox quietly destroys half of flat earth talking points every single year, yet no one on that side seems to notice. On a real, spherical Earth, the equinox is exactly what you’d expect when the planet’s axis is tilted but neither hemisphere is leaning toward or away from the Sun. The result is simple, measurable, and global. Day and night come out roughly equal everywhere on Earth at the same time. Not “kind of equal in one region,” not “adjusted by perspective,” but a planet-wide balance that happens on a predictable schedule.

People in the UK, South Africa, Brazil, and Australia all experience the same fundamental shift. The Sun rises due east, sets due west, and the length of daylight lines up globally in a way that only works on a rotating sphere.

So when you’re enjoying those longer spring evenings, you’re not just seeing “nice weather coming back.” You’re watching orbital mechanics play out exactly as predicted by centuries of astronomy, from Nicolaus Copernicus to modern space agencies. The equinox isn’t a theory. It’s a repeating, testable event that only works cleanly on a globe.

You can ignore diagrams, you can distrust governments, you can argue about photos. But you can’t argue with the Sun rising due east everywhere on the same day, twice a year, like clockwork. That’s the Earth showing its shape whether people like it or not.

I spy, with my little eye, something beginning with curve...

Actual observations with eyes and a compass are enough to prove the flat earth false. It's so easy... here's how by asking one simple question, which direction is the sun at the same time in many different places...

Flat Earth Sun elevations ( and TFE ! ) Observed Sun elevation angles, plotted on a flat Earth map, are, shall we say, 'interesting', especially if compared with these same angles plotted on a glob...

So I spotted this shape on the horizon with my own eyes, whipped out my camera and zoomed all the way in. I kept zooming, but instead of seeing Denmark, I saw this ship partially obscured by the curvature of the earth.

None of this is ever presented...

Question of the week: "Explain the North Star why it never moves."

Firstly, the question is based on a false premise. Although for present practical purposes we generally treat the North Star (Polaris) as geostationary, it actually does move in relation to the earth. Just very slightly and very slowly.

1. Rather than being totally fixed in relation to the earth, Polaris traces a tiny circle in the sky above our north pole, making it appear stationary to the naked eye.

2. However, because of precession, the slight wobble in the earth's rotation, a different star, Vega, was once the north star, and will be again in ~12,000 years.

3. The biggest apparent star movements are due to the earth's rotation causing the entire view of stars to appear to rotate overhead each day/night period. Stars above the equator appear to move the most, while stars above the poles appear to rotate around the polar axis. That's because the earth is an oblate spheroid, this phenomenon couldn't occur on a flat earth.

When Flerfs prefer photoshop and actually don't mind composite images. The sunset they see with their eyes (left) vs. the sunset they 'want to believe' but need to fake (right). The pathology is so bad they literally don't believe their own eyes when the evidence is against them. The only constant is to deny reality.

Inside the Mind of the Flerf?

It seems to me that Flat Earthers aren’t just denying the shape of the Earth - deep down they’re really denying the idea that anyone in power can be trusted again.
Their denial may be factually incorrect, but it seems to grow out of a deep and valid fear: that truth has been bought, corrupted, or hidden from them - leading to an extreme overcorrection to real failures by institutions and authorities.

Are they wrong?

Factually the Earth is an oblate spheroid - so, yes, they're wrong. But emotionally perhaps their rejection of trusted systems makes sense when seen as a response to real or perceived betrayal. In that sense, can Flat Earth belief be seen not merely as stupidity, but as a trauma response—a survival instinct taken too far?

Mistrust as a Survival Instinct

The thing is, mistrust is not necessarily irrational. History has demonstrated that governments lie (e.g., Watergate, Iraq WMDs), corporations cover up harm (e.g., Big To***co, oil companies and climate denial), and scientists have been co-opted (e.g., eugenics, unethical medical experiments). It's understandable, then, that some people feel that trusting the "official story" is naive and that questioning may be a matter of survival.

Let's face it, many Globers are as in denial about corruption in the authorities they trust, as Flerfs are about the shape of the planet. And that's understandable, when you spend 5 minutes considering how much power government authorities have in our lives suspecting they might not be trusted is quite uncomfortable. We find our security in the things we choose to focus on, perhaps. Some choose to ignore evidence of untrustworthiness while others, (Flat Earthers?), may be over-correcting in the other direction. Nevertheless, their impulse comes from a place that many people share - a deep need to regain control in a world full of misinformation, power imbalances, and hidden agendas.

Losing the Ability to Discern Truth

The problem arises when healthy scepticism turns into pathological doubt—when mistrust becomes so total that even well-supported, observable facts (like the shape of the Earth) are rejected. This might occur when all government linked authority is assumed to be corrupt, truth is seen as subjective or unknowable, alternative beliefs become identity or community-based, or any combination of these.

While arriving at this point may feel like empowerment (“I think for myself”), it can result in intellectual isolation - a place where all 'official' facts are suspect, and alternative beliefs become the only standard.

Trust vs. Evidence

Is it because of this that the belief in a flat earth seems to be no longer about what may be proven, but about who a person's reflexes and emotions tell them is trusted to know the facts? Let's be honest - how much does any of us actually know first hand? I've never been to the moon, I've never left the earth's atmosphere, I've never circumnavigated the globe - virtually everything (though not everything) I believe about the shape of the planet is based on second or third hand information. This is true for almost everybody. But it also applies to both flat and globe earth information.

I'm a Glober because having taken time to review and compare information from both camps, using my intellect I've concluded that the model which is most logical, which passes my thought experiments, which is supported by what I see with my eyes, is the globe explanation, including our heliocentric solar system. Too much of the sparsely available flat earth theory contradicts other flat earth explanations or what I can can observe in reality, or explain more consistently with a globe model.

But if a person has already rejected the sources of globe information as untrustworthy, as we've already discussed, the globe model becomes not something to be scientifically studied, but a symbol of a corrupt system that must be rejected out of hand. When psychological safety is rooted in rejecting certain sources, it becomes a matter of survival to constantly dismiss them, becoming a reflexive coping mechanism - a way to manage the stress of cognitive dissonance. Is this why so many perfectly sound globe explanations only get a laughing emoji reaction from a Flerf? Has the rejection of the idea has become reflex, rather than outcome of rational logical evidence based thought?

Psychological Safety

Over time the Flat Earth belief can become not merely an idea, but an identity - one that has a deeply invested community and ideology. Denial then isn't just about facts, it becomes a core part of who they are.

This may be reinforced via online forums and YouTube channels which promote Flat Earth ideas while vilifying mainstream science. This creates a feedback loop that intensifies the denial of ideas and facts which contradict Flat Earth belief, making it self-sustaining and socially rewarding.
The psychological payoff from the illusion of special knowledge - that 'the earth is flat' - might give a sense of superiority or enlightenment that becomes important to an individual's self image.

It's a Matter of Distrust

Could all of this combine to make persuading a long committed Flat Earther to adopt alternative ideas almost impossible? If a person's self-esteem, identity and community are built on Flerfism, it's a huge ask for them to give it up. Combine that with a deep distrust of the 'official' sources, and you'll see why - separate to stupidity - there's potentially much more going on in why people believe as they do.

Of course not everyone espousing Flat Earth beliefs is entrenched to the same degree. Some are merely dabbling, others playing at it for kicks and giggles, others only at the start of the journey. And there are examples of former Flerfs who have 'seen the light' and changed their opinions following evidence which informed their world view. There's still plenty of reason to keep pointing out the obvious errors and contradictions in Flerfism - it is nonsense, and plenty of open minded people are ready to change their mind when it becomes clear where the evidence points.

I think Flerfism is primarily built on the evidence that sometimes officials lie or get it wrong. But it's an overreaction to say they always have, do and will lie or be wrong - that seems to be the fundamental fallacy underpinning Flat Earth belief. Is that why Flerfs spend so much effort criticising the Globe model, and why so much of their criticism is name calling institutions like NASA? Ultimately, it seems to be nothing to do with what can be proven by observation and everything to with who they distrust.

But not everyone is so pathologically closed minded, so keep speaking up for reality.

Is it that people south of the equator have a pathological aversion to turning around and looking north?