The Mainstream Heliocentric Model is Correct

#1 So, I watched this video but it didn't address my counter-example. You said, "He claims I should draw a circle on a flat Earth map, and it will show that certain time zones incorrectly. This video shows other wise." Where in the video does it correctly show the timezone between NYC/ARGENTINA/SF. Did you actually watch this video with an eye toward that timezone situation? Again, just freeze-frame that video if you want and try to draw the circle with your finger. You cannot draw a round circle of light such that it's dark in SF while light in Argentina and NYC. The diameter of the circle of light needed to hit both Argentina and NYC will automatically be so large you catch SF as well. You could distort a map to make it work maybe but what's key is that the distances between the cities needs to be maintained. #2 No, the video I linked showed that apparent changes in size of the sun are the result of flaring and can be eliminated by a filter. Furthermore, if the size of the sun does not change from 11am to 4pm then the size of the sun is not changing thanks to perspective. Remember, perspective tells us that if the sun is moving closer to us it gets bigger and if it moves away from us it gets smaller. According to the FE model, from 11am to 4pm it does both things. And yet that video shows the size doesn't change at all. Without the filter the size SEEMS to change but that's because of flaring. So the result of that video is that size changes in teh sun aren't size changes they're light flaring. #3 But you're missing the point of what it means to debate. You saw that video and you felt it was compelling evidence. I explained why it was broken. Do you agree? Disagree? Why? The video that you have linked as his response? Did you watch it? Do you agree with him? He says that he had to put the camera below the table because he's simulating what it is like for us in real life... he says that in real life we are "always below the horizon." That's his argument. I can't think of any possible way to interpret that sentence "We are always below the horizon" that would make it true. Can you? #4 You wrote, " and is also claiming that the explanation for seasons is incorrect." Uh, no I'm not. I didn't say anything about the explanation of seasons. I pointed out the model described in the video implies a speed changes that we don't see. Did you see the problem? Are you agreeing with me that it doesn't work? And what's this video? You're abandoning your previous video and giving me a different video now? I'll watch this but don't you think now you need to roll up your sleeves and defend these videos with your own words? #5 You said, "Keep in mind at 3:06, the sun is setting, not changing shape." Uh, I think you've gotten confused. I mean, what I just quoted is correct. The sun is setting and not changing shape. BUT the video I was responding to claims the opposite. The video says that this is not the sun setting over the horizon but rather this is the sun changing shape for some reason. I mean, bro, come on, it's literally written across the 3:06 freeze frame. The video text says: "Watch the sun get squashed as it reaches the convergence line." Which is obviously not what's happening. This is the kind of nonsense that FE'ers have to say to try and explain away the observations of the real world. "Perspective will naturally cause it to begin disappearing over the vanishing point." It will not sink into the horizon though, agreed? Look at your perspective diagram. What it tells us is that the a shape will get smaller but keep it's relative proportions. Squashing? No. #6 "My opponent makes no attempt at refuting Eric Dubay's article, instead going off on a rant about Eric Dubay." Dude. Did you actually read what I wrote? I did refute the article. Why would you claim I didn't? And I'm not sure it counts as a rant. I was explaining why Dubay is such an terrible source to use. So, your entire response to my specific refutations is to just deny they exist? Huh? Dubay makes claims that are untrue because he assumes there is no axial tilt. So all of those claims are refuted by the existence of the axial tilt, agreed? Now, maybe I didn't connect the dots for you enough so let's do that. In the second half, Dubay asserts that there is no axial tilt. He says and I quoting him, "In typical reverse-engineered damage-control fashion... ...desperate heliocentrists in the late 19th century again modified their theory to say the ball-Earth actually tilts back 23.5 degrees on its vertical axis, thus explaining away many problems in one swoop!" First of all, this is not an argument. It's an assertion with no evidence or justification. There's a very real sense in which I shouldn't even have to respond to assertions without evidence or argument but I'm a nice guy and so I gave you evidence that the axial tilt was discovered in BC. Twice. That directly contradicts and thus disproves Eric's above claim. But you want to say I didn't attempt to refute him? I just ranted? Are you serious, bro? Then Eric argues that the axial tilt can't be true because otherwise the Midnight Sun would be experienced in the Southern Hemisphere. Did I not refute this too? Was I busy ranting? Oh, wait, no, I explained that what we see is that the Southern Hemisphere does experience a Midnight Sun. And I linked to evidence of this phenomenon. Why am I having to repeat the same refutations over again? If you're going to write that I didn't refute anything then I had better not be able to say a word. Much less bring up all these counter-examples. C'mon, now. How many lies in that article does one need to expose before it's time to stop using that article? Hint: we've passed the number alrady. If you want to debate one of Eric's lies then identify it and argue for it. Make a case.