This is a revised version of my Eratosthenes argument. I was getting some complaints that it was hard to teach monkeys how to read. Have included more pictures in this post. I hope it helps.
(SPACEisFAKEandGAY)Eratosthenes is claimed to have proven the earth is round in 240 BC with his observation of shadows.
In his observation he made a couple presumptions. First, he presumed that the earth was round. Because of this presumption, he had to presume that the sun's rays were reaching the earth in parallel fashion for the behavior of shadows to be accurate. His conclusion looked like this.
https://files.catbox.moe/6k92sk.pngThis is odd because nobody ever gives a reason why he should have presumed the earth was round in the first place, given it was 240 BC, prior to his observation of shadows. The oddest part being, he would have seen clouds all his life that looked like this.
https://files.catbox.moe/likxfy.webpIn 240 BC, why would any reasonable person see clouds that look like this their entire life, then presume that the sun's rays are reaching the entire earth in parallel fashion?
So let's take the objective, observable, and repeatable data that Eratosthenes would have objectively seen, crepuscular rays, and make the necessary presumptions we need for the behavior of shadows to be accurate.
Crepuscular sun rays from behind clouds would suggest a smaller local Sun. With a smaller local Sun, the behavior of the shadows can be reproduced on a flat Earth. That conclusion would look like this.
https://files.catbox.moe/e8kule.pngNow I know that you globs like to cry "illusion" and "the sun rays really are parallel, but they just appear to be crepuscular." After all, Einstein told us all about reality and how it's all a "persistent illusion." But we are talking about 240 B.C. They didn't have jewish "scientists" lying to them about rockets in space yet. Their entire reality is based on their terrestrial observations. He would have saw the same thing that we see today. Crepuscular rays. Sure, modern science can argue things are "illusions." And I can argue that they're not. The following is an example.
The distance of the sun from the earth to scale.
https://files.catbox.moe/hfaki9.jpgNow visualize that distance and convince yourself that the sun can create this hotspot with parallel rays.
https://files.catbox.moe/q4zj4v.pngNow attempt to visualize parallel rays creating the illusion of crepuscular rays in this picture.
https://files.catbox.moe/5ffm86.jpgI can make an argument against the claim of illusion but my point in this post is that they are described as illusions for a reason. An illusion is something that appears like one thing, but is something else in reality. Without the explanation of the illusion, you would have no reason to believe it was an illusion. So if atmospheric refraction creating crepuscular rays is an illusion, and we're told that in reality the sun's rays are parallel, but the illusion is that they appear crepuscular, then Eratosthenes should have observed them and presumed that the sun was small and local because he personally had no reason to presume crepuscular rays were an illusion and he should have came to the conclusion that the earth was flat.
Sure, you could argue that the world would proved him wrong years later, but I'm asking about Eratosthenes, in 240 BC, with the information he had available to him, and whether or not you find his conclusion reasonable given his circumstances.
With all this being said, Even if we give him the benefit of the doubt with his presumption that the earth was round in the first place, this would indeed require that the sun's rays are parallel, but modern science can't even keep consistent with that claim when they try to explain an eclipse.
https://files.catbox.moe/m0j93u.pngEverybody has their own chronological order in which they received red pills. We receive them all our lives. From the moment you realized that Santa Claus wasn't real, you have progressed to understanding that the CIA killed JFK, 911 was an inside job, climate change propaganda and so on. It might differ from person to person but we all have a list. But at some point you understood that the Holocaust was a hoax. This was a major leap because it probably changed your perspective on the entire world and the history we are given. You realized that 911 was an inside job, but the people behind that job were jews. Or that the CIA did kill JFK, but that the CIA answers to the Mossad. You eventually see a pattern. But as a Holocaust denier, you would fully understand what it is like to have such an unpopular opinion. And you would also understand what it is like to argue against a brick wall of ignorance and regurgitated mainstream narratives without any substance until you are inevitably banned from whatever platform you used and relocated to the limited hangout farm we call voat. That is where I am at today. Ever since I learned the truth about the Holocaust, I've treated anything and everything with the same skepticism. It has led me to the inevitable conclusion that the Earth is flat. I simply challenge the mainstream claim by observing reality.
I fully expect shills to be butthurt and agree with the disclaimers that Wikipedia or YouTube would put on the information that I try to share. If you're a Holocaust denier, then you know the routine. Make a post with substance, get denial, get insults, accusations, and deflection. Not a single one of them will address the actual post I made about Eratosthenes because the argument is bulletproof. They will treat this post the same exact way reddit would treat a post that was questioning why the chimney at Auschwitz wasn't attached to the building or ask how Anne Frank could write her diary with a ballpoint pen. There's no argument against it so they will avoid it at all costs.
