Saturday, November 15, 2014

The Flat-Earth Conspiracy


We have been taught that the height of stupidity and naivety was when our ignorant ancestors believed the Earth to be flat, and that if any man somehow still thinks the Earth to be the immovable center of the universe, that they must be the most primitive kind of ignoramus.   Nowadays the label “Flat-Earther” has become literally synonymous with “moron” and is a common cliché derogatory term for insulting someone’s intelligence.  Upon seeing a book titled “The Flat Earth Conspiracy” your ingrained instinct is likely to laugh, mock the messenger, and deny the very possibility.  The fact of the matter is however, that everything is actually just as it appears.  The Earth is flat and motionless just as it seems, the Sun/Moon are the same size, and all the celestial bodies revolve around us. This stable geocentric universe, proven true by experience and experiments, which reigned undisputed for thousands of years adequately explaining all Earthly and celestial phenomena, was violently uprooted, spun around, and sent flying through infinite space by a cabal of Sun-worshipping theoretical astronomers.   Early Masonic magicians like Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and Newton, along with their modern Masonic astro-not counter-parts like Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins, hand-in-hand with NASA and world Freemasonry have pulled off the greatest hoax, propagated the most phenomenal lie, and perpetuated the most complete indoctrination in history.









Over the course of 500 years, using everything from books, magazines, and television to computer-generated imaging, a multi-generational conspiracy has succeeded, in the minds of the masses, to pick up the fixed Earth, shape it into a ball, spin it in circles, and throw it around the Sun!  In schools where every professor’s desk is adorned with a spinning Earth-globe, we are lectured on the “heliocentric” theory of the universe, shown images of ball-planets and videos of men suspended in space.  The illusion created, connivingly convincing, has entranced the world’s population into blindly believing a maleficent myth.  The greatest cover-up of all time, NASA and Freemasonry’s biggest secret, is that we are living on a plane, not a planet, that Earth is the flat, stationary center of the universe.  My new book, "The Flat-Earth Conspiracy" exposes the entire deception, please help support independent media and purchase a paperback or eBook copy available in PDF and ePub for all mobile/tablet readers.

Support independent publishing: Buy this book on Lulu.

Buy The Flat Earth Conspiracy 252-Page Paperback, eBook, or ePub

209 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   1 – 200 of 209   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

Hi Eric,

Congratulations on completing your latest book.

I hope you have strong arguments for taking a flat earth position, it seems quite a brave or perhaps foolhardy thing to do. I hope it's the former.

One thing, if what you're saying is true, then the sphere conspiracy is a lot older than 500 years.

In his Etymologies, (written between 615-630 AD) Isidore of Seville describes the earth as a sphere.

According to Isidore, the word mudus (world) originates from motus (motion). He divides the world into five zones (belts) which he describes as circles drawn around the sphere of the world, and they include polar and equatorial regions.

He also explains that the world has an axis, a straight line from the North that extends through the center ball of the sphere, called ‘axis’ because around it the sphere turns like a wheel axel.

He even writes about the sun traveling through the Milkyway.

I've long suspected that the idea that people believed the earth was flat was a fallacy, perhaps designed to make us belittle ancient knowledge. It may be that the Catholic church taught it at some point, but I doubt it was widely believed. This is a very different position to yours and one based on just a little research, so it will be interesting for me to discover your argument and evidence and see how persuasive it is. Do you have any rebuttal for the etymological evidence mentioned?

nonoun



Eric Dubay said...

Hey Nonoun, thanks for the message! I absolutely do have rock solid strong arguments for the flat-Earth I look forward to presenting to you and the other readers in the near future :) The idea of a sphere Earth actually goes back before Isidore all the way to Pythagoras of Samos, but it didn't pick up any steam until Copernicus dusted it off the shelf. I have a rebuttal for every bit of the heliocentric myth, but I'm not sure what "evidence" you're referring to, you've just described his opinion but offered no evidence for it. Peace!

Anonymous said...

The etymological evidence I mentioned just supports the claim that the sphere earth hypothesis is older than 500 years. In itself its not evidence that earth really is a sphere, but it does suggest that idea was widely believed in ancient times because geographical language incorporated sphere ideas.

On the other hand, a correct translation of Genesis 1:6-7 does actually support the flat earth theory. Not that I would give a lot of weight to the Bible, but it does suggest that both the flat and spherical earth ideas have long traditions; there is etymological and textual evidence supporting both positions.

Supposing that your argument is strong and the earth really is flat, what would be the reason behind the conspiracy?

nonoun

Eric Dubay said...

You're right, the Bible describes a fixed, flat Earth, around which the Sun, Moon, and stars revolve. The Bible also talks about a great deception that Satan would enact in the final days, which would result in people increasingly abandoning God and the Bible, a hoax that would “deceive even the very elect!” The modern Atheist Big Bang Heliocentric Globe-Earth Chance Evolution paradigm has accomplished just this by removing God, or any sort of intelligent design, and replacing purposeful divine creation with haphazard random cosmic coincidence.

“The heliocentric theory, by putting the sun at the center of the universe ... made man appear to be just one of a possible host of wanderers drifting through a cold sky. It seemed less likely that he was born to live gloriously and to attain paradise upon his death. Less likely, too, was it that he was the object of God’s ministrations." -Morris Kline

By removing Earth from the motionless center of the Universe, these Masons have moved us physically and metaphysically from a place of supreme importance to one of complete nihilistic indifference. If the Earth is the center of the Universe, then the ideas of God, creation, and a purpose for human existence are resplendent. But if the Earth is just one of billions of planets revolving around billions of stars in billions of galaxies, then the ideas of God, creation, and a specific purpose for Earth and human existence become highly implausible.

By surreptitiously indoctrinating us into their scientific materialist Sun-worship, not only do we lose faith in anything beyond the material, we gain absolute faith in materiality, superficiality, status, selfishness, hedonism and consumerism. If there is no God, and everyone is just an accident, then all that really matters is me, me, me. They have turned Madonna, the Mother of God, into a material girl living in a material world. Their rich, powerful corporations with slick Sun-cult logos sell us idols to worship, slowly taking over the world while we tacitly believe their “science,” vote for their politicians, buy their products, listen to their music, and watch their movies, sacrificing our souls at the altar of materialism.

Our eyes and experience tell us the Earth is flat and motionless, and everything in the sky revolves around us. When we cease to believe our own eyes and experience we must prostrate ourselves at the feet of the very pseudo-scientists who blinded us, to treat them as "experts," astronomical "priests" who have special knowledge only they can access, like the Hubble telescope. By brainwashing us of something so gigantic and fundamental, it makes every other kind of lesser indoctrination a piece of cake! There's a lot more to it, but that's the gist of it.

Eric Dubay said...

I just finished putting together another video on how the Earth is not moving as well:

The Earth is Not Moving

The heliocentric theory, literally “flying” in the face of direct observation, experimental evidence and common sense, maintains that the ball-Earth is spinning around its axis at 1,000 miles per hour, revolving around the Sun at 67,000 miles per hour, while the entire solar system rotates around the Milky Way galaxy at 500,000 miles per hour, and the Milky Way speeds through the expanding Universe at over 670,000,000 miles per hour, yet no one in history has ever felt a thing! We can feel the slightest breeze on a summer’s day, but never one iota of air displacement from these incredible speeds! Heliocentrists claim with a straight face that their ball-Earth spins at a constant velocity dragging the atmosphere in such a manner as to perfectly cancel all centrifugal, gravitational, and inertial forces so we do not feel the tiniest bit of motion, perturbation, wind or air resistance! Such back-peddling, damage-control reverse-engineered explanations certainly stretch the limits of credibility and the imagination, leaving much to be desired by discerning minds. If the Earth and atmosphere are constantly revolving Eastwards at 1,000 mph, how is it that clouds, wind, and weather patterns casually and unpredictably go every which way, often travelling in opposing directions simultaneously? Why can we feel the slightest Westward breeze but not the Earth’s incredible supposed 1,000 mph Eastward spin!? And how is it that the magic velcro of gravity is strong enough to drag miles of Earth’s atmosphere along, but weak enough to allow little bugs, birds, clouds and planes to travel freely unabated in any direction?

Anonymous said...

Hi Eric

I thought the reason Earth could be moving at high speeds and we don't feel it is because it is moving through a vacuum.

One question, if the Earth is flat then why do i see the sun rise and set each day? If the Earth was flat then the sun should never go past my line of sight to the horizon. How is daily phenomena explained with a flat earth theory?

Eric Dubay said...

Hi Anon. The reason we don't feel any of Earth's various supposed millions of mile per hour motions is because they aren't happening, plain and simple. Saying "it's all happening in a vacuum" is a nice little answer that doesn't explain anything. You can prove in your backyard that the Earth has no orbital motion whatsoever:

“Take two carefully-bored metallic tubes, not less than six feet in length, and place them one yard asunder, on the opposite sides of a wooden frame, or a solid block of wood or stone: so adjust them that their centres or axes of vision shall be perfectly parallel to each other. Now, direct them to the plane of some notable fixed star, a few seconds previous to its meridian time. Let an observer be stationed at each tube and the moment the star appears in the first tube let a loud knock or other signal be given, to be repeated by the observer at the second tube when he first sees the same star. A distinct period of time will elapse between the signals given. The signals will follow each other in very rapid succession, but still, the time between is sufficient to show that the same star is not visible at the same moment by two parallel lines of sight when only one yard asunder. A slight inclination of the second tube towards the first tube would be required for the star to be seen through both tubes at the same instant. Let the tubes remain in their position for six months; at the end of which time the same observation or experiment will produce the same results--the star will be visible at the same meridian time, without the slightest alteration being required in the direction of the tubes: from which it is concluded that if the earth had moved one single yard in an orbit through space, there would at least be observed the slight inclination of the tube which the difference in position of one yard had previously required. But as no such difference in the direction of the tube is required, the conclusion is unavoidable, that in six months a given meridian upon the earth's surface does not move a single yard, and therefore, that the earth has not the slightest degree of orbital motion." -Samuel Rowbotham, "Zetetic Astronomy"

Eric Dubay said...

The Sun rise and set is caused by the law of perspective as the Sun gets closer to your point it appears overhead, and the further away it goes it shrinks and eventually disappears beyond the vanishing point.

“Although the Sun is at all times above and parallel to the Earth’s surface, he appears to ascend the firmament from morning until noon, and to descend and sink below the horizon at evening. This arises from a simple and everywhere visible law of perspective. A flock of birds, when passing over a flat or marshy country, always appears to descend as it recedes; and if the flock is extensive, the first bird appears lower, or nearer to the horizon than the last. The farthest light in a row of lamps appears the lowest, although each one has the same altitude. Bearing these phenomena in mind, it will easily be seen how the Sun, although always parallel to the surface of the Earth, must appear to ascend when approaching, and descend after leaving the meridian or noon-day position.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Earth Not a Globe, 2nd Edition” (85)

Check out this video too if anyone thinks the Sun is 93 million miles away as NASA claims. By observing the Sun's rays it is easily deduced that the Sun is only a few thousand miles over the surface of the Earth:

The Flat Earth and The Sun's Rays

The Flat Earth and The Sun's Perspective

Anonymous said...

Hi Eric.

Wow, this one certainly has interested me. Who ever would actually believe that after 500 years that the Earth is actually flat?!

If this is the case, and we are surrounded in ice, isn't it strange that a flat round 'disc' exists? How did a flat disk planet get created, and why are the other planets spherical? You say the Sun is only a few thousand miles away.

Eric, what are we, and why are we here// and who really controlls us on Earth..Aliens, or greedy control freak humans?? :-0

Eric Dubay said...

Hey Anon, greedy control freak humans indeed. Earth is not a planet, it is simply a plane. The other "planets" used to be known as "wandering stars" because they are only different from other stars in their relative motions. They are NOT physical terra firma capable of landing rovers on like NASA would have us believe with their staged Mars missions.

As you noted, Earth being the flat, fixed center of the universe, around which everything in the heavens revolves denotes a special importance and significance not only the Earth, but to us humans, the most intelligent among the intelligent designer's designs. By turning Earth into a spinning ball thrown around the Sun and shot through infinite space from a Godless Big Bang they turn humanity into a random meaningless, purposeless accident of a blind, dumb universe! It's trauma-based mind-control! They beat the divinity out of us with their mental manipulations.

Anonymous said...

Hi Eric

The explanation for sunset based on a flat earth doesn't work. What is the vanishing point? There is no such thing with 2 parallel lines. A flock of birds may seem to get closer to the horizon due to perspective but they can never go beneath it. They can vanish because they are small, they are not shining light at you and they get too far away to see. Pull out a telescope once they vanish and you will see them again. The sun is not like this. It is a bright shining light and it does not get smaller and then disappear into the vanishing point, it actually sinks below the horizon which is impossible if it is above earth and moving parallel. You can see half the sun while the other half is below the horizon every day which proves this is not caused by perspective or from it getting too far away to see.

I'm pretty sure light refracting through the spherical atmosphere and the clouds easily accounts for the suns rays seeming to come from close to earth.

Eric, I highly respect your work but it seems you have not looked into this thoroughly enough. Please do as this can only hurt the other good work you have done exposing the real conspiracies. I am thinking maybe you were threatened by the NWO and this is a purposeful stunt to damage your credibility?

Another quick question, why does water spin the opposite way in the southern hemisphere to the northern hemisphere when you flush the toilet?

Again, much respect to you and your work. Please look into this further before putting your book out there. Give it another week and if still convinced then make it for sale then?

Anonymous said...

A plane is still under the influence of Earths gravity while it is flying as is the atmosphere which keeps them all rotating with the Earth at the same speed. There is no reason with the modern model of Earth spinning through a vacuum that a plane would travel further relative to Earth going east or West. Relative to the vacuum of space around the planet yes but this causes no drag.

Your own argument for the moon landing hoax when the man walks past the flag and it moves due to wind which proves they were not on the moon where there is no atmosphere proves this planes theory wrong.

Eric Dubay said...

Thanks for your concerns Anonymous, but I assure you I "have looked into this thoroughly enough." I've been researching this subject for years and just spent the past year writing this 252-page book to help awakening everyone to this ultimate deception.

The horizon is the vanishing point, or vanishing line, more appropriately. It is NOT, the beginning of the curvature of the Earth, as ball-Earthers tell you. This is easily proved by using binoculars, telescope or zoom camera trained at the horizon, you will see significantly further than with the naked eye depending on the weather and strength of your equipment. If the Earth was a ball, this would be impossible because for their theory to hold any water (pun intended) the horizon line has to be the curvature of the Earth, and no matter how far you zoomed you should not be able to see any more of the Earth, you should be looking off into empty space! On a clear day at a good elevation you can see over a hundred miles, in some cases over two hundred miles away with the naked eye. This is completely inconsistent with a ball-Earth 25,000 miles in circumference.

The explanation for sunrise and sunset absolutely does work. In the Flat-Earth model, the Sun and Moon spotlights are perpetually hovering over and parallel to the surface of the Earth. From our vantage point, due to the Law of Perspective, the day/night luminaries appear to rise up the Eastern horizon, curve peaking high overhead, and then sink below the Western horizon. They do not escape to the underside of the Flat-Earth as one might imagine, but rather rotate concentric clockwise circles around the circumference from tropic to tropic. The appearance of rising, peaking and setting is due to the common Law of Perspective where tall objects appear high overhead when nearby, but at a distance gradually lower towards the vanishing point.

“What can be more common than the observation that, standing at one end of a long row of lamp-posts, those nearest to us seem to be the highest; and those farthest away the lowest; whilst, as we move along towards the opposite end of the series, those which we approach seem to get higher, and those we are leaving behind appear to gradually become lower … It is an ordinary effect of perspective for an object to appear lower and lower as the observer goes farther and farther away from it. Let any one try the experiment of looking at a light-house, church spire, monument, gas lamp, or other elevated object, from a distance of only a few yards, and notice the angle at which it is observed. On going farther away, the angle under which it is seen will diminish, and the object will appear lower and lower as the distance of the observer increases, until, at a certain point, the line of sight to the object, and the apparently uprising surface of the earth upon or over which it stands, will converge to the angle which constitutes the ‘vanishing point’ or the horizon; beyond which it will be invisible.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!” (230-1)

Eric Dubay said...

As for your assumption that water spins different ways in toilets in different hemispheres, I'm afraid you've been duped by another ball-Earth myth. The “Coriolis Effect” is often said to cause sinks and toilet bowls in the Northern Hemisphere to drain spinning in one direction while in the Southern Hemisphere causing them to spin the opposite way, thus providing proof of the spinning ball-Earth. Once again, however, just like Foucault’s Pendulums spinning either which way, sinks and toilets in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres do not consistently spin in any one direction! Sinks and toilets in the very same household are often found to spin opposite directions, depending entirely upon the shape of the basin and the angle of the water’s entry, not the supposed rotation of the Earth.

“While the premise makes sense - that the earth’s eastward spin would cause the water in a toilet bowl to spin as well - in reality, the force and speed at which the water enters and leaves the receptacle is much too great to be influenced by something as miniscule as a single, 360-degree turn over the span of a day. When all is said and done, the Coriolis effect plays no larger role in toilet flushes than it does in the revolution of CDs in your stereo. The things that really determine the direction in which water leaves your toilet or sink are the shape of the bowl and the angle at which the liquid initially enters that bowl.” -Jennifer Horton, “Does the Rotation of the Earth Affect Toilets and Baseball Games?” Science.HowStuffWorks.com

This can only hurt the other good work you have done exposing the real conspiracies. I am thinking maybe you were threatened by the NWO and this is a purposeful stunt to damage your credibility? Please look into this further before putting your book out there. Give it another week and if still convinced then make it for sale then?

Thanks for your concern, but I assure you this IS the real conspiracy. I have been threatened and attempts have been made to co-opt me, but this is certainly not a stunt to damage my credibility, and I don't need to give it another week because I've already given it several years! :) Peace

Eric Dubay said...

As a caveat regarding seeing hundreds of miles to the horizon at a high elevation, this would be possible on the ball-Earth, BUT the horizon line would be well below your altitude and line of sight. The reality is, however, even atop mount Everest, even flying over 100,000 feet in the air, the always horizontal horizon line rises up to meet your eye! On a ball-Earth you would have to look DOWN to the distant horizon, but in actuality no matter how high you go you'll never look down at the horizon.

For the second Anonymous, gravity doesn't exist, so it's supposed magical velcro effect, making the atmosphere somehow stick to and revolve with the Earth 1,000 mph, is ridiculous and unfounded. Then to further stack assumption upon assumption, you wish to say the Earth is spinning through a vacuum so that you can account for the clearly calm casual atmosphere. Then as a final assumption you use "relativity" (another concept like "gravity" which doesn't exist but needs to be assumed for the ball-Earth theory to hold any water) saying that's why East or West bound planes experience no drag. Yes, you can pile assumption upon assumption upon assumption to confirm your first assumption, or you can make zero assumptions and account for everything by the Earth simply being motionless.

Anonymous said...

When the sun sets it does not shrink and then get to a vanishing point and disappear. It stays the exact same size all the way over and then it literally descends past the horizon. When birds fly away they shrink before they disappear. The sun never shrinks as it gets further away proving this perspective theory incorrect.

Anonymous said...

Just wondering if you also believe atoms are flat? Or is it the proton that is flat with electrons floating over it in concentric circles? Or do you just not believe in atoms as you cannot see one with your naked eye?

In nature there is nowhere else we see such a structure as your flat Earth theory but it is full of sphere's circling around each other held both apart and together at the same time by electro-magnetic forces.

Anyone can get a microscope and see spherical cells moving around each other. Look at an egg, look at sperm, nowhere do you see flatness in nature, all things are really spherical. Spheres are strong and 3 dimensional, flat plate like structures are extremely week and 2 dimensional.

Flat Earth theory equates to absolute egotism. The universe is infinite and therefore every point is the middle and all things revolve around all other things. Flat earth says there is one center whereas nature says everywhere is a center. Its a matter of ego versus truth.

Anonymous said...

Hi again Eric.

If the Earth is a flat disk, can you tell me how thick it is, amd what it looks like underneath?

Eric Dubay said...

If the horizon line was actually the curvature of the ball-Earth, when you zoomed in on it with a digital camera, binoculars, or a telescope, you would only be seeing off into empty space, because the descending curvature of the Earth begins there. In actual fact, however, when you zoom in on the horizon several more miles (depending on the clarity of the weather and strength of your instruments) of flat-Earth appear straight beyond the horizon. This proves that the horizon line is a law of perspective vanishing point and not the curvature of your ball-Earth, Anonymous.

For the second Anonymous, the shape of eggs, sperm and atoms has nothing to do with the shape of the Earth. You could just as easily have said: "leaves are oval, our eyes are ovals, ovaries are oval, so the Earth must be an oval." But that's not scientific or even smart, so no need to preach to me about egoism vs. truth.

For the third Anonymous, no, I'm not going to lie to you like NASA and tell you I know the mass, weight, thickness and other impossible details about the Earth. I do not know what is above, below or beyond the flat-Earth, whether the universe is finite or infinite, those remain mysteries.

Ali said...

Ok..Eric I always check your blog as I find it an interesting but this theory is not odd but I dont even see the point of it.. and it has as many holes in it as a Hollywood blockbuster... No.1 why would any orgonization want to make us believe earth is flat or round? there is really no logic in that.. flat or round it doesn't make a little bit of change to human experience i'm sure you will have a reason why it does but it really really doesn't there are much more sinister things at play than the flatness of earth, but what mostly make your theory extremely unlikely is if the earth was indeed flat.. then if I leave my my home in Sydney on a plane and fly to south america going east then I would never be able to get back home.. unless I go west.. which isn't the case.. I can fly to Rio then to South Africa and back to Australia in a easterly direction.. which proves that earth is not flat bout a circular shape..sorry this theory is not viable.. earth is not flat.. Every element in the universe has a round shape and we're not different .. i know we want to think we are special but we're really not.. sorry.

Anonymous said...

Sorry but based on your other work I do not believe this is serious. You must be making this up to make yourself look extremely foolish to discredit yourself. I must say I find it quite disturbing.

You have still not given any answer to why the sun "DOES NOT SHRINK" as it travels away from us. If you cannot answer this question your theory is completely debunked.
I do not believe you are this logically impaired.

If anyone believes this flat earth baloney it is proof that people really will believe in anything and in general their mental capacities are barely above that of apes. No wonder the NWO rules over us so easily.

If you seriously believe this Eric then I give up on humanity.

Your talk about the horizon is wrong, look at the actual numbers and you will see that it will look flat even up at 100000ft.



Eric Dubay said...

Hi Ali, read the previous comments if you wish to better understand their motives. As for your question about circumnavigation, you can just as easily circumnavigate a flat plane as you can a sphere:

One of heliocentrist’s favorite “proofs” of their ball-Earth theory is the ability for ships and planes to circumnavigate, to sail or fly at right angles to the North Pole and eventually return to their original location. Since the North Pole and Antarctica are covered in ice and guarded “no-fly” zones, however, no ships or planes have ever been known to circumnavigate the Earth in North/South directions, only East/West; And herein lies the rub, East or West-bound circumnavigation can just as easily be performed on a flat plane as it can a globular sphere. Just as a compass can place its center-point on a flat piece of paper and trace a circle either way around the “pole,” so can a ship or plane circumnavigate a flat-Earth. The only kind of circumnavigation which could not happen on a flat-Earth is North/South-bound, which is likely the very reason for the heavily-enforced flight restrictions. Flight restrictions originating from none other than the United Nations, the same United Nations which haughtily uses a flat-Earth map as its official logo and flag!

“Circular sailing no more proves the world to be a globe than an equilateral triangle. The sailing round the world would, of course, take very much longer, but, in principle, it is exactly the same as that of the yachtsman circumnavigating the Isle of Wight. Let me give a simple illustration. A boy wants to sail his iron toy boat by a magnet, so he gets a basin, in the middle of which he places a soap-dish, or anything else which he may think suitable to represent the Earth, and then fills the basin with water to display the sea. He puts in his boat and draws it by the magnet round his little world. But the boat never passes over the rim to sail under the basin, as if that were globular, instead of being simply circular. So is it in this world of ours; from the extreme South we can sail from East to West or from West to East around it, but we cannot sail from North to South or from South to North, for we cannot break through intervening lands, nor pass the impenetrable ramparts of ice and rocks which enclose the great Southern Circumference.” -David Wardlaw Scott, “Terra Firma” (68)

“A very good illustration of the circum-navigation of a plane will be seen by taking a round table, and fixing a pin in the centre to represent the magnetic pole. To this central pin attach a string drawn out to any distance towards the edge of the table. This string may represent the meridian of Greenwich, extending due north and south. If now a pencil or other object is placed across, or at right angles to the string, at any distance between the centre and the circumference of the table, it will represent a vessel standing due east and west. Now move the pencil and the string together in either direction, and it will be seen that by keeping the vessel (or pencil), square to the string it must of necessity describe a circle round the magnetic centre and return to the starting point in the opposite direction to that in which it first sailed.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!” (226)

Eric Dubay said...

For Anonymous, It is well known that when a light of any kind shines through a dense medium it appears larger, or rather gives a greater "glare," at a given distance than when it is seen through a lighter medium. This is more remarkable when the medium holds aqueous particles or vapor in solution, as in a damp or foggy atmosphere. Anyone may be satisfied of this by standing within a few yards of an ordinary street lamp, and noticing the size of the flame; on going away to many times the distance, the light upon the atmosphere will appear considerably larger. This phenomenon may be noticed, to a greater or less degree, at all times; but when the air is moist and vapory it is more intense. It is evident that at sunrise, and at sunset, the sun's light must shine through a greater length of atmospheric air than at mid-day; besides which, the air near the earth is both more dense, and holds more watery particles in solution, than the higher strata through which the sun shines at noonday; and hence the light must be dilated or magnified, as well as modified in color.

If anyone believes this flat earth baloney it is proof that people really will believe in anything and in general their mental capacities are barely above that of apes. No wonder the NWO rules over us so easily. If you seriously believe this Eric then I give up on humanity. Your talk about the horizon is wrong, look at the actual numbers and you will see that it will look flat even up at 100000ft.

No, notice your own mental/emotional state regarding this issue, and keep paying attention and asking me questions. Soon you will see clearly that it is YOU and everyone else that has been duped, and your knee-jerk reaction to complain and discredit me is only proof of the depth of your brain-washing. You're correct, "No wonder the NWO rules over us so easily." They trap us in the ball-Earth delusion as children before we're old enough to question it, then by the time we are, we're too indoctrinated to care and just go about ridiculing anyone who presents us with the truth. And show me your "numbers" saying the Earth would look flat from 100,000ft! I've spent years calculating these numbers and if the Earth was a ball 25,000 miles in circumference we could see it visibly from sea-level, let alone 100,000 feet! Now please give me a little credit here, be more respectful and stop insulting my intelligence. Peace

Anonymous said...

During lunar eclipses, the projected shadow of the earth on the moon is always round. If the earth were flat, then this projection will not always be circular (it could degenerate to a line!). But this is NEVER observed, regardless of the time of the lunar eclipse.

When the Sun is directly overhead in any place, it is NOT directly overhead at the same time in any place a few hundred miles away: If you were to put a stick in the ground sticking straight up at noon in New York City, then telephone a friend in Chicago to ask him to also put a stick in the ground sticking straight up, he would see a shadow, and you would not. This is hard to explain unless "straight up" (away from the Earth's surface) points in different directions when you are at different places on the Earth's surface. That is, the Earth is not flat.

I know, however, such observations can and will be explained away. Anyone can explain away anything. Well, in a few decades or less, commerical spaceflight will tell us one way or another. Unless of course a giant holographic image of a spherical earth will have been created to fool the commoners traveling on those commercial space flights.

Anonymous said...

I always had a strange feeling the earth was flat, now it all makes perfect sense. The Sun will be the kicker, trying to prove that it is really a light bulb might take some convincing.

Anonymous said...

Eric i dont think anyone is trying to make a fool of you they respect you too much for that this is so far out there you know what i mean?. It takes a lot to make claims such as these and people care about you please dont take what i say as offensive i dont mean to be. You said we would all see clearly soon we have been duped what do you mean 1. your book or 2. someone is going to prove a flat earth to the world?

Eric Dubay said...

Thanks for the questions and concerns! The idea that it is the shadow of the Earth eclipsing the Moon during lunar eclipses is just an assumption which can be proven incorrect. Even if it was correct, however, it doesn't disprove the flat-Earth because the flat-Earth is round, just not spherical.

The idea is that the Sun, Earth, and Moon spheres perfectly align like three billiard balls in a row so that the Sun’s light casts the Earth’s shadow onto the Moon. Unfortunately for heliocentrists, this explanation is rendered completely invalid due to the fact that lunar eclipses have happened and continue to happen regularly when both the Sun and Moon are still visible together above the horizon! For the Sun’s light to be casting Earth’s shadow onto the Moon, the three bodies must be aligned in a straight 180 degree syzygy.

“According to the globular theory, a lunar eclipse occurs when the sun, earth, and moon are in a direct line; but it is on record that since about the fifteenth century over fifty eclipses have occurred while both sun and moon have been visible above the horizon.” -F.H. Cook, “The Terrestrial Plane”

As early as the time of Pliny, there are records of lunar eclipses happening while both the Sun and Moon are visible in the sky. The Greenwich Royal Observatory recorded that “during the lunar eclipses of July 17th, 1590, November 3rd, 1648, June 16th, 1666, and May 26th, 1668 the moon rose eclipsed whilst the sun was still above the horizon.” McCulluch’s Geography recorded that “on September 20th, 1717 and April 20th, 1837 the moon appeared to rise eclipsed before the sun had set.” Sir Henry Holland also noted in his “Recollections of Past Life” the April 20th, 1837 phenomena where “the moon rose eclipsed before the sun set.” The Daily Telegraph recorded it happening again on January 17th, 1870, then again in July of the same year, and it continues to happen during lunar eclipses to this day.

“On a globe of 25,000 statute miles equatorial circumference one has to be 24 feet above sea level to get a horizon of six miles, the ‘curvature’ being 8 inches to the mile and varying inversely with the square of the distance. We are thus taught to believe that what appears at all times of the day to be half a circle, or about 180 degrees, is in reality only a few miles, as the earth rotates against the sun and thus deceives us. But the phenomenon of a lunar eclipse requires, according to astronomical doctrine, that the earth shall be exactly midway between sun and moon, to shut off the light of the sun and thus to darken the moon. Those two ‘bodies’ being then according to the astronomer, opposite each other and the earth between, must each be 90 degrees, or a quarter of a circle distant from an observer on the earth’s surface - that is, half a circle from one to the other. So that what astronomy, on the one hand, teaches is only a few miles distant, the horizon, is thus seen to be, according to its own showing, half a circle for the sun is at one side of one quadrant, and the moon at the other side of another. If, therefore, the observer be on the equator when the phenomenon occurs, he can see, according to astronomical measurement, over 6,000 miles on either side of him, east and west. If in north or south latitude, he would see correspondingly less, but thousands of miles in every case. But, on the other hand, according to the popular theory, he would have to be hoisted 4,000 miles away in space for such a thing to be possible. The fact of lunar eclipses having been observed when sun and moon were both above the horizon at the time of the eclipse, and thus that the observer pierced, with the unaided eye, a distance of thousands of miles on either side of him - about half a circle - proves that the earth does not rotate, and that it is not the globe of popular belief.” -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (68)

Eric Dubay said...

“It is alleged by the learned that at a lunar eclipse the earth casts a shadow on the moon, by intercepting the light of the sun. The shadow, it is alleged, is circular, and as only a globe can cast a circular shadow, and as that shadow is cast by the earth, of course the earth is a globe. In fact, what better proof could any reasonable person require? ‘Powerful reasoning,’ says the dupe. Let us see. I have already cited a case where sun and moon have been seen with the moon eclipsed, and as the earth was not between, or they both could not have been seen, the shadow said to be on the moon could not possibly have been cast by the earth. But as refraction is charged with raising the moon above the horizon, when it is said to be really beneath, and the amount of refraction made to tally with what would be required to square the matter, let us see how refraction would act in regard to a shadow. Refraction can only exist where the object and the observer are in different densities. If a shilling be put in the bottom of a glass and observed there is no refraction. Refraction casts the image of the shilling UPWARDS, but a shadow always downwards. If a basin be taken and put near a light, so that the shadow will shorten inwards and DOWNWARDS; but if the rod is allowed to rest in the basin and water poured in, the rod will appear to be bent UPWARDS. This places the matter beyond dispute and proves that it is out of the range of possibility that the shadow said to be on the moon could be that of the earth.” -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (78)

Your shadow question, like Erastothenes supposed heliocentric proof, is assuming the Sun is millions of miles away and the light rays hit the Earth at the same angle. Using sextants and plane trigonometry, however, you can prove the Sun in only 32 miles in diameter a few thousand miles over the surface of the Earth. This is why the Sun's light rays can be seen shooting in many directions as shown here:

The Flat-Earth and the Sun's Rays

The Flat-Earth and the Sun's Perspective

“No one ever yet felt or saw the earth careering through space at the terrific rates it is credited with, but everyone who is not blind can see the sun move. But the matter can be tested. It may be known for certain whether the sun moves or not. Take a school globe and place a stile on the semicircle that holds it in position. Cause the globe to rotate against a lamp on a table, and you will find that the shadow left on the globe is always parallel to the equator, at whatever angle you may incline the globe. Further, let the stile be of sufficient length to allow the shadow to fall on to a flat surface, moving the globe towards the lamp, and the shadow will be a straight line. If, therefore, the shadow left on the earth by the sun be a straight line, then undoubtedly the sun is stationary. Drive a stake into the ground in such a position as to expose it to the sun for the greater part of a day - the whole day if possible. Mark the end of the shadow every quarter of an hour, and you will find that the marks form part of an elongated curve, clearly proving that the sun moves over a stationary earth.” -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (113)

Eric Dubay said...

“The Path of the Sun is Concentric, expanding and contracting daily for six months alternately. This is easily proved by fixing a rod, say at noon on the 21st of December, so that, on looking along it, the line of vision will touch the lower edge of the Sun. This line of sight will continue for several days pretty much the same, but, on the ninth or tenth day, it will be found that the rod will have to be moved considerably toward the zenith, in order to touch the lower edge of the Sun, and every day afterwards it will have to be raised till the 22nd of June. Then there will be little change for a few days as before, but day by day afterwards the rod will have to be lowered till the 21st of December, when the Sun is farthest from the Northern Centre, and it is dark there. This expansion and contraction of the Sun's path continues every year, and is termed the Northern and Southern Declination, and should demonstrate to Modem Astronomers the absurdity of calling the World a Planet, as it remains stationary while the Sun continues circling round the heavens.” -David Wardlaw Scott, “Terra Firma” (184-5)

And for the last Anonymous, what I mean is you've been duped by NASA and your school-books, but that my new book proves beyond any doubt that the Earth is flat and motionless, just as it appears. Peace

Anonymous said...

If the earth is a flat disc, then a person standing on the east coast of the United States ought to be able tosee clear across the Atlantic ocean and see land. If a person's sight be limited for whatever reason, then a powerful enough telescope ought to do the trick ought it not? Yet no one has ever been able to do this correct?

Also, you may have missed my point about eclipses. If the earth is a flat disc, there should be instances where the shadow cast by the earth is NOT a round circle. Surely the sun in this model cannot always be just in the right spot to always cast a circular shadow of the earth on the moon. At any oblique angle the shadow might be a straight line for example.

Anonymous said...

Hi again Eric.

Just the other day i remembered that people on the old Concorde flights used to comment that they were high enough to see the curvature of the earth. You say that the earth is flat cos you can see a flat horizon, but perhaps that's only because the distance is relatively short?

I'm still up in arms about this one, although agree with most of your other stuff. I simply don't believe that anyone cares about this NASA stuff that much for a gov to use this for some kind of mass media conrol of selfish in to win attitude, lol. That kinda makes me laugh a bit too much! ;-)

Eric Dubay said...

They laugh at us about this stuff because they've brainwashed us so completely that even when the truth is clearly presented before our eyes we refuse to believe it.

Matthew Boylan, former NASA operational graphics manager, (the cigarette smoking comedian guy int he video) worked for years creating photo-realistic computer graphics for NASA. Now a vocal Flat-Earther, Boylan claims that NASA’s sole reason for existence is to propagandize the public and promote this false ball-Earth heliocentric worldview. Originally recruited because of his skills and reputation as a hyper-realist multi-media artist, he started doing projects like photoshopping various lighting and atmospheric effects onto images of Earth, the Moon, Jupiter, Europa, etc. Having proved himself, and wanting to promote him to do more classified work, a room of NASA higher-ups during a party, as a type of initiatory-rite, explained to him and a few others in detail the reality of the Geocentric Flat-Earth model and how they have fooled the entire world.

Refusing to be a part of their deception, Boylan cut his ties to NASA, began researching the Flat-Earth for himself, and has recently become a powerful voice on the lecture circuit and the internet exposing NASA and their heliocentric hoax. In his comedic lectures he speaks candidly and eloquently about how simple it is using nothing more than Adobe Photoshop and a video editor to create any and every type of image NASA purports to be “receiving from the Hubble telescope.” He points out how in most ball-Earth videos lazy NASA graphics workers don’t even bother changing cloud structures in ordinary or time-lapse footage; the same shape, color and condition cloud cover often stays completely unchanged for 24 hour periods and longer! Boylan states unequivocally that every picture and video of the ball-Earth, all the Moon/Mars landings, the existence of orbiting satellites, space stations, and all Hubble images are hoaxed. He even quips anecdotes about how NASA officials and astro-nots privy to the Flat-Earth truth would laugh hysterically at the brain-washed zombie public who unquestioningly believe their televisions.

Commercial planes have curved glass windows which account for any curvature people think they are seeing. Non-NASA cameras have been launched up as high as 121,000 feet and all the way up the horizon is flat and rises to the eye of the camera. This is totally inconsistent with a ball-Earth. If the Earth is a ball, then the horizon line is the beginning of the curvature, and as you rise straight up in a balloon you should have to look further and further DOWN to the horizon. The highest part of the Earth should be directly below you and it would curve downwards from there. This is simply not the case. The horizon always stays parallel to the observer no matter the height.

Eric Dubay said...

In an editorial from the London Journal, July 18, 1857, one journalist described his hot-air balloon ascent, “The chief peculiarity of the view from a balloon at a considerable elevation was the altitude of the horizon, which remained practically on a level with the eye at an elevation of two miles, causing the surface of the earth to appear concave instead of convex, and to recede during the rapid ascent, whilst the horizon and the balloon seemed to be stationary.” J. Glaisher wrote in his, “Travels in the Air,” that “On looking over the top of the car, the horizon appeared to be on a level with the eye, and taking a grand view of the whole visible area beneath, I was struck with its great regularity; all was dwarfed to one plane; it seemed too flat.” M. Victor Emanuel, another hot-air balloonist, wrote that, “Instead of the earth declining from the view on either side, and the higher part being under the car, as is popularly supposed, it was the exact opposite; the lowest part, like a huge basin, being immediately under the car, and the horizon on all sides rising to the level of the eye.” Yet another American hot-air balloonist, Mr. Elliot wrote, “The aeronaut may well be the most skeptical man about the rotundity of the earth. Philosophy forces the truth upon us; but the view of the earth from the elevation of a balloon is that of an immense terrestrial basin, the deeper part of which is directly under one’s feet.” And in Mayhew’s “Great World of London,” one aeronaut recorded that, “Another curious effect of the aerial ascent was, that the Earth, when we were at our greatest altitude, positively appeared concave, looking like a huge dark bowl, rather than the convex sphere such as we naturally expect to see it. The horizon always appears to be on a level with our eye, and seems to rise as we rise, until at length the elevation of the circular boundary line of the sight becomes so marked that the Earth assumes the anomalous appearance as we have said of a concave rather than a convex body.”

Eric Dubay said...

It's like Mark Twain said, "It's easier to fool people than to convince them they've been fooled!" Or as Adolf Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf: "In the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying."

Eric Dubay said...

Mark Knight over at the Wayki Wayki blog has been reading my new book and delving into the subject all week, check out his great blog up today on it:

Earth Hoax, Don't Spin Out!

Author: M Knight said...

I'm into 50 hours of trying to debunk it......and the truth is.......as yet.....I can't!!!!! Loving the answers here, and will give you're book credit in part 2.

Eric Dubay said...

Thanks Mark, looking forward to reading it!

Anonymous said...

Eric,

You said:

"This is easily proved by using binoculars, telescope or zoom camera trained at the horizon, you will see significantly further than with the naked eye depending on the weather and strength of your equipment. If the Earth was a ball, this would be impossible because for their theory to hold any water (pun intended) the horizon line has to be the curvature of the Earth, and no matter how far you zoomed you should not be able to see any more of the Earth, you should be looking off into empty space!"

Ok, let's take this a step further. If the Earth is a flat disc, then a person standing on the east coast of the United States ought to be able to see clear acrosss the Atlantic ocean and see the land on the other side. With a powerful enough telescope, this must be true. But no one has ever been able to do this, have they?

Let us climb to the peak of the highest mountain on Earth and with our telescope we should be able to see the entire world--every land mass, every ocean--in a panaromaic view, including the ice wall surrounding the disc. But no one has ever been able to do this, have they?

Eric Dubay said...

Hey Anon, it would be a great experiment to test with a really expensive high-powered telescope. With a regular telescope, however, on a clear day, you can zoom in many more miles of Earth which proves it's not a ball 25,000 miles around. Without a telescope you can see about 6 miles at sea-level and with a telescope you can see much more than that. The formula for calculating the ball-Earth's supposed curvature is 8 inches to the mile, varying inversely as the square of the distance, so the first mile establishes line of sight, the second mile must then descend 8 inches, the third mile 32 inches, the fourth mile 6 feet, the fifth mile 10 feet 8 inches, and by the sixth mile should already be 16 feet 8 inches below your line of sight. Stand in the water with a telescope just over the surface and you can zoom in many more miles of the perfectly horizontal horizon right at your eye level, proving no such convexity exists.

In Cambridge, England there is a 20 mile canal called the Old Bedford which passes in a straight line through the Fenlands known as the Bedford Level. The water has no interruption from locks or water-gates of any kind and remains stationary making it perfectly suitable for determining whether any amount of convexity/curvature actually exists. In the latter part of the 19th century, Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, a famous Flat-Earther and author of the fine book, “Earth Not a Globe! An Experimental Inquiry into the True Figure of the Earth: Proving it a Plane, Without Axial or Orbital Motion; and the Only Material World in the Universe!” travelled to the Bedford level and performed a series of experiments to determine whether the surface of standing water is flat or convex.

“A boat, with a flag-staff, the top of the flag 5 feet above the surface of the water, was directed to sail from a place called ‘Welche's Dam’ (a well-known ferry passage), to another called ‘Welney Bridge.’ These two points are six statute miles apart. The author, with a good telescope, went into the water; and with the eye about 8 inches above the surface, observed the receding boat during the whole period required to sail to Welney Bridge. The flag and the boat were distinctly visible throughout the whole distance! There could be no mistake as to the distance passed over, as the man in charge of the boat had instructions to lift one of his oars to the top of the arch the moment he reached the bridge. The experiment commenced about three o'clock in the afternoon of a summer's day, and the sun was shining brightly and nearly behind or against the boat during the whole of its passage. Every necessary condition had been fulfilled, and the result was to the last degree definite and satisfactory. The conclusion was unavoidable that the surface of the water for a length of six miles did not to any appreciable extent decline or curvate downwards from the line of sight. But if the earth is a globe, the surface of the six miles length of water would have been 6 feet higher in the centre than at the two extremities. From this experiment it follows that the surface of standing water is not convex, and therefore that the Earth is not a globe! On the contrary, this simple experiment is all-sufficient to prove that the surface of the water is parallel to the line-of-sight, and is therefore horizontal, and that the Earth cannot be other than a plane!” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe! An Experimental Inquiry into the True Figure of the Earth: Proving it a Plane, Without Axial or Orbital Motion; and the Only Material World in The Universe!” (12-13)

Anonymous said...

Gate keeping of comments makes this look even more suspect. I made the comment that the sun does not shrink as it passes away which proves the flat Earth theory incorrect. You answered this by stating that moisture in the air makes it appear bigger than it is the further it moves away from us. But then i countered that if this was the case then the sun would look larger from humid parts of the Earth such as from the tropics as opposed to a desert which it does not. This proves your assumption false. Instead of trying to answer this you simply didn't post it.

I also countered to your continued assumption that from 100,000 feet above Earths surface the horizon should look curved. When we do the numbers and draw a scale diagram we see that 100,000 ft is barely above the Earths surface. Again you simply do not post it instead of showing the actual scale diagram and countering some kind of logical argument. Anyway here are the numbers for you again.

If the Earth has a circumference of 25,000 miles then the diameter is 7957 miles. 100,000ft = 18.9 miles. 7957/ 18.9 = 421. So draw a circle with a diameter of 421 and then put a line 1 long on top. This shows how tiny 100,000ft is compared with the size of Earth and indeed that from that view the horizon would not be significantly different than from the surface.

Anonymous said...

SO if I have traveled in a one direction trip (From Denver East to Southern Asia, then India, Madagascar, Egypt to Italy and then through England to New York) and still arrived at home, How would this happen on a flat earth?

Oz10 said...

How does your book explain the cycles of the moon? Since current thought is that they are created by the shadow of the circular earth.

Barzini said...

Hi Eric,

This is amazing stuff, I hoped you would cover this subject one day....

I have one question: how does the flat earth theory account for the fact that the moon appears 'upside down' in the southern hemisphere?

i.e. the well know features of the moon that we see (craters) etc.... appear the other way around in the southern hemisphere.

Eric Dubay said...

I found one of your comments in my spam filter Anonymous, apparently blogger finds your attitude quite trollish as well. I've published it now, but I still don't see any comment regarding what you mentioned, so if it's not published or in my spam filter, then you're to blame, not me, so stop accusing me of "gate-keeping," and check the three fingers pointing back at you.

Your assumption that the atmospheric differences between the tropics and desert would be significant enough to change the appearance of the Sun is unfounded. Besides the sunrises and sunsets DO have varying different appearances and colors everywhere everyday anyway, as I said:

It is well known that when a light of any kind shines through a dense medium it appears larger, or rather gives a greater "glare," at a given distance than when it is seen through a lighter medium. This is more remarkable when the medium holds aqueous particles or vapor in solution, as in a damp or foggy atmosphere. Anyone may be satisfied of this by standing within a few yards of an ordinary street lamp, and noticing the size of the flame; on going away to many times the distance, the light upon the atmosphere will appear considerably larger. This phenomenon may be noticed, to a greater or less degree, at all times; but when the air is moist and vapory it is more intense. It is evident that at sunrise, and at sunset, the sun's light must shine through a greater length of atmospheric air than at mid-day; besides which, the air near the earth is both more dense, and holds more watery particles in solution, than the higher strata through which the sun shines at noonday; and hence the light must be dilated or magnified, as well as modified in color.

If you read the comment right above yours you'll see that there should already be 16 feet, 8 inches of downward curvature visible from SEA-LEVEL only 6 miles away. Your faulty math proves nothing but your own ignorance of this issue. The supposed curvature of the Earth, as given by your gods at NASA, is 8 inches per mile varying inversely with the square of the distance. Your dividing of diameters and resultant ratio has no bearing on the curvature present on a 25,000 mile circumference ball. Use the actual math for curvature given to you by your gods and then get back to me.

Eric Dubay said...

For the second Anonymous, I already covered circumnavigation above, re-read the comments if you missed it. For Oz10 and Barzini, people all over the world see the features of the Moon from different positions/angles as it makes its journey over the flat-Earth, it is not nearly as simple as "right-side up in the North and upside-down in the South."

Supposed "craters, hills, valleys, etc." on the Moon are not discernable as such even through a good telescope, and calling them as such is like interpreting faces in cloud formations and thinking you've seen God!

“Astronomers have indulged in imagination to such a degree that the moon is now considered to be a solid, opaque spherical world, having mountains, valleys, lakes, or seas, volcanic craters, and other conditions analogous to the surface of the earth. So far has this fancy been carried that the whole visible disc has been mapped out, and special names given to its various peculiarities, as though they had been carefully observed, and actually measured by a party of terrestrial ordinance surveyors. All this has been done in direct opposition to the fact that whoever, for the first time, and without previous bias of mind, looks at the moon's surface through a powerful telescope, is puzzled to say what it is really like, or how to compare it with anything known to him. The comparison which may be made will depend upon the state of mind of the observer. It is well known that persons looking at the rough bark of a tree, or at the irregular lines or veins in certain kinds of marble and stone, or gazing at the red embers in a dull fire will, according to the degree of activity of the imagination, be able to see many different forms, even the outlines of animals and of human faces. It is in this way that persons may fancy that the moon's surface is broken up into hills and valleys, and other conditions such as are found on earth. But that anything really similar to the surface of our own world is anywhere visible upon the moon is altogether fallacious.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!” (335)

Eric Dubay said...

Far from being a proof of heliocentricity, many facets of the Moon prove geocentricity and the flat-Earth. For example, though it appears to move East to West just like the Sun and everything else in the heavens, NASA says the Moon actually spins West to East at 10.3 mph while orbiting Earth at 2,288 mph, which combined with the Earth’s supposed 1,038mph spin and 67,108 mph orbit around the Sun "coincidentally" results in all motions perfectly cancelling out making the Moon seem to move across the heavens with similar path and similar speed as the Sun while always only showing us one side of its surface, and perpetually hiding its “dark side.”

“The Moon presented a special math problem for the construction of the heliocentricity model. The only way to make the Moon fit in with the other assumptions was to reverse its direction from that of what everyone who has ever lived has seen it go. The math model couldn’t just stop the Moon like it did the Sun, that wouldn’t work. And it couldn’t let it continue to go East to West as we see it go, either at the same speed or at a different speed. The only option was to reverse its observed East to West direction and change its speed from about 64,000 miles an hour to about 2,200 miles an hour. This reversal, along with the change in speed, were unavoidable assumptions that needed to be adopted if the model was to have any chance of mimicking reality.” -Bernard Brauer

“They want you to believe that the Moon's rotation is perfectly synchronized with its orbit so that's why we only ever see one side of the Moon, rather than conclude the obvious - that the Moon is simply NOT rotating. Moreover, they had to slow down the Moon's speed by 58,870 mph AND reverse its direction to West-East to successfully sell their phony heliocentricity system to a gullible public. I don't think there is one person in many, many thousands - regardless of education - who knows that the Copernican Model had to turn the Moon's observable direction around and give it a new speed to accommodate the phases and eclipses.” -Marshall Hall

“Astronomers tell us that the Moon goes round the Earth in about 28 days. Well, we may see her making her journey round every day, if we make use of our eyes and these are about the best things we have to use. The Moon falls behind in her daily motion as compared with that of the Sun to the extent of one revolution in the time specified; but that is not making a revolution. Failing to go as fast as other bodies go in one direction does not constitute a going round in the opposite one - as the astronomers would have us believe! And, since all this absurdity has been rendered necessary for no other purpose than to help other absurdities along, it is clear that the astronomers are on the wrong track.” -William Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe” (82)

Also check out the diagrams in this video showing how the phases of the Moon we see are consistent with the flat-Earth and not with a spinning ball-Earth:

Flat-Earth Not Fazed By The Moon

Eric Dubay said...

Oz10, as I showed in previous comments, eclipses cannot be caused by the Earth's shadow since they are often not aligned the necessary 180 degrees to each other. The Moon phase video above also shows that the "Earth's shadow" explanation doesn't hold here either. Many flat-Earthers speculate the existence of a dark disc, also 32 miles in diameter just like the Sun and Moon, which creates the phases and lunar eclipses. This is at least plausible, whereas the "Earth's shadow" explanation is impossible. The Moon is clearly not a rotating sphere, nor is it densely physical, it is merely a luminous flat disc, and therefore the phases/eclipsing could also simply be innate properties inherent in how the Moon operates. In short, NASA's explanation is easily disproved, but what the true answer could be remains unproved.

Michael Luder said...

Hi Eric

Long time reader, first time commentor :)

David Icke often purports theories with no evidence base but assures us that if we pay to see his live show (his cash cow) we will wonder at the delights of the "proof" of his claims. His claims, ranging from the Queen, nay all royalty, being some sort of vampirish, reptilian controlled, child-soul eating satanist cult all the way to the Moon being a man/reptilian made satellite used to block our inner Chakras from transmitting in some higher purpose communication..

My point is my inner skeptic alarm rings loud and clear whenever someone says..

"Pay here to get the answers you're looking for on why capitalism is fuelled by an evil organisation set up to dupe us into some sort of ignorant malaise and lead us to annihilation.."

The contradiction is evidenced but the facts we must pay for..

Excuse my severe, cold, analytical tone and please don't take personal offense.. (Somehow, I feel you are made of tougher stuff than that anyhow!)

There is good reason why I NEVER read Mr Icke but continue to read your own words.

Without having the time to research 1st hand constantly, we the public NEED the truth seekers and rely on their impartiality and level headedness..

In just the same way I question all texts I read, so I am in the unique position to question the very author, of which I am very grateful.

Restore my Faith! I demand it! Ha!

One Love

Michael

Eric Dubay said...

Hey Michael, thanks for the comment! I certainly understand and agree with your criticism of how many of these conspiracy figure-heads are getting rich with their controlled opposition jobs. As a result, people are very skeptical and reluctant to give any money towards helping anyone in the conspiracy community. Personally, I began as a crusader with a mission to expose the global conspiracy I'd been long researching to the world, and that is why before I ever had a website I would spend 10+ hours per day on various message boards trying to expose the conspiracy. Once I'd gotten banned from all the top boards I decided to start this site, and I gave away (and continue to give away) Asbestos Head and The Atlantean Conspiracy for free. I'm approaching 1 million downloads of The Atlantean Conspiracy now, which is awesome, and I'm so glad so many people have read and shared my work.

It's been my dream since I was 5 years old to be a professional writer; ever since I could pick up a pencil my family knew I was a born writer. At the moment I have almost 6 million website views, my Google+ reach just broke 80 million, and I am also on message boards, radio shows, podcasts, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Pinterest, StumbleUpon etc. trying to spread the word, giving away all my articles for free. I'm having a great effect, reaching so many people, but did you know I still can't even afford my tiny one-room studio apartment on the money I make from my books? My last book, Spiritual Science, the first book that I didn't give away for free, has only sold about 150 copies total in the past two years. Isn't that interesting that a million people will read my books if they are free, but only about 150 people will read them if they have to pay?

Again, I absolutely understand and share your criticisms regarding people getting rich off of "conspiracy consumerism" but for me, as a born writer, with a passion to get the truth out AND a passion to be a real, full-time, professional writer, I'm trying to balance a tight-rope here between giving everything I write away for free and trying to make a living from my hard work. I think I'm probably one of the hardest working authors out there, and the least compensated for it.

The truth of the matter is that if you cannot afford to support me, I understand, and you don't have to, because I publish in article form every single chapter from my books. So even if you didn't buy Spiritual Science, guess what? If you've been following my blog the past two years, you've already read the entire book! If anyone cannot afford to help support me, I understand, and no need to worry, because in the next couple years, I will publish in article form every single chapter of The Flat-Earth Conspiracy. Why? Because I'm a genuine truth-seeker/exposer, and not some greedy opportunist! Has Icke given away every single word in his books away for free?? No, but I have, and will continue.

Anyone who can help support my work I very much appreciate it, but for anyone who for any reason cannot, I promise my work will always be available to you and everyone else absolutely free. Peace

Anonymous said...

If the Earth is indeed Flat, then we are living in an illusion. There is no outer space, there is no inner space, there is only here and now and it is an illusion. Its all Black Magic, we are the prisoners of Darkness.

Anonymous said...

Are we living in a hologram created by a very large three D printer?

Eric Dubay said...

Lol, the comments are starting to get pretty weird now :P

Oz10 said...

As for the CURVATURE of this shadow, it is either the surface of the moon curved or the object creating the shadow... so disk shaped flat earth? or shpereical moon?

In the video you posted it says the Moon orbits, so we will start there. Orbiting requires a curved path of an object around a point in space.
In the video the sun never moved and it would have meant 24 daylight for the WHOLE planet. Did a great job proving that the moon phases could happen another way but not by any means proof... you have to do better than that.

We are assuming this point in space is the earth, Where do the orbiting bodies go to when we can not see them?

What is in the center is debatable, but I have doubt on the flatness... the north to south circumnavigation issue seems weak but I personally haven't done it. I won't post another persons examples cause that to is subject to being 'total Bullshit' like so many other things the internet has to offer.

p.s. I love reading your work and I wish I could afford to support you.

Anonymous said...

I have 3 related questions.

1. If the earth is a flat disc, please explain by what process the earth has a magnetic field.

2.By what process are there aurora's? 2a. If we are in agreement they are caused by charges particles interacting with the atmosphere, and that the charged particles eminate from the sun, and since the sun is a mere 32 miles in diameter, then the blast of charged particles leaving the sun must be in a very narrow band, yet they ENVELOP the entire "disc" of the earth. By what process is this possible? 2b. If you say the sun radiates energy in all directions how can this be if it is a disc, and not a sphere? If you say the disc points directly at the earth and the particles eminate downwards in all directions from that disc, at what speed are those particles traveling? Because the aurora is seen at night, when the sun is NOT visible, are the particles traveling very slowly and only collide with the magnetosphere at a delayed rate, allowing for the sun to have set? If the answers to 2a and 2b are "this doesn't exist" please refer back to question 2 "by what process are there aurora's."

3. On a flat earth, how are the known and verifable magnetic field lines reconciled? How can a compass work? There must be a dipolar magnetic field. Where is the "south magentic pole" on a flat earth? This is easy to explain on a sphere. Not so much on a flat disc. See here:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=38554.0

There are a number of other posts on this forum related to this question. None answer satisfactorily in my opinion.

Anonymous said...

If the Earth is Flat that can only mean one thing, we are in Hell. Heil Zues.

Anonymous said...

If the Earth is Flat, then why are rainbows curved. Rainbows should be Flat or 2 dimensional. If the Earth is Flat then we are in a 2 dimensional matrix. If we increase the frequency of Earth a few more octaves, then we will be back in a 3 dimensional matrix where every thing is round. If we can repeat this procedure, eventually we will reach the sixth dimension where everything is a hexagon and humans have six fingers and toes.

Eric Dubay said...

Thanks for the questions everyone. Oz10, the Moon is a luminous flat disc which is not densely physical like Earth. This is proved by the fact that stars and planets have been seen through the crescent Moon during waxing/waning cycles.

“That the moon is not a perfectly opaque body, but a crystallized substance, is shown from the fact that when a few hours old or even at quarter we can through the unilluminated portion see the light shining on the other side. Stars have also been observed through her surface!” -J. Atkinson, “Earth Review Magazine”

“During a partial solar eclipse the sun's outline has many times been seen through the body of the moon. But those who have been taught to believe that the moon is a solid opaque sphere, are ever ready with ‘explanations,’ often of the most inconsistent character, rather than acknowledge the simple fact of semi-transparency. Not only has this been proved by the visibility of the sun's outline through segments, and sometimes the very centre of the moon, but often, at new moon, the outline of the whole, and even the several shades of light on the opposite and illuminated part have been distinctly seen. In other words we are often able to see through the dark side of the moon's body to light on the other side.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!” (337)

As I mentioned, the eclipsor of the Moon cannot be the Earth because the angle is rarely the necessary 180 degree syzygy for this to be possible, along with the various other objections raised in the video. The Moon does follow a curved "orbit" over the Earth around the equatorial/tropical circumference just like the Sun. The video showing a non-moving Sun was representing the heliocentric theory where the ball-Earth revolves around the Sun and in concert with the Sun's supposed 500,000mph orbit of the Milky Way, so relative to the Earth, the Sun is still. In reality, however, the Sun is a spotlight which hovers constantly just a few thousand miles over the surface of the Earth. The hovering spotlights drop below the horizon vanishing line due to the law of perspective as they continue their path around to the other half of the world.

Eric Dubay said...


“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)

Eric Dubay said...

For Anonymous, believe it or not, the Flat-Earth Society is actually a controlled opposition group mixing truth with fiction and treating the entire thing with sarcasm and satire to deter people from genuinely investigating the flat-Earth, so I'm not surprised you weren't able to find adequate answers there.

Your questions are interesting and worth pursuing, but asking me "by what process does the Earth's magnetic field work," and "by what process does the Aurora happen," have no bearing on the shape of the Earth. I'm aware that the make-shift answers given by the heliocentrist establishment are touted as "proof" of the ball-Earth, but these phenomena could certainly happen regardless of the shape of the Earth. For example, many flat-Earthers like Giacomo Massenza postulate that their exists a tall "magnetic mountain" at the North Pole. Since there is a no-fly/no-sail policy to the North Pole however, there is no way for me to confirm or deny such things, so I remain open. Ring magnets, however, like in loudspeakers, shaped like a flat disc do exist and have radial magnetization, with one magnetic pole at the center and the other "pole" being all points on the edge of the magnet. This is totally consistent with the flat-Earth model.

"As the mariners' compass points north and south at one and the same time, and a meridian is a north and south line, it follows that meridians can be no other than straight lines. But, since all meridians on a globe are semicircles, it is an incontrovertible proof that the Earth is not a globe.” -William Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe” (8-13)

“The needle of this most important instrument is straight, its two ends pointing North and South at the same time, consequently the meridians must be straight lines also; whereas, on a Globe, they are semi-circles. Even at the Equator the needle points straight, which would be impossible, were that the mid-way of a vast convex Globe, as, in such case, the one end would dip towards the North, and the other be pointed towards the sky. Again, the navigator, when he goes to sea, takes his observations, and relies on the Compass to guide him as to the direction in which he wishes to proceed ; he does not provide himself with the model of a Globe, which, if the world were a Globe, would surely be the safest plan for him to adopt, but he takes flat maps or charts. Thus, in practice, he sails his ship as if the sea were horizontal, though in theory he had been erroneously taught that it is convex.” -David Wardlaw Scott, “Terra Firma” (99)

Eric Dubay said...

As for the Earth being flat meaning we're in hell, that makes no sense. Nor does the 6th dimension hexagon, 6 fingers/toes explanation make any sense. Rainbows being curved also proves nothing as the flat-Earth is round, just not spherical, the Sun is also round and its path is round.

Anonymous said...

In fact, by what process the magnetic field works does give an idea of the shape of the earth. The field is dipolar. Furthermore, HOW is the field generated? That is the more important question. RE theory postulates the core of the earth is molten nickel - iron and spins due to the rotation of the earth thereby creating a dynamo. How is electromagnetism generated in a FE theory? And we know it must be EM due to the auoras. That was my point of asking about those. With the further question regarding if the sun is so much smaller in diameter than the earth, how does such a seemingly small burst of charged particles create auroras in both "hemispheres" or "halves" in the FE belief. As well as it being dark when we see auroras, if the flat disc spotlight sun is out of sight, how do the particles reach the dark halves?

Anonymous said...

If Earth is Flat and stationary, and the sun and the moon are moving in the same direction as each other around earth at consistent speeds. Then why is the moon in a different phase every night of the month? Does it speed up and slow down? We know the sun and the moon revolve around the stationary earth. So what is your explanation on the funky activity of the moon?

Anonymous said...

The moon revolves around a stationary earth every day at the same speed, it is obvious. So the why does it show a different phase? It can't be just the sun because it is consistent in its daily speed around earth as well as the moon. So then why does the moon look different every night of the month?

Michael Luder said...

Hi Eric

Thank you for taking the time to answer my comment. I am very grateful for the source of information you tirelessly create.

Have you thought about putting up a "Paypal Donation" button?

Definitely worth a try.

Keep up the fantastic work.

One love

Michael

Eric Dubay said...

Thanks so much, Michael. I do have a paypal donation button on the sidebar of the website if anyone wishes to support me financially. Instead of straight donations, though, I would prefer if people bought a few copies of my paperbacks and gave them away to friends and family as gifts of enlightenment (Christmas is coming!)

Anonymous, the Moon itself is actually self-luminous and semi-transparent. NASA and modern astronomy maintain that the Moon is a solid, spherical, Earth-like habitation which man has actually flown to and set foot on. They claim the Moon is a non-luminescent planetoid which receives and reflects all its light from the Sun. The reality is, however, that the Moon is not a solid body, it is clearly circular, but not spherical, and not in any way an Earth-like planetoid which humans could set foot on. In fact, the Moon is largely transparent and completely self-luminescent, shining with its own unique light.

The Sun’s light is golden, warm, drying, preservative and antiseptic, while the Moon’s light is silver, cool, damp, putrefying and septic. The Sun’s rays decrease the combustion of a bonfire, while the Moon’s rays increase combustion. Plant and animal substances exposed to sunlight quickly dry, shrink, coagulate, and lose the tendency to decompose and putrify; grapes and other fruits become solid, partially candied and preserved like raisins, dates, and prunes; animal flesh coagulates, loses its volatile gaseous constituents, becomes firm, dry, and slow to decay. When exposed to moonlight, however, plant and animal substances tend to show symptoms of putrefaction and decay.

So sunlight and moonlight clearly have altogether different properties, and furthermore the Moon itself cannot physically be both a spherical body and a reflector of the Sun’s light! Reflectors must be flat or concave for light rays to have any angle of incidence; If a reflector’s surface is convex then every ray of light points in a direct line with the radius perpendicular to the surface resulting in no reflection.

Eric Dubay said...

“Again, if the Moon is a sphere, which it is declared to be, how can its surface reflect the light of the Sun? If her surface was a mass of polished silver, it could not reflect from more than a mere point! Let a silvered glass ball or globe of considerable size be held before a lamp or fire of any magnitude, and it will be seen that instead of the whole surface reflecting light, there will be a very small portion only illuminated. But the Moon’s whole surface is brilliantly illuminated! A condition or effect utterly impossible if it be spherical.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Earth Not a Globe, 2nd Edition” (97)

And as for the phases:

"It has been shown that the moon is not a reflector of the sun's light, but is self-luminous. That the luminosity is confined to one-half its surface is sufficiently shown by the fact that at 'new moon' the entire circle or outline of the whole moon is often distinctly visible, but the darker outline or circle is always apparently less than the segment which is illuminated. It is a well ascertained fact that a luminous body appears larger, or subtends a greater angle at the eye, than a body of exactly the same magnitude, but which is not luminous. Hence, it is logically fair to conclude that as the part of the moon which is non-luminous is always of less magnitude than the part which is luminous, that luminosity is attached to a part only. From this fact it is easily understood that "new moon," "full moon," and "gibbous moon," are simply the different proportions of the illuminated surface which are presented to the observer on earth. A very simple experiment will both illustrate and imitate these different phases. Take a wooden or other ball, and rub one half its surface with a solution of phosphorus in olive oil. On slowly turning this round in a dark room, all the quarters and intermediate phases of the moon will be most beautifully represented. -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, "Earth Not a Globe!" (334)

Anonymous said...

Why is Saturn referred to as the second or dark sun, and is it the reason earth is flat? Could Earth be just a manifestation of the Elohim, the creator Gods of humans?

Anonymous said...

Not sure if my last message went through so here it is again.

My mistake--I meant to ask by what process does the ELECTRO-magnetic field work"? This is important indeed in acsertaining the shape of the earth. My point is HOW does the FE model explain the generation of an electromagnetic field? In the RE model, as I'm sure you're aware, the molten nickel-iron core of the earth generates the EM field due to the rotation of the earth creating a dynamo. This gives the RE a dipolar field with a north and south ELECTRO-magnetic pole. When you mention there could be a magnetic mountain somewhere around the north pole, ok, there can be no counter-argument if you state we can never go looking for it. Is this the source for the FE EM field? How does the magnetic mountain generate an EM field or where else does the field come from? Where does the electrical current come from?

This idea relates to the aurora's. What can cause this phenomenon in the FE model? In the RE model, the gigantic spherical sun streams particles at earth so that they envelop the earth's EM field giving us a light show in the northern and southern hemisphere's. In the FE model, if the sun is a mere 32 miles in diameter, how are its streaming particles slamming into the NIGHT portion of the disc? Furthermore, how are there aurora's AT THE SAME TIME in the northern "half" and the southern "half?" How can a disc of light 32 miles in diameter be responsible for the northern & southern lights on an earth that is much larger in diameter?

I appologize if my previous message did go through and you just have other things to do and haven't gotten to it yet. I think this attempt may be more coherent. Please publish this one. Thanks and would love to hear your ideas to these questions.

Anonymous said...

Hi Eric

Its a very interesting topic and I am still looking into it since last saturday lol. Just wondering how the tides are accounted for on a flat Earth? In the globe view the gravity of the moon pulls the water as it moves around earth.

Another question is about the speed of the suns movement. If we use the flat Earth map and theorize that in summer for the northern hemisphere the sun is circling within the northern hemisphere and in winter it circles on the other side of the equator this would make it a much bigger circle that it travels on the southern hemisphere according to the flat earth map.

So according to flat earth theory the sun must move much faster when on the southern side of the equator for the days to still be 24hrs long. How is this accounted for in your theory?

cheers, David

Anonymous said...

If the Sun is only 32 miles in diameter, then we should be able to calculate how far away it is based on the idea that it appears to be the same size as the moon. If the Sun and moon are the same distance away, then the moon is 32 miles in diameter also, right.

Eric Dubay said...

I just finished putting together another video, please have a look at this everyone:

Flat Earth Horizon Proof

Whether at sea-level, the top of Mount Everest, or flying a hundred thousand feet in the air, the always horizontal horizon line always rises up to meet the eye-level of the observer and remains perfectly flat. You can test for yourself on a beach or hilltop, in a large field or desert, aboard a hot-air balloon or helicopter; you will see the panoramic horizon ascend with you right at eye level and remain completely flat all around. If the Earth were actually a big ball, however, the horizon should sink as you ascend, not rise to your eye-level, and it would dip at each end of your periphery, not remain flat all around. Standing in a rising balloon, you would have to look downwards to the horizon, more and more the further you ascended; the highest point of the ball-Earth would be directly beneath you and declining on each side.

Eric Dubay said...

Anon 1, I'm afraid I don't know anything about that. Anon 2, Other than what I mentioned previously, I really don't know anything more regarding magnetic fields or the aurora.

For David:

Newton also theorized and it is now commonly taught that the Earth’s ocean tides are caused by gravitational lunar attraction. If the Moon is only 2,160 miles in diameter and the Earth 8,000 miles, however, using their own math and “law,” it follows that the Earth is 87 times more massive and therefore the larger object should attract the smaller to it, and not the other way around. If the Earth’s greater gravity is what keeps the Moon in orbit, it is impossible for the Moon’s lesser gravity to supersede the Earth’s gravity at Earth’s sea-level, where its gravitational attraction would even further out-trump the Moon’s. Not to mention, the velocity and path of the Moon are uniform and should therefore exert a uniform influence on the Earth’s tides, when in actuality the Earth’s tides vary greatly. Furthermore, if ocean tides are caused by the Moon’s gravitation, how is it that lakes, ponds, and other smaller bodies of standing water remain outside the Moon’s grasp, while the gigantic oceans are so effected!?

“If the moon lifted up the water, it is evident that near the land, the water would be drawn away and low instead of high tide caused. Again, the velocity and path of the moon are uniform, and it follows that if she exerted any influence on the earth, that influence could only be a uniform influence. But the tides are not uniform. At Port Natal the rise and fall is about 6 feet, while at Beira, about 600 miles up the coast, the rise and fall is 26 feet. This effectually settles the matter that the moon has no influence on the tides. Tides are caused by the gentle and gradual rise and fall of the earth on the bosom of the mighty deep. In inland lakes, there are no tides; which also proves that the moon cannot attract either the earth or water to cause tides. But the fact that the basin of the lake is on the earth which rests on the waters of the deep shows that no tides are possible, as the waters of the lakes together with the earth rise and fall, and thus the tides at the coast are caused; while there are no tides on waters unconnected with the sea.” -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (130-131)

Eric Dubay said...

“It is affirmed that the intensity of attraction increases with proximity, and vice versâ. How, then, when the waters are drawn up by the moon from their bed, and away from the earth's attraction,--which at that greater distance from the centre is considerably diminished, while that of the moon is proportionately increased--is it possible that all the waters acted on should be prevented leaving the earth and flying away to the moon? If the moon has power of attraction sufficient to lift the waters of the earth at all, even a single inch from their deepest receptacles, where the earth's attraction is much the greater, there is nothing in the theory of attraction of gravitation to prevent her taking to herself all the waters which come within her influence. Let the smaller body once overcome the power of the larger, and the power of the smaller becomes greater than when it first operated, because the matter acted on is nearer to it. Proximity is greater, and therefore power is greater … How then can the waters of the ocean immediately underneath the moon flow towards the shores, and so cause a flood tide? Water flows, it is said, through the law of gravity, or attraction of the earth's centre; is it possible then for the moon, having once overcome the power of the earth, to let go her hold upon the waters, through the influence of a power which she has conquered, and which therefore, is less than her own? … The above and other difficulties which exist in connection with the explanation of the tides afforded by the Newtonian system, have led many, including Sir Isaac Newton himself, to admit that such explanation is the least satisfactory portion of the ‘theory of gravitation.’ Thus we have been carried forward by the sheer force of evidence to the conclusion that the tides of the sea do not arise from the attraction of the moon, but simply from the rising and falling of the floating earth in the waters of the ‘great deep.’ That calmness which is found to exist at the bottom of the great seas could not be possible if the waters were alternately raised by the moon and pulled down by the earth.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!” (159-175)

“Even Sir Isaac Newton himself confessed that the explanation of the Moon's action on the Tides was the least satisfactory part of his theory of Gravitation. This theory asserts that the larger object attracts the smaller, and the mass of the Moon being reckoned as only one-eighth of that of the Earth, it follows that, if, by the presumed force of Gravitation, the Earth revolves round the Sun, much more, for the same reason, should the Moon do so likewise, instead of which that willful orb still continues to go round our world. Tides vary greatly in height, owing chiefly to the different configurations of the adjoining lands. At Chepstow it rises to 60 feet, at Portishead to 50, while at Dublin Bay it is but 1 2, and at Wexford only 5 feet … That the Earth itself has a slight tremulous motion may be seen in the movement of the spirit-level, even when fixed as steadily as possible, and that the sea has a fluctuation may be witnessed by the oscillation of an anchored ship in the calmest day of summer. By what means the tides are so regularly affected is at present only conjectured; possibly it may be by atmospheric pressure on the waters of the Great Deep, and perhaps even the Moon itself, as suggested by the late Dr. Rowbotham, may influence the atmosphere, increasing or diminishing its barometric pressure, and indirectly the rise and fall of the Earth in the waters.” -David Wardlaw Scott, “Terra Firma” (259-260)

Eric Dubay said...


“Bearing this fact in mind, that there exists a continual pressure of the atmosphere upon the Earth, and associating it with the fact that the Earth is a vast plane ‘stretched out upon the waters,’ and it will be seen that it must of necessity slightly fluctuate, or slowly rise and fall in the water. As by the action of the atmosphere the Earth is slowly depressed, the water moves towards the receding shore and produces the flood tide; and when by the reaction of the resisting oceanic medium the Earth gradually ascends the waters recede, and the ebb tide is produced. This is the general cause of tides. Whatever peculiarities are observable they may be traced to the reaction of channels, bays, headlands, and other local causes … That the Earth has a vibratory or tremulous motion, such as must necessarily belong to a floating and fluctuating structure, is abundantly proved by the experience of astronomers and surveyors. If a delicate spirit-level be firmly placed upon a rock or upon the most solid foundation which it is possible to construct, the very curious phenomenon will be observed of constant change in the position of the air-bubble. However carefully the ‘level’ may be adjusted, and the instrument protected from the atmosphere, the ‘bubble’ will not maintain its position many seconds together. A somewhat similar influence has been noticed in astronomical observatories, where instruments of the best construction and placed in the most approved positions cannot always be relied upon without occasional re-adjustment.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Earth Not a Globe, 2nd Edition” (108-110)

And as for the Sun's speed as it goes down to the Southern tropic during the winter time it does travel faster, bringing shorter days during that time.

In New Zealand situated at 42 degrees Southern latitude, on the Winter Solstice the Sun rises at 4:31am and sets at 7:29pm, making the longest day of the year 14 hours and 58 minutes. On the Summer Solstice, the New Zealand Sun rises at 7:29am and sets at 4:31pm, making the shortest day 9 hours and 2 minutes long. Meanwhile, in England, a full 10 degrees farther North of the equator than New Zealand lies South, the longest day is 16 hours and 34 minutes, the shortest day 7 hours and 45 minutes. Therefore the longest day in New Zealand is 1 hour and 36 minutes shorter than the longest day in England, and the shortest day in New Zealand is 1 hour and 17 minutes longer than the shortest day in England.

William Swainson, an Englishman who emigrated and became Attorney General of New Zealand in the mid-19th century lived in both countries for decades and wrote of their differences, stating, “The range of temperature is limited, there being no excess of either heat or cold; compared with the climate of England, the summer of New Zealand is but very little warmer though considerably longer. Even in summer, people here have no notion of going without fires in the evening; but then, though the days are very warm and sunny, the nights are always cold. For seven months last summer, we had not one day that the sun did not shine as brilliantly as it does in England in the finest day in June; and though it has more power here, the heat is not nearly so oppressive. But then there is not the twilight which you get in England. Here it is light till about eight o'clock, then, in a few minutes, it becomes too dark to see anything, and the change comes over in almost no time. The seasons are the reverse of those in England. Spring commences in September, summer in December, autumn in April, and winter in June. The days are an hour shorter at each end of the day in summer, and an hour longer in the winter than in England."

Eric Dubay said...

And for Anon 3, yes, the Moon is also 32 miles in diameter, and they both figure to be approximately 3,000 miles from the surface of the Earth:


“Regiments of figures are paraded with all the learned jargon for which science is famous, but one might as well look at the changing clouds in the sky and seek for certainty there, as to expect to get it from the propounders of modern astronomy. But is there no means of testing these ever-changing never-stable speculations and bringing them to the scrutiny of the hard logic of fact? Indeed there is. The distance of the sun can be measured with much precision, the same way as a tree or a house, or church steeple is measured, by plane triangulation. It is the principle on which a house is built, a table made or a man-of-war constructed … The sun is always somewhere between the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn, a distance admitted to be less than 3,000 miles; how then can the sun if it be so many thousand miles in diameter, squeeze itself into a space of about 3,000 miles only? But look at the distance, say the professors! We have already done that and not one of the wise men we have so often challenged, has ever attempted to refute the principle on which we measure the sun’s distance … If the navigator neglects to apply the sun’s semi-diameter to his observation at sea, he is 16 nautical miles out in calculating the position his ship is in. A minute of arc on the sextant represents a nautical mile, and if the semi-diameter be 16 miles, the diameter is of course 32 miles. And as measured by the sextant, the sun’s diameter is 32 minutes of arc, that is 32 nautical miles in diameter. Let him disprove this who can. If ever disproof is attempted, it will be a literary curiosity, well worth framing.” -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (114-120)

Anonymous said...

Well, you use limited sources for all explanations and the "science" is highly dubious. In the FE theory, for example, "bendy light" is used to explain away certain observations regarding atmospheric refraction. And your silence on the electromagnetic field is a weakness to your argument. If you are to pursue the FE theory further, I suggest figuring out the physics of the EM field and by what mechanism it is generated and why it and the nature of the aurora's are currently best explained by a spherical earth. I'm not saying it's a fact and mean no disrespect. Just pointing out what are, in my opinion, flaws in the FE theory. Sure, there may be flaws in the RE theory as well. But a lot of observations can be explained by both a FE and a RE. It all depends what you choose to believe. But at some point, basic physical laws exist, such as the properties of electromagnetism, that are undeniable. If you agree in the basic premise that there is in fact an EM field, then how does the FE theory account for that? Food for thought. I enjoy your blog and the thought-provoking topics you bring to bear.

Eric Dubay said...

Thanks for the ideas Anonymous! I would say, however, that what is currently deemed "science" like Einsteins theory of relativity and Newton's supposed "law of gravity," are what's truly dubious. Heliocentrists cannot show us a single object massive enough that by virtue of its mass alone causes other smaller masses to stick to or orbit it as they claim happens with the Sun, Moon, Earth, Stars and Planets. If you cannot give me a single practical example of "gravity" smaller than the Earth or the Sun, then it is merely heresay, not science! Other than magnets, there are no objects they can point to to prove their supposed "gravity" that's strong enough to hold people, buildings and the oceans stuck to the underside of a spinning ball-Earth, but weak enough to allow little bugs, birds, and helium balloons to fly away with ease. If there was a magical magnetism that held our feet firm to the underside of a spinning ball, we would feel this magical force every time we lifted our leg, and the force would increase like a magnet the closer our foot was to the ground.

We can see Polaris all the way to the Tropic of Capricorn so they revise their theory and say, "oh, the ball is tilted 23.5 degrees then!" We note that that's inconsistent with their explanation for seasons, so they say, "oh, well, then the ball's not always tilted 23.5 degrees, it wobbles over the course of the year!" Then we say, but we can prove through the non-parallax shift of stars that the Earth is not wobbling or spinning around the Sun, to which they say, "oh, well, that's just because the stars are trillions upon trillions of miles away, yeah, that's it, that's why you see no parallax." And on and on they go with their reverse-engineered damage-control explanations and the public eats them up calling them "science" and denouncing anyone who dares to disbelieve their back-peddling answers. Peace

Anonymous said...

interesting, but what happened to the hollow earth theory you investigated a while back? That was starting to sound plausible.

And what about accounts by sailors - you'd think they would have noticed that it takes forever to circle the south pole...

Eric Dubay said...

Mark Knight at Wayki Wayki just published this excellent second part to his original flat-Earth article linked above:

There's No Ball in the Global

"Large respect to Eric Dubay from The Atlantean Conspiracy, who during my research kindly sent me a copy of his new book to preview - he covers a ton of information and amazing images in near 300 pages, collaborating years of intense research."

Eric Dubay said...

Seeing as there are huge underground caves, caverns and sinkholes, as well as military D.U.M.B.s (Deep Underground Military Bases) all over the world, the flat-Earth is certainly somewhat hollow in places.

And as for sailors noticing it takes forever to sail around Antarctica, they absolutely have! In 1773 Captain Cook became the first modern explorer known to have breached the Antarctic Circle and reached the ice barrier. During three voyages, lasting three years and eight days, Captain Cook and crew sailed a total of 60,000 miles along the Antarctic coastline never once finding an inlet or path through or beyond the massive glacial wall! Captain Cook wrote: “The ice extended east and west far beyond the reach of our sight, while the southern half of the horizon was illuminated by rays of light which were reflected from the ice to a considerable height. It was indeed my opinion that this ice extends quite to the pole, or perhaps joins some land to which it has been fixed since creation.”

On October 5th, 1839 another explorer, James Clark Ross began a series of Antarctic voyages lasting a total of 4 years and 5 months. Ross and his crew sailed two heavily armored warships thousands of miles, losing many men from hurricanes and icebergs, looking for an entry point beyond the southern glacial wall. Upon first confronting the massive barrier Captain Ross wrote of the wall, “extending from its eastern extreme point as far as the eye could discern to the eastward. It presented an extraordinary appearance, gradually increasing in height, as we got nearer to it, and proving at length to be a perpendicular cliff of ice, between one hundred and fifty feet and two hundred feet above the level of the sea, perfectly flat and level at the top, and without any fissures or promontories on its even seaward face. We might with equal chance of success try to sail through the cliffs of Dover, as to penetrate such a mass.”

Eric Dubay said...

“Yes, but we can circumnavigate the South easily enough,’ is often said by those who don't know, The British Ship Challenger recently completed the circuit of the Southern region - indirectly, to be sure - but she was three years about it, and traversed nearly 69,000 miles - a stretch long enough to have taken her six times round on the globular hypothesis.” -William Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe” (78)

“If we now consider the fact that when we travel by land or sea, and from any part of the known world, in a direction towards the North polar star, we shall arrive at one and the same point, we are forced to the conclusion that what has hitherto been called the North Polar region, is really the center of the Earth. That from this northern center the land diverges and stretches out, of necessity, towards a circumference, which must now be called the Southern region: which is a vast circle, and not a pole or center … In this and other ways all the great navigators have been frustrated in their efforts, and have been more or less confounded in their attempts to sail round the Earth upon or beyond the Antarctic circle. But if the southern region is a pole or center, like the north, there would be little difficulty in circumnavigating it, for the distance round would be comparatively small. When it is seen that the Earth is not a sphere, but a plane, having only one center, the north; and that the south is the vast icy boundary of the world, the difficulties experienced by circumnavigators can be easily understood.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Earth Not a Globe, 2nd Edition” (21-23)

Anonymous said...

okay, Eric, thanks for your speedy reply. So all the modern sailors who manage to circumnavigate the earth comfortably in a year are just not going southerly enough (or outwardly enough, if we think of concentric circles)?

I have heard of sailors attempting to learn celestial navigation and being very frustrated. (Now it's just gps, of course.)

Also, what about Adm. Byrd and the other explorers who sailed or flew "beyond" the north pole into a temperate area with open seas, with lots of evidence of animal/plant life? Are you abandoning that whole paradigm? The hollow-earth paradigm is much different than a few D.U.M.B.s, tunnels, or caves.

Say, by the way, I really like your site, respect your opinion, and have been blown away by other stuff you've put together. That is why I am so intrigued with your latest hypothesis.

Anonymous said...

69,000 miles of Penguins, that's absolutely amazing. If the Earth is flat, then there can no longer be North and South.

Anonymous said...

It's important to avoid confusing the geocentrist/heliocentrist issue with the flat/spherical Earth issue.

There are many arguments in favor of geocentrism (I've read about them some years ago, and not from the sources used by Eric here), but I'm less convinced about a flat Earth.

I'm not sure why commentators (including Eric) seem to lump these two issues together. One could theoretically imagine a spherical earth in a geocentric model, and in fact this has been proposed by numerous authors.

Anonymous said...

It is possible to find 1-stop regular commercial flights from Auckland to Buenos Aires with a duration of less than 18 hours (I just did, please check for yourself). Taking into account the 4-hour delay at the stopover, the actual flight times correspond quite closely to what one would expect with a spherical earth model.

So this argument is absolutely 100% wrong (M. Knight, if you read this, I invite you to check for yourself - only please don't forget to check all airlines and try different dates or destinations if necessary...).

Even if there are very few direct flights or 1-stop flights (and it is true that they are harder to find, but this is probably due to low demand rather than to geographical constraints), ONE actual flight duration (from a commercial airline) under 15 hours from NZ to SA is enough to disprove the argument. And you can find them if you look hard enough.

Anonymous said...

Flight QF27, operated by Qantas, is a direct flight from Sydney, Australia, to Santiago, Chile. The duration of the flight is 12:30.

Please check for yourselves (it's easy, go on the Qantas website) and think about what it means for the flat Earth model, especially concerning what Eric and M. Knight are proposing for the South hemisphere.

Eric Dubay said...

As Admiral Byrd claims to have gone inside the non-existent hollow South Pole opening and found Nazi giant super-soldiers, I'm thinking that's bunk. I was never sold on the hollow Earth theory, just exploring the evidence, most of which is simply heresay impossible to confirm or deny. For the second Anonymous, I'm not "grouping them together," they both just happen to be true. If you want to ease into the rabbit-hole starting with just Geocentricism though, I can appreciate that, as that's what I did as well. Start with these articles, then move on to the flat-Earth material:

The Earth is Not Moving!

Geocentricity vs. Heliocentricity

Anonymous 3, giving us a couple flight times from Australia to So. America does not in anyway prove the shape or movement of the Earth. Please explain how you think it does, and watch this video which uses flight times to prove the Earth is stationary and it is the Sun's movement which causes the time-zones:

Earth Not Moving Video

Barzini said...

Hi Eric,

Bought your book already and am intrigued as I have been interested in this subject for ages.....

I notice the first part of the book talks about how the atmosphere remains still even though we are supposedly careering about the sun at the speed of a bullet.......for example if you fire a canon ball upwards it falls in practically the same location, in a hot air balloon we do not see the earth speed pass us underneath etc......

Surely, the same phenomenon is seen when travelling by plane or train though?

For example, if I am in a plane and throw a tennis ball upwards it will simply fall back into my hand like when on the ground, similarly a mosquito has no problem flying around a train carriage as it is protected from the atmosphere outside.....

Isn't this what opponents to the flat earth theory will cite?

They will claim that the earth's atmosphere is entrapped within a protective layer and that being on earth is thus a bit like being in a plane - even though you travel at 600 km/h you feel nothing?

Not sure what your thoughts are on this?

My one other question is still about the moon being upside down in the southern hemisphere - it's the one problem about this theory that I can't resolve just now, even after looking around the internet for a possible answer....


OK Thanks

Barzini

Eric Dubay said...

Hey Barzini, thanks so much for the support!

Yes, all the government-school indoctrinated heliocentrists have been taught to laugh at you and say: "Didn't you learn this as a child? Gravity pulls the atmosphere with the spinning ball-Earth, you don't feel it because of the constant inertia, and it's all relative motion happening in the vacuum of space, so that's why everyone who has ever lived 'falsely' perceives the Earth as being completely motionless."

Then a haughty sneer and a roll of the eyes will be directed towards anyone who dares make the simple but obvious objection that if the Earth were actually spinning at 1,038mph that we would be quite aware of such a thing in our daily experience! "It spins at a uniform velocity, so it's like when you're in a car or a train and you can't tell what's moving, you, or the scenery," Einstein told everyone to say. But, honestly, even going 50mph down the highway in a car, 20 times slower than the Earth's supposed speed, we are quite able to tell, even with our eyes closed, that we are not sitting still. Yet when I sit under a tree on a sunny day, I can feel the slightest westward breeze, but no notion would ever spring to mind of this ridiculous supposed 1,038mph Eastward spin beneath my feet, because it is nowhere seen, heard, or felt! Some Masonic magician might come upon my path and convince me through visual magic and stories of space-ships and satellites, but I would never think of such a thing on my own.

It has even been tested scientifically, several times in the 19th century and before whether it's the Earth moving or the stars moving relative to a stationary Earth. Michelson-Morley, Michelson-Gale, Airy's Failure, Sagnac, and Kantor's experiments all proved it is the stars that move, but no one is taught that in school, instead you're taught Einstein who came along in one fell swoop and banished the fixed Earth and the aether to eternal "relativity."

As for the Moon being "upside-down" in the Southern hemisphere, it's not nearly as black and white as the heliocentrists make it sound. Since the Moon is a luminous flat disc rotating over and around the equator/tropics, depending on where the Moon and observer are situated, the Moon's features appear at various inclinations 360 degrees around. It's not just one way in the North and the opposite in the South, it's tilted at various angles seen from different places at different times all over the Earth.

So you must be on chapter 2 now? Be sure to comment back with a quick review when you finish the book! Thanks so much :) Peace

Anonymous said...

"Anonymous 3, giving us a couple flight times from Australia to So. America does not in anyway prove the shape or movement of the Earth."

Thanks for the reply. It does suggest that the claim that the distances are much larger in the Southern Hemisphere is not so solid. Just to clarify why I posted these distances, M. Knight on his blog put some material claiming that it was very difficult to find flights from Australia to SA under 30 hours, and used this to support your flat Earth model.

I don't know if it disproves the flat-Earth model, but to me it suggests that the distances are similar in the North and South hemispheres, contrary to what you and M. Knight were proposing (or did I misunderstand?).

Eric Dubay said...

Anon 3, the distances in the North and South hemispheres are actually very different. If the Earth were truly a globe, then every line of latitude South of the equator would have to measure a gradually smaller and smaller circumference the farther South travelled. In other words, the circumference at10 degrees South latitude would comprise a smaller circle than at the equator, 20 degrees South latitude would comprise a circle smaller than 10, and so on. If, however, the Earth is an extended plane, then every line of latitude South of the equator should measure a gradually larger and larger circumference the farther South travelled. 10 degrees South latitude will comprise a larger circle than the equator, 20 degrees South latitude will comprise a circle larger than 10, and so on. Likewise, if the Earth were a globe, lines of longitude would bubble out at the equator while converging at both poles. Whereas if the Earth is an extended plane, lines of longitude should simply expand straight outwards from the North Pole. So which is actually the case?

“Upon the principle, as taught by Scripture and common observation, that the world is not a Planet, but consists of vast masses of land stretched out upon level seas, the North being the centre of the system, it is evident that the degrees of longitude will gradually increase in width the whole way from the North centre to the icy boundary of the great Southern Circumference. In consequence of the difference between the actual extent of longitudes and that allowed for them by the Nautical Authorities, which difference, at the latitude of the Cape of Good Hope, has been estimated to amount to a great number of miles, many Ship-masters have lost their reckoning, and many vessels have been wrecked. Ship-captains, who have been educated in the globular theory, know not how to account for their getting so much out of their course in Southern latitudes, and generally put it down to currents; but this reason is futile, for although currents may exist, they do not usually run in opposite directions, and vessels are frequently wrecked, whether sailing East or West.” -David Wardlaw Scott, “Terra Firma” (102)

During Captain James Clark Ross’s voyages around the Antarctic circumference, he often wrote in his journal perplexed at how they routinely found themselves out of accordance with their charts, stating that they found themselves an average of 12-16 miles outside their reckoning every day, some days as much as 29 miles. Lieutenant Charles Wilkes commanded a United States Navy exploration expedition to the Antarctic from August 18th, 1838 to June 10th, 1842, almost four years spent “exploring and surveying the Southern ocean.” In his journals Lieutenant Wilkes also mentioned being consistently east of his reckoning, sometimes over 20 miles in less than 18 hours.

Eric Dubay said...

“The commanders of these various expeditions were, of course, with their education and belief in the earth's rotundity, unable to conceive of any other cause for the differences between log and chronometer results than the existence of currents. But one simple fact is entirely fatal to such an explanation, viz., that when the route taken is east or west the same results are experienced. The water of the southern region cannot be running in two opposite directions at the same time; and hence, although various local and variable currents have been noticed, they cannot be shown to be the cause of the discrepancies so generally observed in high southern latitudes between time and log results. The conclusion is one of necessity, forced upon us by the sum of the evidence collected that the degrees of longitude in any given southern latitude are larger than the degrees in any latitude nearer to the northern center; thus proving the already more than sufficiently demonstrated fact that the earth is a plane, having a northern center, in relation to which degrees of latitude are concentric, and from which degrees of longitude are diverging lines, continually increasing in their distance from each other as they are prolonged towards the great glacial southern circumference.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not a Globe!” (261)

“February 11th, 1822, at noon, in latitude 65.53. S. our chronometers gave 44 miles more westing than the log in three days. On 22nd of April (1822), in latitude 54.16. S. our longitude by chronometers was 46.49, and by D.R. (dead reckoning) 47° 11´: On 2nd May (1822), at noon, in latitude 53.46. S., our longitude by chronometers was 59° 27´, and by D.R. 61° 6´. October 14th, in latitude 58.6, longitude by chronometers 62° 46´, by account 65° 24´. In latitude 59.7. S., longitude by chronometers was 63° 28´, by account 66° 42´. In latitude 61.49. S., longitude by chronometers was 61° 53´, by account 66° 38´.” -Captain James Weddell, “Voyages Towards the South Pole”

“In the southern hemisphere, navigators to India have often fancied themselves east of the Cape when still west, and have been driven ashore on the African coast, which, according to their reckoning, lay behind them. This misfortune happened to a fine frigate, the Challenger, in 1845. How came Her Majesty’s Ship ‘Conqueror,’ to be lost? How have so many other noble vessels, perfectly sound, perfectly manned, perfectly navigated, been wrecked in calm weather, not only in dark night, or in a fog, but in broad daylight and sunshine - in the former case upon the coasts, in the latter, upon sunken rocks - from being ‘out of reckoning,’ under circumstances which until now, have baffled every satisfactory explanation.” -Rev. Thomas Milner, “Tour Through Creation”

The equatorial circumference of the supposed ball-Earth is said to be 24,900 statute or 21,600 nautical miles. A nautical mile is the distance, following the supposed curvature of the Earth, from one minute of latitude to the next. A statue mile is the straight line distance between the two, not taking into account Earth’s alleged curvature.

Eric Dubay said...

The “Australian Handbook, Almanack, Shippers’ and Importers’ Directory” states that the distance between Sydney and Nelson is 1400 nautical or 1633 statute miles. Allowing a more than sufficient 83 miles as the distance for rounding Cape Farewell and sailing up Tasman Bay to Nelson leaves 1550 statute miles as the straight-line distance from the meridian of Sydney to the meridian of Nelson. Their given difference in longitude is 22 degrees 2’14”. Therefore if 22 degrees 2’14” out of 360 is 1550 miles, the entirety measures 25,182 miles. This is larger than the Earth is said to be at the equator, and 4262 miles greater than it would be at Sydney’s southern latitude on a globe of said proportions! One 360th part of 25,182 gives 70 miles as the distance between each degree of longitude at Sydney’s 34 degree Southern latitude. On a globe 25,000 miles in equatorial circumference, however, degrees of longitude at 34 degrees latitude would be only 58 miles, a full 12 miles per degree less than reality. This perfectly explains why Ross and other navigators in the deep South experienced 12+ mile daily discrepancies between their reckoning and reality, the farther South travelled the farther the divide.

“From near Cape Horn, Chile to Port Philip in Melbourne, Australia the distance is 9,000 miles. These two places are 143 degrees of longitude from each other. Therefore the whole extent of the Earth’s circumference is a mere arithmetical question. If 143 degrees make 9,000 miles, what will be the distance made by the whole 360 degrees into which the surface is divided? The answer is, 22,657 miles; or, 8357 miles more than the theory of rotundity would permit. It must be borne in mind, however, that the above distances are nautical measure, which, reduced to statute miles, gives the actual distance round the Southern region at a given latitude as 26,433 statute miles; or nearly 1,500 miles more than the largest circumference ever assigned to the Earth at the equator.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Earth Not a Globe, 2nd Edition” (52)

Similar calculations made from the Cape of Good Hope, South Africa to Melbourne, Australia at an average latitude of 35.5 degrees South, have given an approximate figure of over 25,000 miles, which is again equal to or greater than the Earth’s supposed greatest circumference at the equator. Calculations from Sydney, Australia to Wellington, New Zealand at an average of 37.5 degrees South have given an approximate circumference of 25,500 miles, greater still! According to the ball-Earth theory, the circumference of the Earth at 37.5 degrees Southern latitude should be only 19,757 statute miles, almost six thousand miles less than such practical measurements.

Oz10 said...

You said - "Reflectors must be flat or concave for light rays to have any angle of incidence; If a reflector’s surface is convex then every ray of light points in a direct line with the radius perpendicular to the surface resulting in no reflection"

If this were true a baseball, basketball, and even the convex security mirror (highly reflective) would avoid simple detection. You do believe in the ball, yes?

Everything you see is just a reflection, are you proposing there is no 3rd dimension, that all these reflections are from flat surfaces?

Eric Dubay said...

That's obviously referring to an object's ability to reflect light rays directed at it, not referring to our ability to perceive spherical objects.

Let me ask the readers a couple questions. If the Earth spins at a uniform velocity around the Sun making one revolution every 24 hours, why are there not 12 hour days and 12 hour nights all over the world? How do you account for the incredible variations in daylight time all over the Earth? During the summer solstice the Midnight Sun is seen never setting for 72 hours from the 65th parallel and Northwards, impossible on a ball-Earth. And during that time the Sun never rises in Antarctica for over 2 months! These phenomena cannot be explained away by "tilt" and "wobble," otherwise the Arctic Midnight Sun would last 2 months just like the Antarctic winter-night.

Eric Dubay said...

A good point made by a commenter on The Earth is Not Moving YouTube vid:

Imagine these speeds now science tells us that the orbits are not perfect circles but elliptical, then math/physics tells us that an elliptical motion does not have a constant velocity of rotation thus the speed increases or decreases based on the orbital location. Now imagine if a solar system needs to accelerate or decelerate based on its location in the galaxy or due to other gravitational pulls => can anyone tell me what is the amount of G forces that we will feel due to this change in velocity and why we do not feel anything?

Great point, also, if masses are able to overcome gravity to the point of following imbalanced elliptical orbits instead of balanced equi-distant circles, by what mechanism does gravity suddenly "kick in high gear" twice per ellipse, bringing the masses back from their tangential trajectory? If they escaped the force of gravity enough to not revolve in perfect circles, there is no reason they should not just continue straight away into infinity! You cannot say gravity somehow knows the masses have gone astray and increases its intensity, but otherwise, if the masses are now even further away, the force of gravity pulling them back would be less, not more! So how does gravity magically suck these stray masses back into its influence?

Anonymous said...

Hi Eric,
What about the concave model? That would allow for a hollow earth but with us inside. Poles must still be guarded, or we would discover the outside of the earth. This alternate model seems to account for the same problems you've identified: Sun/moon anomolies are accounted for, lack of parallax, apparently level horizon (due to its proximity to the spherical 'sky globe' inside it); non-spinning earth; non-movement of atmosphere, etc.

With the concave model, there is no problem with flights between two points in the southern hemisphere being longer than flights between two points in the northern hemisphere.

FYI, Adm Byrd's main trip was to the northern polar region; the southern expedition does sound suspicious. Regardless, the arguments for a hollow earth do not stand or fall on solely Byrd's testimony.

Eric Dubay said...

I've looked into "Lord Steven Christ's" concave theory enough to see it has even less merit than the hollow Earth or even the ball-Earth. All the experiments I've compiled in my book prove the Earth is not concave nor convex, but flat. His ridiculous bendy light explanations are not scientific or even plausible either. His information about a "glass sky" is more plausible, and a dome/vault of the heavens is compatible with the flat-Earth model.

Anonymous said...

Eric,
I didn't know that Lord Steven Christ owns the concave theory. Although I've not crunched any numbers, I would say it's not cool to down grade a theory based on who espouses it. If a crackhead schizophrenic endorsed the flat-earth theory, does that invalidate it?

p.s. Does your new book have a table of contents and chapters? References? Are all the calculations listed? I'm considering buying it, but don't want to buy a pig in a poke (that turns out to be a cat).

Anonymous said...

Hi Eric,
One more thing - I forgot to ask you: Does your model tie in at all with the Piri Reis map?
Thanks.

Anonymous said...

If the Earth is Flat, then the Artic should be the hottest area on Earth. If the Earth is Flat, what happens if it tilts? All the waters in the ocean will rush to one side and spill over the ice wall and on into space.

Eric Dubay said...

Hey Anon 1, you're right, I know "Lord Steven Christ" doesn't have a monopoly on the concave Earth idea, but when you do a google/youtube search for it, he's just about the only person/site that comes up. I watched several of his videos, giving him more than the benefit of the doubt, and he really didn't give me one piece of evidence that made any logical sense. If you've found any actual evidence that the ground beneath our feet is concave (or convex!) please do share it here.

My new book has 28 chapters, the EPub has a table of contents, all citations are sourced and mathematical calculations explained. I'm quite sure you won't be disappointed. I'm collecting reviews at the moment and so far everyone who has bought and read it has not only loved it, but by the end of the book told me that they are now completely convinced that the Earth is flat and motionless.

Piri Reis was a Knights Templar (fore-runner to modern Masonry) and had their new ball-Earth Antarctica added in later over the original. The map surfaced right around the same time that Copernicus and his Mason buddies were starting the whole deception.

"Aside from Freemasonry, other, obviously more esoteric schools sprang up over time, such as that of the Knights Templar ... Many escaped with much of their wealth and secrets and went on to form other secret societies. One of these was the Knights of Christ. Christopher Columbus was alleged to have married the daughter of a Knight of Christ from whose father he had access to certain charts. This is very likely where the Piri Reis map originated from." -Anthony Forwood, "They Would Be Gods"

"Piri Reis, a Templar copied the maps of Columbus that came from the Templars. They (Templars) had been banned from France by Phillip the Fair in 1305." -Truthasaur, "Falconry Lives in Scotland"

"The original maps of Piri Reis were completely lacking they didn't indicate new lands at all. His maps were modified by other cartographers. It is as if I sketched with some few lines a face and then others came and completed the eyes, the nose, mouth and ears." -Jorge Raul Olguin

Eric Dubay said...

For the other Anon, I don't understand why you think the Arctic should be the hottest area on Earth. The Sun travels directly over or near the equator all the time, the farthest Northwards it travels is the Tropic of Cancer and the farthest Southwards is the Tropic of Capricorn. It never makes it anywhere near the Arctic or Antarctic circles, so it is fitting with reality, that from the equator to the tropics are the hottest places on Earth and certainly not the Arctic. As for the Earth "tilting," or "wobbling," that only happens in the minds of heliocentrists trying to explain away seasons, Arctic/Antarctic anomalies, and why Polaris is visible from the Southern hemisphere. Also your assumption that there is "space" beyond the ice-wall is assumption, it very well may be ice, wind, snow, cold, and darkness forever or there could be a barrier of some sort like the Truman Show.

“How far the ice extends; how it terminates; and what exists beyond it, are questions to which no present human experience can reply. All we at present know is, that snow and hail, howling winds, and indescribable storms and hurricanes prevail; and that in every direction ‘human ingress is barred by unsealed escarpments of perpetual ice,’ extending farther than eye or telescope can penetrate, and becoming lost in gloom and darkness.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!” (91)

Anonymous said...

Hi again,

I'm the "flight times" Anonymous.

I did a bit more research on this in an attempt to settle the matter once and for all.

So, to recap, we have Sydney: 33 deg. S, and Santiago 33 deg. S. Distance between the two cities, according to the "Mapcrow" website: 11336 km. Flight duration with the direct flight QF27, operated by Qantas: 12h30 min.

I tried to find comparable cities with equivalent distances in the Northern Hemisphere. I couldn't come up with a perfect match, but I think what I found is close enough.

Tokyo: 36 deg. N and Atlanta 34 deg. N. Distance according to Mapcrow: 11027 km. Flight duration with the direct flight Delta 94: 12h38 min.

To me, this strongly suggests that the Northern and Southern hemispheres are more or less symmetrical. Not to belittle the anecdotes of earlier explorers, but I think that these flight times should count for a lot more than all the anecdotes and quotes you've listed above. To put it simply, this is hard to debunk (obviously, that's why I took the time to do this little research).

To be clear, I'm not saying that what I found disproves the flat earth model, but it doesn't support the idea that the Southern Hemisphere would be somehow larger than the Northern Hemisphere.

Now, moving on to the flat/convex/concave topic, the concave Earth idea is promoted very seriously (and quite rigorously) by Wild Heretic (www.wildheretic.com) and by Rolf Keppler. They both present solid evidence which strongly supports the concave Earth model. After reading more about this (and I admit that Eric's article spurred me to do more research on this topic, so thanks for this), I think that the concave earth model is the most convincing of all the models I've seen (including the mainstream heliocentric model, of course).

Anonymous said...

Ancient humans proved the Earth was round with the Cross of Thoth, or the Celtic Cross, which ever. If the Earth is Flat and the Centre of the Universe, then why worry about all that fake stuff up in the night skies? They knew back then the stars were not fake, and what they saw was multi dimensional, not flat.

Anonymous said...

Eric if all this stuff is true how long can the global scumbag pigs keep it a secret especially in the future people are going to ask in thefuture why we cant go explore outer space they cant keep lying forever do you think they will have disclosure at all?

Anonymous said...

Hi Eric

I have been visiting your website on and off for a couple of years and most of the stuff you have been posting is really thought provoking and in my opinion true.

But this flat-earth conspiracy theory is simply not true. There are many experiments that prove the earth is both rotating and a sphere.

1, Foucaults Pendulum - proves the earth rotates

2, Also the shadow of the earth on the moon during an eclipse and the fact you can see a ships mast before you can actually see the ship are just two reasons the earth is a sphere.

Not everybody is 100% all of the time, i'm wrong more times than I am right lol.

Eric Dubay said...

The similar flight times are interesting, but if you really find flight times to be a sticking point, I suggest you watch the following video, also with real flight times, proving undeniably that the Earth cannot be moving:

Earth is Not Rotating or Spinning

Their exact flight path and average speed for each are unknown, so this is far from a smoking gun. Also, 33 degrees South latitude would not be nearly as noticeable compared to the numbers I was giving of explorers as deep as the 78th degree South latitude!

Captain James Clark Ross found himself 12-16 miles out of reckoning every single day in the Antarctic, and the deeper he got the more out of reckoning, peaking at 29 miles out. U.S. Navy Lieutenant Wilkes found himself over 20 miles out of reckoning every day during his Antarctic voyage. And Captain James Weddell's exact figures I gave were off reckoning each day by 15 miles in the Antarctic.

I also showed how the extrapolated distance between Sydney and Nelson gives a figure 4262 miles larger than the globe circumference should be at that latitude. And the extrapolated distance between Melbourne and Chile gives a figure 8357 miles greater than the globe circumference at that latitude!

I also showed how Captain Cook sailed over 60,000 miles taking 3 years going around the Antarctic, and the HMS Challenger, even Wikipedia admits, was 68,000 miles in its Antarctic journey around the world! Based on the globe theory, an Antarctic circumnavigation should only be about 10-12,000 miles!

As for the concave Earth, if you think you've found some scientific/experimental evidence proving the shape of the Earth to be concave please post it here. I've read plenty of material on it, and I found it even less convincing than the heliocentric or hollow Earth theory. It's all just heresay and anecdotal, my Flat Earth Conspiracy book is full of actual data and experiments proving the Earth to be a flat plane. Where is all the data/experiments proving it to be concave?

Eric Dubay said...

The next two Anons, nobody said the "stars are fake," and no they're not going to "disclose" their own 500 year deception... quite the contrary, they're continuing the indoctrination, now trying to say ancient aliens came from other planets and seeded the human race, they're showing us fake pictures of faces and pyramids on Mars, the only "disclosure" they're going to do is the fake alien "disclosure" where shills like Steven Greer and Project Camelot brainwash people into thinking governments world-wide are trying to cover-up legitimate extra-terrestrial encounters, when in fact the government/Masons are the ones making up the whole myth in the first place, then "exposing" it as though it was genuine.

This flat-earth conspiracy theory is simply not true. There are many experiments that prove the earth is both rotating and a sphere. Not everybody is 100% all of the time, i'm wrong more times than I am right lol.

I'm afraid you're wrong again here Anon. There are no experiments that prove the Earth to be a rotating sphere, but many suppressed experiments by Michelson-Morley, Michelson-Gale, Airy, Sagnac, Kantor, Rowbotham and others which prove it to be a motionless plane. Foucault's pendulum, lunar eclipses and disappearing ship's hulls prove nothing but the gullibility of the masses:

Eric Dubay said...

In the mid 19th century a Frenchman named Léon Foucault became famous for swinging pendulums and claiming their consequent motions were proof of the Earth’s diurnal rotation. Since then “Foucault Pendulums” have regularly been swinging at museums and exposition halls worldwide purporting to provide everlasting perpetual proof of the heliocentric spinning ball-Earth theory. The truth is, however, unbeknownst to most of the duped public, that Foucault’s pendulum is a failed experiment which proves nothing but how easy it is for pseudo-science to deceive the malleable masses.

“This pendulum, modern scientists tell us, affords a visible proof that we are living on a whirling globe, which, according to a ‘work on science’ now before me, is spinning upon its so-called axis at the rate of over 1,000 miles an hour at the equator; and, in addition to other motions, is rushing on an everlasting tour round the sun (the diameter of which is said to be 813,000 miles, and its weight 354,936 times greater than the earth from which it is said to be about 93,000,000 miles distant,) at the rate of over 1,000 miles per minute. Now to prove that the earth really has these motions a pendulum is suspended at the show; the showman sets motion, and bids the gaping world of thoughtless men and women to ‘behold a proof’ that we are living on a whirling globe which is rushing away through space!” -Lady Blount, “The Romance of Science” (7)

“Astronomers have made experiments with pendulums which have been suspended from the interior of high buildings, and have exulted over the idea of being able to prove the rotation of the Earth on its ‘axis,’ by the varying direction taken by the pendulum over a prepared table underneath - asserting that the table moved round under the pendulum, instead of the pendulum shifting and oscillating in different directions over the table! But, since it has been found that, as often as not, the pendulum went round the wrong way for the ‘rotation’ theory, chagrin has taken the place of exultation, and we have a proof of the failure of astronomers in their efforts to substantiate their theory.” -William Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe” (73)

To begin with, Foucault’s pendulums do not uniformly swing in any one direction. Sometimes they rotate clockwise and sometimes counter-clockwise, sometimes they fail to rotate and sometimes they rotate far too much. Scientists who have repeated variations of the experiment have conceded time and again that “it was difficult to avoid giving the pendulum some slight lateral bias at starting.” The behavior of the pendulum actually depends on 1) the initial force beginning its swing and, 2) the ball-and-socket joint used which most-readily facilitates circular motion over any other. The supposed rotation of the Earth is completely inconsequential and irrelevant to the pendulum’s swing. If the alleged constant rotation of the Earth affected pendulums in any way, then there should be no need to manually start pendulums in motion! If the Earth’s diurnal rotation caused the 360 degree uniform diurnal rotation of pendulums, then there should not exist a stationary pendulum anywhere on Earth!

Eric Dubay said...

“First, when a pendulum, constructed according to the plan of M. Foucault, is allowed to vibrate, its plane of vibration is often variable - not always. The variation when it does occur, is not uniform - is not always the same in the same place; nor always the same either in its rate or velocity, or in its direction. It cannot therefore be taken as evidence; for that which is inconstant cannot be used in favor of or against any given proposition. It therefore is not evidence and proves nothing! Secondly, if the plane of vibration is observed to change, where is the connection between such change and the supposed motion of the Earth? What principle of reasoning guides the experimenter to the conclusion that it is the Earth which moves underneath the pendulum, and not the pendulum which moves over the Earth? What logical right or necessity forces one conclusion in preference to the other? Thirdly, why was not the peculiar arrangement of the point of suspension of the pendulum specially considered, in regard to its possible influence upon the plane of oscillation? Was it not known, or was it overlooked, or was it, in the climax of theoretical revelry, ignored that a ‘ball-and-socket’ joint is one which facilitates circular motion more readily than any other?” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Earth Not a Globe, 2nd Edition” (153)

“We believe, with all due deference to the pendulum, and its proprietor, that it proves nothing but the craftiness of the inventor; and we can only describe the show and showman as deceptions. A thing so childish as this ‘pendulum proof’ that it can only be described as one of the most simple and ridiculous attempts to gull the public that has ever been conceived. It has been said that the pendulum experiment proves the rotation of the earth, but this is quite impossible, for one pendulum turns one way; and sometimes, another pendulum turns in the opposite direction. Now we ask does the earth rotate in opposite directions at different places at one and the same time? We should like to know. Perhaps the experimenters will kindly enlighten us on this point … If the earth had the terrible motions attributed to it, there would be some sensible effects of such motions. But we neither feel the motion, see it, nor hear it. And how people can stand watching the pendulum vibrate, and think that they are seeing a proof of the motions of the earth, almost passes comprehension. They are, however, brought up to believe it, and it is thought to be ‘scientific’ to believe what the astronomers teach.” -Lady Blount, “The Romance of Science” (8-10)

Eric Dubay said...

Another assumption and supposed proof of Earth’s shape, heliocentrists claim that lunar eclipses are caused by the shadow of the ball-Earth occulting the Moon. The idea is that the Sun, Earth, and Moon spheres perfectly align like three billiard balls in a row so that the Sun’s light casts the Earth’s shadow onto the Moon. Unfortunately for heliocentrists, this explanation is rendered completely invalid due to the fact that lunar eclipses have happened and continue to happen regularly when both the Sun and Moon are still visible together above the horizon! For the Sun’s light to be casting Earth’s shadow onto the Moon, the three bodies must be aligned in a straight 180 degree syzygy.

“According to the globular theory, a lunar eclipse occurs when the sun, earth, and moon are in a direct line; but it is on record that since about the fifteenth century over fifty eclipses have occurred while both sun and moon have been visible above the horizon.” -F.H. Cook, “The Terrestrial Plane”

As early as the time of Pliny, there are records of lunar eclipses happening while both the Sun and Moon are visible in the sky. The Greenwich Royal Observatory recorded that “during the lunar eclipses of July 17th, 1590, November 3rd, 1648, June 16th, 1666, and May 26th, 1668 the moon rose eclipsed whilst the sun was still above the horizon.” McCulluch’s Geography recorded that “on September 20th, 1717 and April 20th, 1837 the moon appeared to rise eclipsed before the sun had set.” Sir Henry Holland also noted in his “Recollections of Past Life” the April 20th, 1837 phenomena where “the moon rose eclipsed before the sun set.” The Daily Telegraph recorded it happening again on January 17th, 1870, then again in July of the same year, and it continues to happen during lunar eclipses to this day.

Eric Dubay said...

Another favorite “proof” of ball-Earthers is the appearance from an observer on shore of ships’ hulls being obfuscated by the water and disappearing from view when sailing away towards the horizon. Their claim is that ship’s hulls disappear before their mast-heads because the ship is beginning its declination around the convex curvature of the ball-Earth. Once again, however, their hasty conclusion is drawn from a faulty premise, namely that only on a ball-Earth can this phenomenon occur. The fact of the matter is that the Law of Perspective on plane surfaces dictates and necessitates the exact same occurrence. For example a girl wearing a dress walking away towards the horizon will appear to sink into the Earth the farther away she walks. Her feet will disappear from view first and the distance between the ground and the bottom of her dress will gradually diminish until after about half a mile it seems like her dress is touching the ground as she walks on invisible legs. The same happens with cars speeding away, the axles gradually get lower and the wheels vanish until it appears as if the car is gliding along its body. Such is the case on plane surfaces, the lowest parts of objects receding from a given point of observation necessarily disappear before the highest.

“This law of Perspective meets us on every hand; and cannot be gainsaid. If, in a straight line, we look at a frozen lake from a certain distance, we shall observe people who appear to be skating on their knees, but, if we approach sufficiently near, we shall see them performing graceful motions on their feet. Farther, if we look through a straight tunnel, we shall notice that the roof and the roadway below converge to a point of light at the end. It is the same law which makes the hills sink, to the horizon, as the observer recedes, which explains how the ship's hull disappears in the offing. I would also remark that when the sea is undisturbed by waves, the hull can be restored to sight by the aid of a good telescope long after it has disappeared from the naked eye, thus proving that the ship had not gone down behind the watery hill of a convex globe, but is still sailing on the level of a Plane sea.” -David Wardlaw Scott, “Terra Firma” (75)

Not only is the disappearance of ship’s hulls explained by the Law of Perspective, it is proven undeniably true with the aid of a good telescope. If you watch a ship sailing away into the horizon with the naked eye until its hull has completely disappeared from view under the supposed “curvature of the Earth,” then look through a telescope, you will notice the entire ship quickly zooms back into view, hull and all, proving that the disappearance was caused by the Law of Perspective, and not by a wall of curved water!

“On any frozen lake or canal, notably on the ‘Bedford Canal,’ in the county of Cambridge, in winter and on a clear day, skaters may be observed several miles away, seeming to glide along upon limbs without feet--skates and boots quite invisible to the unaided eye, but distinctly visible through a good telescope. But even on the sea, when the water is very calm, if a vessel is observed until it is just ‘hull down,’ a powerful telescope turned upon it will restore the hull to sight. From which it must be concluded that the lower part of a receding ship disappears through the influence of perspective, and not from sinking behind the summit of a convex surface.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!” (216)

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the reply Eric!

You have answered my queries'

Maybe I'm just to preconditioned to the whole 'the earth is a sphere' state of mind. I just don't think what your saying is true, I'm really sorry.

No disrespect intended but maybe its because this is the basis of your new book and you don't want it to be debunked. I also can not see the reason why these masons would perpetuate this myth for 500 years? What do they gain from this subterfuge? There are also a myriad of pictures from space showing the curvature of the earth.

You got this one wrong, plus i'm more inclined to believe the genius of Newton.

Keep writing your blog though it has opened my eyes to a lot of new ideas, peace out

Eric Dubay said...

Anonymous, there are not "a myriad of pictures from space showing the curvature of the Earth." Please watch the following video which completely debunks that claim:

NASA Space Hoax 100% Case Closed

As for the motive, I already explained previously if you read through the comments, but here it is again:

The modern Atheist Big Bang Heliocentric Globe-Earth Chance Evolution paradigm spiritually controls humanity by removing God, or any sort of intelligent design, and replacing purposeful divine creation with haphazard random cosmic coincidence.

“The heliocentric theory, by putting the sun at the center of the universe ... made man appear to be just one of a possible host of wanderers drifting through a cold sky. It seemed less likely that he was born to live gloriously and to attain paradise upon his death. Less likely, too, was it that he was the object of God’s ministrations." -Morris Kline

By removing Earth from the motionless center of the Universe, these Masons have moved us physically and metaphysically from a place of supreme importance to one of complete nihilistic indifference. If the Earth is the center of the Universe, then the ideas of God, creation, and a purpose for human existence are resplendent. But if the Earth is just one of billions of planets revolving around billions of stars in billions of galaxies, then the ideas of God, creation, and a specific purpose for Earth and human existence become highly implausible.

By surreptitiously indoctrinating us into their scientific materialist Sun-worship, not only do we lose faith in anything beyond the material, we gain absolute faith in materiality, superficiality, status, selfishness, hedonism and consumerism. If there is no God, and everyone is just an accident, then all that really matters is me, me, me. They have turned Madonna, the Mother of God, into a material girl living in a material world. Their rich, powerful corporations with slick Sun-cult logos sell us idols to worship, slowly taking over the world while we tacitly believe their “science,” vote for their politicians, buy their products, listen to their music, and watch their movies, sacrificing our souls at the altar of materialism.

Our eyes and experience tell us the Earth is flat and motionless, and everything in the sky revolves around us. When we cease to believe our own eyes and experience we must prostrate ourselves at the feet of the very pseudo-scientists who blinded us, to treat them as "experts," astronomical "priests" who have special knowledge only they can access, like the Hubble telescope. By brainwashing us of something so gigantic and fundamental, it makes every other kind of lesser indoctrination a piece of cake!

Earth being the flat, fixed center of the universe, around which everything in the heavens revolves denotes a special importance and significance not only the Earth, but to us humans, the most intelligent among the intelligent designer's designs. By turning Earth into a spinning ball thrown around the Sun and shot through infinite space from a Godless Big Bang they turn humanity into a random meaningless, purposeless accident of a blind, dumb universe! It's trauma-based mind-control. They beat the divinity out of us with their mental manipulations.

Phil said...

Hi Eric, I'm not sure if my first attempt got through but if not, congratulations on the new book!
At last the voice of logic has dared to challenge the illogical status quo!
Your post has opened my eyes yet again, and after checking out some similar articles I'm almost there, but just have a couple of niggling queries.
What are your thoughts on seismic activity? Events such as quakes, volcanoes, tectonic plate drift, oh and tides? :)

Anonymous said...

"The similar flight times are interesting, but if you really find flight times to be a sticking point, I suggest you watch the following video, also with real flight times, proving undeniably that the Earth cannot be moving:

Earth is Not Rotating or Spinning"

Thanks for the reply and for the video. I also don't think that the Earth is moving or rotating, so this was not the issue (as far as I'm concerned). As I wrote, the issue is whether the Southern hemisphere is truly larger than the Northern hemisphere.

"Their exact flight path and average speed for each are unknown, so this is far from a smoking gun. Also, 33 degrees South latitude would not be nearly as noticeable compared to the numbers I was giving of explorers as deep as the 78th degree South latitude!"

I don't agree. First, if the Earth was indeed a flat disk with the North pole at the center and the Southern "pole" being effectively the circumference of the disk, there would already be a huge difference between the diameter of the circles of latitude at 33 degrees North and 33 degrees South. You have to be consistent with your flat Earth model - can't have it both ways! My point is that, even if it is not as noticeable, we should still see a difference. The fact that there is no significant difference indicates that the flat Earth model outlined above is not supported by actual data.

Second, the flight QF27 between Sydney and Santiago is actually the most southerly polar route currently in operation (I didn't know that when I picked this flight, just tried to pick cities as far in the South as I could). Even more interesting is that, according to Wikipedia, this flight "reaches 55 degrees south latitude, but other times 71 degrees, which is enough to cross the polar ice cap." We can also read on Wikipedia that "Depending on the winds, the Qantas flight QF 63 from Sydney to Johannesburg sometimes flies over the Antarctic Circle to latitude 71 degrees as well and allowing views of the icecap."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_route#Antarctica

Now, this is very important, because it suggests that, as in the Norther Hemisphere, flight times are shorter when flying closer to the poles (conspiracy or not, it's hard to argue that airlines want to maximize their profit!).

The distances and anecdotes you list are all more than a hundred years old. I think most readers will agree that current flight times data, combined with the knowledge that airlines actually optimize flight times by flying closer to the South Pole, weighs much more.

I already mentioned two websites that list experiments suggesting strongly that the Earth is concave (note that I'm not using the word "proving", but then again it is definitely not "proven" that the Earth is flat!): www.wildheretic.com and Rolf Keppler's website. I'm not going to summarize their work here, interested readers can look for themselves. If you are only interested in data and experimental evidence, I suggest this page as a starting point:
http://www.wildheretic.com/concave-earth-theory/

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the video post Eric!

I'm still finding it difficult to accept, but the evidence in the last video you posted was quite compelling.

I can't believe they are getting away with this stuff. I feel kind of embarrassed that I've been duped like this! Like its some sick game to these 'people'

Could I ask you what the end game for these masons is? I've really been struggling to fit it all together, the scope of the plan is so massive ans spans so many genres and time that I can't see what there intentions are? What it is all working towards? I don't mean an NWO type society, as this is just one part of there plan, but what happens if this all falls into place for them? What do they want and why do they keep perpetuating like the earth is a sphere, I've spent ages just thinking about this and any insight from you would be a great help.

peace

Anonymous said...

Hi Eric,

Long time reader first time commentator. Great blog with in depth research and very articulate and lucid writing.

Just bought your book and cannot wait to start reading it.

Shailaja

Eric Dubay said...

Thanks for the comments Phil, Shailaja and Anon. I really appreciate the kind words and support. Be sure to write again when you finish the book and let me know what you think Shailaja.

For Phil, earthquakes, volcanoes, and tectonic plates drifting can be explained the same way they are in the ball-Earth model, but not the tides, tides being caused by "the Moon's gravity" is a ridiculous assumption that's clearly not happening, otherwise all bodies of water on Earth would be so affected, including lakes, ponds, marshes etc. and not just the massive oceans. If the Moon is only 2,160 miles in diameter and the Earth 8,000 miles, using their own math and “law,” it follows that the Earth is 87 times more massive and therefore the larger object should attract the smaller to it, and not the other way around. If the Earth’s greater gravity is what keeps the Moon in orbit, it is impossible for the Moon’s lesser gravity to supersede the Earth’s gravity at Earth’s sea-level, where its gravitational attraction would even further out-trump the Moon’s. Not to mention, the velocity and path of the Moon are uniform and should therefore exert a uniform influence on the Earth’s tides, when in actuality the Earth’s tides vary greatly. Furthermore, if ocean tides are caused by the Moon’s gravitation, how is it that lakes, ponds, and other smaller bodies of standing water remain outside the Moon’s grasp, while the gigantic oceans are so effected!?

“If the moon lifted up the water, it is evident that near the land, the water would be drawn away and low instead of high tide caused. Again, the velocity and path of the moon are uniform, and it follows that if she exerted any influence on the earth, that influence could only be a uniform influence. But the tides are not uniform. At Port Natal the rise and fall is about 6 feet, while at Beira, about 600 miles up the coast, the rise and fall is 26 feet. This effectually settles the matter that the moon has no influence on the tides. Tides are caused by the gentle and gradual rise and fall of the earth on the bosom of the mighty deep. In inland lakes, there are no tides; which also proves that the moon cannot attract either the earth or water to cause tides. But the fact that the basin of the lake is on the earth which rests on the waters of the deep shows that no tides are possible, as the waters of the lakes together with the earth rise and fall, and thus the tides at the coast are caused; while there are no tides on waters unconnected with the sea.” -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (130-131)

“Even Sir Isaac Newton himself confessed that the explanation of the Moon's action on the Tides was the least satisfactory part of his theory of Gravitation. This theory asserts that the larger object attracts the smaller, and the mass of the Moon being reckoned as only one-eighth of that of the Earth, it follows that, if, by the presumed force of Gravitation, the Earth revolves round the Sun, much more, for the same reason, should the Moon do so likewise, instead of which that willful orb still continues to go round our world. Tides vary greatly in height, owing chiefly to the different configurations of the adjoining lands. At Chepstow it rises to 60 feet, at Portishead to 50, while at Dublin Bay it is but 1 2, and at Wexford only 5 feet … That the Earth itself has a slight tremulous motion may be seen in the movement of the spirit-level, even when fixed as steadily as possible, and that the sea has a fluctuation may be witnessed by the oscillation of an anchored ship in the calmest day of summer. By what means the tides are so regularly affected is at present only conjectured; possibly it may be by atmospheric pressure on the waters of the Great Deep, and perhaps even the Moon itself, as suggested by the late Dr. Rowbotham, may influence the atmosphere, increasing or diminishing its barometric pressure, and indirectly the rise and fall of the Earth in the waters.” -David Wardlaw Scott, “Terra Firma” (259-260)

Eric Dubay said...

Anon, you're right that "it's like a sick game with these people." Psychopaths/sociopaths/sadists get an adrenaline release and a dopamine high from pulling one over on their victims, it's hilarious to them. Ex-NASA photoshopper Matthew Boylan quips anecdotes about how NASA officials and astro-nots privy to the Flat-Earth truth would laugh hysterically at "the brain-washed zombie public" who unquestioningly believe their televisions.

To better understand their psychology I recommend checking out the articles and videos I've compiled here:

Psychopathy

The M.O. of all psychopaths is control and domination. They obsessively and robotically pursue power and base pleasures, driven by money, greed, sex, lust, power, pleasure, status, hedonism. They are completely materialistic and spiritless and have created an entire materialistic and spiritless paradigm: the Godless Big Blind Dumb Bang Evolution Universe Deception where base matter is all there is. They've advanced the deception now to where they're faking faces and pyramids on Mars, propagating extra-terrestrials and ancient astronauts as the supposed progenitors of the human race coming from other planets! The science-fiction they promote as "science" has gotten so ridiculous I'm sure they laugh their drunken heads off every eyes-wide-shut castle-party at the stupid slaves who actually think they evolved from monkeys on a spinning ball-Earth where they were hybridized with ancient alien astronauts from the pyramid on Mars!

Rahsaan Motley said...

This is very interesting Eric, if the earth is flat and is the center of the universe then modern science has decieved humanity just like religion. Your saying that the sun and the rest of the planets revolve around us. I listend to a video a few mmonths ago about the earth being surrounded by ice and nasa lies about traveing to outer space, now you even have more evidence i dont know what to say about this. What does this mean, is earth the only plane were life exist and there is no extraterrestrial life but only us or is just earth that manifsent and attracts other life forms here. Its just gets very strange. Are there really any UFOs or just beings from other dimensions

Eric Dubay said...

Thanks for the comment Rahsaan! The video you watched saying the Earth is surrounded by ice and NASA lies about space travel is absolutely correct. Earth is the only material world, the only physical plane, the "planets" (plane with a "t") were always known to the ancients as "wandering stars" because they are only different from other stars in their relative motions. They are NOT physical terra firma capable of landing NASA rovers on, that is all staged on Earth. And what's the first thing NASA's Viking found on Mars in 1976? The "Face" and "Pyramid" on Mars! Supposed proof of alien (or human) life existing on other planets. This is the next stage of the deception, well underway, to get people thinking we live in an infinite universe with one septillion planets which have physical extra-terrestrials on them which came here as "ancient astronauts" and seeded/hybridized the human race in test tubes. Read Sitchin, Tsarion, Greer, Camelot, and half the other controlled opposition figures, they'll tell you all about it!

The Masonic Truth Behind Aliens/UFOs

Non-physical inter-dimensional entities described as greys, reptilians, nordics, etc. have long been part of "demonology" and shamanic traditions which use entheogens like Ayahuasca, DMT, Peyote, Mushrooms etc. to access the "spirit world." These entities certainly exist and fly in UFO's, but they are not physical, they are something seen in altered states of consciousness. DMT is even produced naturally in our pineal glands so people can have these psychedelic experiences endogenously without even knowing what's happening to them. DMT bursts happen most often during REM sleep, so this explains why so many people think they've been abducted from their beds while asleep by the same body snatchers Peruvian shamans draw in their Ayahuasca paintings! Peace

Rahsaan Motley said...

If this is correct about earth being the center of the universe and is truly flat, this destroys all of modern science about the universe including new age religions. This is the biggest conspiracy that people will have a hard time accepting cause the powers that be have heavly influenced the masses with disinfo.

Anonymous said...

Your flat earth video would be better without the back
round noise of scoring. Thank you for your perspective. I take the neutral ground on this perspective, but I've never been in space, so I've never seen the earth as a ball. I've always based my life on experience, and my experience is that the earth looks flat based on the horizon no matter where you are on earth, like its presented in your vid.

Tanynexus said...

Hi Eric

Brilliant blog, you have truly opened my eyes to the world. I wish you all the success in the world.

I first discovered your geocentric blog and saved your website. This flat earth blog is another level!

I have a question:

Can you please explain the different constellations seen in the two hemispheres?

Also do you think its convenient that the recent"mishap" on the virgin space shuttle was on purpose, so that the plan to have customer flights to space never happens? Or people are put off traveling?

It really is incredible the sheer size of this illusion. Every film and documentary shows the earth and space as if it's fact. I would love for someone who believes the truth to make a film showing a flat earth and what is really beyond the atmosphere.

Anyway peace and love.

Tanynexus

Anonymous said...

The Earth is definitely flat, that's why when I signed up with my energy supplier, they asked if I wanted the flat rate?

Tanynexus said...

Hi Eric,

I wanted to know what has happened to my question I posted two days ago, please could you check your spam? Many thanks

Tanynexus

Eric Dubay said...

Hey, thanks Tanynexus, there was a bunch of real comments stuck in my spam filter, I've gotta check that thing more often. I was just discussing that same idea with my dad trying to figure out of the Virgin stuff is independent of or part of the whole NASA Mason Ball-Earth club. I'm not sure, do you have any insight into it? As for the stars in the so-called "hemispheres," many of them can be seen much farther than they should be able to on a ball-Earth:

For instance, Polaris can be seen all the way to 23.5 degrees South latitude, impossible on a ball. To account for this glaring problem in their model, desperate heliocentrists since the late 19th century have claimed the ball-Earth actually tilts a convenient 23.5 degrees back on its vertical axis. Even this brilliant revision to their theory cannot account for the visibility of many other constellations though. For instance, Ursa Major, very close to Polaris, can be seen from 90 degrees North latitude (the North Pole) all the way down to 30 degrees South latitude. The constellation Vulpecula can be seen from 90 degrees North latitude, all the way to 55 degrees South latitude. Taurus, Pisces and Leo can be seen from 90 degrees North all the way to 65 degrees South. Aquarius and Libra can be seen from 65 degrees North to 90 degrees South! The constellation Virgo is visible from 80 degrees North down to 80 degrees South, and Orion can be seen from 85 degrees North all the way to 75 degrees South latitude! An observer on a ball-Earth, regardless of any tilt or inclination, should not logically be able to see this far.

Eric Dubay said...

“It has often been urged that the earth must be a globe, because the stars in the southern ‘hemisphere’ move round a south polar star; in the same way that those of the north revolve round the northern pole star. This is another instance of the sacrifice of truth, and denial of the evidence of our senses for the purpose of supporting a theory which is in every sense false and unnatural. It is known to every observer that the north pole star is the centre of a number of constellations which move over the earth in a circular direction. Those nearest to it, as the ‘Great Bear,’ etc. are always visible in England during their whole twenty-four hours' revolution. Those further away southwards rise north-north-east, and set south-south-west; still further south they rise east by north, and set west by north. The farthest south visible from England, the rising is more to the east and south-east, and the setting to the west and south-west. But all the stars visible from London rise and set in a way which is not compatible with the doctrine of rotundity. For instance, if we stand with our backs to the north, on the high land known as ‘Arthur's Seat,’ near Edinburgh, and note the stars in the zenith of our position, and watch for several hours, the zenith stars will gradually recede to the north-west. If we do the same on Woodhouse Moor, near Leeds, or on any of the mountain tops in Yorkshire or Derbyshire, the same phenomenon is observed. The same thing may be seen from the top of Primrose Hill, near Regent's Park, London; from Hampstead Heath; or Shooter's Hill, near Woolwich. If we remain all night, we shall observe the same stars rising towards our position from the north-east, showing that the path of all the stars between ourselves and the northern centre move round the north pole-star as a common centre of rotation; just as they must do over a plane such as the earth is proved to be. It is undeniable that upon a globe zenith stars would rise, pass over head, and set in the plane of the observer's position. If now we carefully watch in the same way the zenith stars from the Rock of Gibraltar, the very same phenomenon is observed. The same is also the case from Cape of Good Hope, Sydney and Melbourne in Australia, in New Zealand, in Rio Janeiro, Monte Video, Valparaiso, and other places in the south. If then the zenith stars of all the places on the earth, where special observations have been made, rise from the morning horizon to the zenith of an observer, and descend to the evening horizon, not in a plane of the position of such observer, but in an arc of a circle concentric with the northern centre, the earth is thereby proved to be a plane, and rotundity altogether disproved - shown, indeed, to be impossible.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!” (284-6)

Also see:

The Flat Earth and Polaris

The Spinning Earth Made of Bricks

Tanynexus said...

Thank you Eric for your response, excuse me for being so impatient!

To tell you the truth I have no idea about the Virgin "accident", I just thought that if a commercial space program was allowed to happen and every rich person could go into "space" they would see the truth of what this world is. These Masons would not allow that to happen hence sabotage any attempt at these sort of ventures, hopefully putting off potential companies from investing in this and from punters from trying these space tours out!

I have another question, this time about the Antarctica. I was on google maps trying to see if they have a map of Antarctica. They showed the map with various research bases from various countries dotted around the edge of the "continent". Then in there was a centre of Antarctica, the south pole and they have shown a station called the Amundsen-Scott. Is this really in the centre of the south pole or is that all BS?

Further on from this, the Wikipedia page for this station says that it is 6 months daylight and 6 months night at this particular spot. On a flat earth how does that happen? Does the sun move positions (I don't mean during the day, I mean during the year) to cause the long days and nights?

Last, while googling the south pole I noticed that they have holidays and tours to the south pole! How is that possible if we cannot get passed the Antarctica wall of snow and ice? Has someone claimed to have gone from one end of the "continent" to the other?

Many thanks brother.
Tanvynexus

Eric Dubay said...

Hey Tanynexus, Google Earth overlays real visual data sets onto a CGI ball-Earth. The South Pole does not exist as a single point in Antarctica, but rather like a ring magnet with the North Pole in the center and the opposite pole being every point on the outside circumference of the magnet. They do have government-licensed and approved guided tours to the "South Pole" where they've placed a little red/white barbershop pole thing with a silver ball-Earth on top of it! This is absolutely not the Southern-most point of the ball-Earth however, it is simply an arbitrary point somewhere along the Antarctic ice they've decided to call the pole.

I'd never heard them actually claim 6 months of straight sunlight and 6 months of straight darkness anywhere on Earth because it certainly doesn't happen anywhere! During the Summer solstice every year you can see the Arctic Midnight Sun for 3 days straight, without setting, at places above the 65th parallel. During this time it is Antarctic winter and remains dark for over 2 months until the Sun starts working its way back downwards towards the South, and the Sun rises and sets very quickly at first, then staying in the sky longer and longer until the winter solstice which is the Antarctic summer. Nowhere in the Antarctic is there the midnight Sun phenomenon though. The Sun sets every day it rises in Antarctica and during the summer solstice it doesn't come up for months. This is very different than "6 months of daylight and 6 months of night," that doesn't happen anywhere on Earth and I can't believe they're actually claiming this happens at that base. Can civilians go hang out at that base for a couple days? That's all it would take to refute that ridiculous claim.

“It is evident that in the great encircling oceans of the south, and the numerous islands and parts of continents, which exist beyond that part of the earth where the sun is vertical, cannot have their days and nights, seasons, etc., precisely like those in the northern region. The north is a centre, and the south is that centre radiated or thrown out to a vast oceanic circumference, terminating in circular walls of ice, which form an impenetrable frozen barrier. Hence the phenomena referred to as existing in the north must be considerably modified in the south, For instance, the north being central, the light of the sun advancing and receding, gives long periods of alternate light and darkness at the actual centre; but in the far south, the sun, even when moving in his outer path, can only throw its light to a certain distance, beyond which there must be perpetual darkness. No evidence exists of there being long periods of light and darkness regularly alternating, as in the north. In the north, in summer-time, when the sun is moving in its inner path, the light shines continually for months together over the central region, and rapidly develops numerous forms of animal and vegetable life.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!” (115)

We can certainly "get passed the Antarctic wall" by planes/helicopters or climbing up from low points in the ice, and it's like a huge plateau that extends as far as the eye can see. People may have claimed to traversed its entirety, but the whole controversy could easily be put to rest if a plane with a camera filmed a circumpolar flight from the North pole southwards, and maintaining the same direction the entire flight came up the backside of the ball-Earth and returned to the North pole. In Mark Knight's article he delved into Antarctica pretty deeply as well, check out his Antarctica section:

The Global Ball Bull

Anonymous said...

I think we can simply look into the sky and "planely see", pun intended that the sun and moon travel in a parablical arc across the sky. All these horizon theories simply do not hold up because the distances are to small. If the earth was flat in nature think what that would mean of your perception of the sun when the earth flipped from day to night. The sun would never change position. It would simply hang in the middle of the sky and then suddenly disappear at 7pm. Come on guys really!!!?

Eric Dubay said...

See the following, Anonymous:

Range of Vision, Tilted Balls, and the Flat Earth

Anonymous said...

Very interesting proposal, seems dark city wasn't just a film huh?

So Eric, are you saying that these travel distances are wrong?

i.e.

Sydney to Buenos Aires = 7,000mi

Sydney to Cape Town = 7,000mi

Cape Town to Buenos Aires = 4,000mi

The thing is that dude, I've been there, plane took just like 14hrs across the Pacific and according to your theory would take like 30-40hrs?

What am I missing here?

Great Site BTW!
Vic

Eric Dubay said...

Thanks Vic, I'm not saying any travel distances are wrong, not sure what you mean, though I have shown at the end of the following video how much different international flight times would be if the Earth was actually spinning Eastwards constantly 1,038mph as they say:

Proof Earth is Not Spinning, Rotating, Revolving or Wobbling

Eric Dubay said...

People keep sending me the following popular YT video which attempts to debunk the flat-Earth, so I thought I'd just post it here and debunk the debunking:

What Would Happen if Earth Was Flat

As I've explained previously, gravity does not exist, so the guy's objections and thought-experiments at the beginning are irrelevant to the flat-Earth model. The fact that objects denser than the medium surrounding them fall and objects less dense than the medium surrounding them rise is a natural property of physics and has nothing to do with "gravity." Gravity is a fictional force knighted Freemason "Sir" Isaac Newton came up with to explain why people don't fall off his spinning ball-Earth.

The water under the bridge they show is totally flat as always, the bridge visibly curves upwards, not the Earth underneath it. The Eratosthenes experiment was assuming the light from the Sun was millions of miles away and all arriving at Earth at the same angle. As shown in this video, however, the Sun's rays do NOT come to Earth at the same angle because the Sun is only a few thousand miles away, not 93 million, as he even admitted after explaining the whole faulty argument.

The "Earth accelerating up constantly" BS is a false flat-Earth argument that they throw around all the time to make it sound ridiculous. And the special relativity make-everyone-happy answer at the end is just the "ball-Earth-back-pedal" where heliocentrists try to say somehow it's both flat and a ball at the same time, to keep people from figuring out that it's flat only and not a ball at all.

Anonymous said...

Flat earth or hollow earth? I may not be the coldest beer in the fridge but I don't think it can be both. Which is it?

Eric Dubay said...

Flat, but with a bunch of deep sink-holes, underground caverns and D.U.M.B.s, so something like swiss cheese :)

Anonymous said...

Hello Eric,
Yours is a very interesting theory.
I definetely like it.
Although I would like to know why would the NASA and the government hide this truth. Why are they making such big efforts in order to keep us unaware of it ?

Eric Dubay said...

Hey Anon, re-read the comments section, you'll find that addressed more than once. Peace

Tanynexus said...

Hi Eric,

Sorry for the delay, regarding 6 months of day and night, this is taken from NASA website:

Antarctica has just two seasons: summer and winter. Antarctica has six months of daylight in its summer and six months of darkness in its winter.

Link: http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/5-8/features/what-is-antarctica-58.html#.VJFcxPmUmmw

I commend you on answering every post in this thread. I made a comment on a NASA CGI video of the earth on youtube and have been lambasted for my views. You need a thick skin to read and respond to these comments without getting angry or rude!

Eric Dubay said...

Hey Tanynexus, they claim the "South Pole" which doesn't exist, is currently experiencing 24 hour sunlight during the winter solstice. There are several uncut videos of the Arctic midnight sun phenomena where this actually does happen for days at a time during the summer solstice, when the Sun is circling its tightest path around the flat-Earth. Yet you will not find a single video of this happening in Antarctica because it is a lie. Antarctica NEVER experiences 24 hour daylight at anytime of the year, anywhere on the "continent," as the Sun is traveling faster around its widest path now during the winter solstice, so sunrise/sunset happen very quickly and dawn/dusk exist for only a few minutes. Peace

Anonymous said...

Perhaps you've already ocmmented on the following concave earth theory and if the glass ceiling theory is also plausible to you, then perhaps the visual illusion of a 'globe' can be understood to imply either a concave earth or a flat earth in 'reality'. You may have cevered this aspect, but I've only recently examined the subject in any depth.

Kos

Anonymous said...

I meant to offer this link for considertaion as well re. concave earth...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdXYMhN5YFM&feature=player_profilepage#t=17882

Kos

Anonymous said...

I read through all of these comments and I noticed something that was not mentioned by the others. There doesn't seem to be any explanation for how the planets would change direction in the night sky, unless of course the world is round and not flat. Even the ancients noticed this phenomenon and could not explain it with a flat earth, or with the sun orbiting the earth. It was their first piece of evidence that the earth orbited the sun, along with everything else in the solar system. By the way, current understanding states that the earth is an oblate spheroid, not a perfectly round ball. That does come off as what we call the straw man tactic logical fallacy. The earth is not round with perfect uniformity, no one ever said it was. Curvature varies.

You will probably never convince me to believe that the earth could be flat. I am only offering this issue to you for sake of logical completeness, and the sake of discourse. Good luck everybody, in pursuit of truth. We are definitely being deceived by a group of NWO clowns, if not about this, about many other things, for sure. Pray for us all.

Anonymous said...

Also in an earlier comment you seem to think that a helium balloon floating away supports your argument when it has absolutely nothing to do with it. It is called density. It is pretty easy to demonstrate that less dense gas rises on its own. If gravity did not exist, helium balloons would not work, without some kind of elaborate workaround, the likes of which you accuse those who disagree with you of.

Eric Dubay said...

Hey Kos, I definitely think a solid sky dome of glass or some other substance is certainly plausible, and that the universe is "concave" like the inside of a snow globe or planetarium dome with everything spinning around Polaris at the top. The Earth is definitely not concave or convex however, it is the flat, round middle of the hollow snow globe universe.

For Anonymous, the "planets" were known for thousands of years as "wandering stars," as they differ from the fixed stars in their relative motions only. The fact that they move in unique paths over/around the Earth does not in anyway disprove Geocentricity or the flat-Earth, nor is/was it inexplicable as you claim.

And by the way, the current understanding is actually that the Earth is pear shaped, not an oblate spheroid or a sphere. I just finished making this video on the subject yesterday, check it out:

Neil DeGrasse Tyson Says Earth is Pear Shaped

And I'm well-aware regarding density. "Gravity" as a force, does not exist. Objects denser than the medium surrounding them rise while objects less dense than the medium surrounding them fall. This property of natural physics was well known and understood long before knighted Freemason "Sir" Isaac Newton came along and piggy-backed his "gravity" on so he could explain why people don't fall off the underside of his spinning ball-Earth.

Eric Dubay said...

NASA and modern astronomy claim that Earth is a sphere, but not a perfect sphere, an "oblate spheroid," and not only oblate, but even bigger in the southern hemisphere like a pear. Heliocentrists have contended this for centuries now because the Earth was conclusively proven to be flatter than they originally claimed, so they back-peddled re-labeling it an oblate spheroid flattened at the poles. Then it was proven that the area in the southern hemisphere exceeded that of the northern (as consistent with the flat-Earth model) so they reverse-engineered another damage-control explanation that Earth is actually not a sphere or oblate spheroid but a pear! Watch the above clip of NASA ultra-shill Neil DeGrasse Tyson trying to explain their pear-shaped Earth.

“That bodies in some instances are seen to approach each other is a fact; but that their mutual approach is due to an ‘ attraction,’ or pulling process, on the part of these bodies, is, after all, a mere theory. Hypotheses may be sometimes admissible, but when they are invented to support other hypotheses, they are not only to be doubted but discredited and discarded. The hypothesis of a universal force called Gravitation is based upon, and was indeed invented with a view to support another hypothesis, namely, that the earth and sea together make up a vast globe, whirling away through space, and therefore needing some force or forces to guide it in its mad career, and so control it as to make it conform to what is called its annual orbit round the sun! The theory first of all makes the earth to be a globe; then not a perfect globe, but an oblate spheroid, flattened at the ‘poles’; then more oblate, until it was in danger of becoming so flattened that it would be like a cheese; and, passing over minor variations of form, we are finally told that the earth is pear-shaped, and that the ‘elipsoid has been replaced by an apoid!’ What shape it may assume next we cannot tell; it will depend upon the whim or fancy of some astute and speculating ‘scientist.’” -Lady Blount and Albert Smith, “Zetetic Astronomy” (14)

Anonymous said...

UN shows the earth map hence the logo and cannot fly through Antarctica. Hence logo is map.

Anton said...

Wait what? if the earth were flat, how can you fly from new york to tokyo and back around the other way? how comes no one has seen or photographed the edge of the earth?, how comes scientist, in depended and together, have always proven the earth is round? how comes the sun is a sphere, the moon is a sphere and almost all objects in space are and the Earth is not? how comes Earth would defy gravity by not being a sphere? and how comes there is a day/night cycle, where there is on earth always a place in the night and one in the day? please explain.

Also already in the old Greece it was known the earth is a sphere by a very simple experiment all of you can do if you travel: if you are at home, stick a stick in the earth, and measure how long is shade is. Do it again far away, round the equator or round the poles, and measure again. The fact the shadow have differed length can only be because the earth is round.

Eric Dubay said...

Hey Anton, Earth is a flat disc with North being the center, South being all tangents perpendicular, and East / West being circles around. East / West circumnavigation is therefore just as possible either way, and North / South circumnavigation has never been done on Earth because it is impossible. This was explained in greater depth earlier if you read through the comments. No one has "proven the Earth is round," you've just been fed pseudo-science that you believed to be proof. The Sun and Moon are not spheres, they are flat spotlights. That is why the Moon has a "dark side," no matter where/when on Earth everyone always sees the same side, because there is only one side to see.

“The Moon presented a special math problem for the construction of the heliocentricity model. The only way to make the Moon fit in with the other assumptions was to reverse its direction from that of what everyone who has ever lived has seen it go. The math model couldn’t just stop the Moon like it did the Sun, that wouldn’t work. And it couldn’t let it continue to go East to West as we see it go, either at the same speed or at a different speed. The only option was to reverse its observed East to West direction and change its speed from about 64,000 miles an hour to about 2,200 miles an hour. This reversal, along with the change in speed, were unavoidable assumptions that needed to be adopted if the model was to have any chance of mimicking reality.” -Bernard Brauer

“They want you to believe that the Moon's rotation is perfectly synchronized with its orbit so that's why we only ever see one side of the Moon, rather than conclude the obvious - that the Moon is simply NOT rotating. Moreover, they had to slow down the Moon's speed by 58,870 mph AND reverse its direction to West-East to successfully sell their phony heliocentricity system to a gullible public. I don't think there is one person in many, many thousands - regardless of education - who knows that the Copernican Model had to turn the Moon's observable direction around and give it a new speed to accommodate the phases and eclipses.” -Marshall Hall

Not only is the Moon flat, it is not densely physical and semi-transparent. On a clear night, during a waxing or waning cycle, it is even possible to occasionally see stars and planets directly through the surface of the Moon!

Eric Dubay said...


On March 7th, 1794, four astronomers (3 in Norwich, 1 in London) wrote in “The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Astronomical Society” that they “saw a star in the dark part of the moon, which had not then attained the first quadrature; and from the representations which are given the star must have appeared very far advanced upon the disc.” Sir James South of the Royal Observatory in Kensington wrote in a letter to the Times newspaper April 7, 1848, that, "On the 15th of March, 1848, when the moon was seven and a half days old, I never saw her unillumined disc so beautifully. On my first looking into the telescope a star of about the 7th magnitude was some minutes of a degree distant from the moon's dark limb. I saw that its occultation by the moon was inevitable … The star, instead of disappearing the moment the moon's edge came in contact with it, apparently glided on the moon's dark face, as if it had been seen through a transparent moon; or, as if a star were between me and the moon … I have seen a similar apparent projection several times … The cause of this phenomenon is involved in impenetrable mystery." In the monthly notices of the Royal Astronomical Society for June 8, 1860, Thomas Gaunt stated that the "Occultation of Jupiter by the moon, on the 24th of May, 1860, was seen with an achromatic of 3.3 inches aperture, 50 inches focus; the immersion with a power of 50, and the emersion with a power of 70. At the immersion I could not see the dark limb of the moon until the planet appeared to touch it, and then only to the extent of the diameter of the planet; but what I was most struck with was the appearance on the moon as it passed over the planet. It appeared as though the planet was a dark object, and glided on to the moon instead of behind it; and the appearance continued until the planet was hid, when I suddenly lost the dark limb of the moon altogether.” I have personally also seen stars through the edge of the waxing/waning Moon. It actually happens fairly often; if you are diligent and specifically observing for the phenomenon on starry nights you can occasionally see it even with the naked eye.

“During a partial solar eclipse the sun's outline has many times been seen through the body of the moon. But those who have been taught to believe that the moon is a solid opaque sphere, are ever ready with ‘explanations,’ often of the most inconsistent character, rather than acknowledge the simple fact of semi-transparency. Not only has this been proved by the visibility of the sun's outline through segments, and sometimes the very centre of the moon, but often, at new moon, the outline of the whole, and even the several shades of light on the opposite and illuminated part have been distinctly seen. In other words we are often able to see through the dark side of the moon's body to light on the other side.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!” (337)

“That the moon is not a perfectly opaque body, but a crystallized substance, is shown from the fact that when a few hours old or even at quarter we can through the unilluminated portion see the light shining on the other side. Stars have also been observed through her surface!” -J. Atkinson, “Earth Review Magazine”

Eric Dubay said...

Gravity does not exist. If you fill a balloon with helium, a substance lighter than the nitrogen, oxygen and other elements which compose the air around it, the balloon will immediately fly upwards. If you fill a balloon with hydrogen, a substance even lighter than helium, the balloon will fly upwards even faster. If you blow a dandelion seed out of your hands, a substance just barely heavier than the air, it will float away and slowly but eventually fall to the ground. And if you drop an anvil from your hands, something much heavier than the air, it will quickly and directly fall straight to the ground. Now, this has absolutely nothing to do with “gravity.” The fact that light things rise up and heavy things fall down is simply a natural property of weight. That is very different from “gravity.” Gravity is a hypothetical magnetic-like force possessed by large masses which Isaac Newton needed to help explain the heliocentric theory of the universe.

Now, even if gravity did exist, why would it cause both planets to orbit the Sun and people to stick to the Earth? Gravity should either cause people to float in suspended circular orbits around the Earth, or it should cause the Earth to be pulled and crash into the Sun! What sort of magic is “gravity” that it can glue people’s feet to the ball-Earth, while causing Earth itself to revolve ellipses round the Sun? The two effects are very different yet the same cause is attributed to both.

“Take the case of a shot propelled from a cannon. By the force of the explosion and the influence of the reputed action of gravitation, the shot forms a parabolic curve, and finally falls to the earth. Here we may ask, why - if the forces are the same, viz., direct impulse and gravitation - does not the shot form an orbit like that of a planet, and revolve round the earth? The Newtonian may reply, because the impulse which propelled the shot is temporary; and the impulse which propelled the planet is permanent. Precisely so; but why is the impulse permanent in the case of the planet revolving round the sun? What is the cause of this permanence?” -N. Crossland, “New Principia”

“If the sun is pulling with such power at the earth and all her sister planets, why do they not fall down upon him?” -A. Giberne, “Sun, Moon, and Stars” (27)

Eric Dubay said...

Furthermore, this magnetic-like attraction of massive objects gravity is purported to have can be found nowhere in the natural world. There is no example in nature of a massive sphere or any other shaped-object which by virtue of its mass alone causes smaller objects to stick to or orbit around it! There is nothing on Earth massive enough that it can be shown to cause even a dust-bunny to stick to or orbit around it! Try spinning a wet tennis ball or any other spherical object with smaller things placed on its surface and you will find that everything falls or flies off, and nothing sticks to or orbits it. To claim the existence of a physical “law” without a single practical evidential example is hearsay, not science.

“That bodies in some instances are seen to approach each other is a fact; but that their mutual approach is due to an ‘ attraction,’ or pulling process, on the part of these bodies, is, after all, a mere theory. Hypotheses may be sometimes admissible, but when they are invented to support other hypotheses, they are not only to be doubted but discredited and discarded. The hypothesis of a universal force called Gravitation is based upon, and was indeed invented with a view to support another hypothesis, namely, that the earth and sea together make up a vast globe, whirling away through space, and therefore needing some force or forces to guide it in its mad career, and so control it as to make it conform to what is called its annual orbit round the sun! The theory first of all makes the earth to be a globe; then not a perfect globe, but an oblate spheroid, flattened at the ‘poles’; then more oblate, until it was in danger of becoming so flattened that it would be like a cheese; and, passing over minor variations of form, we are finally told that the earth is pear-shaped, and that the ‘elipsoid has been replaced by an apoid!’ What shape it may assume next we cannot tell; it will depend upon the whim or fancy of some astute and speculating ‘scientist.’” -Lady Blount and Albert Smith, “Zetetic Astronomy” (14)

How is it that “gravity” is so strong that it can hold all the oceans, buildings and people stuck to the under-side of the ball-Earth, but so weak that it allows birds, bugs, smoke, and balloons to casually evade its grips completely!? How is it that “gravity” holds our bodies clung to the under-side of the ball-Earth, but yet we can easily raise our legs and arms, walk or jump and feel no such constant downward pulling force? How is it that “gravity” can cause planets to revolve elliptical orbits around a single center of attraction? Ellipses by nature require two foci, and the force of gravitation would have to regularly increase and decrease to keep planets in constant orbit and prevent pulling them into direct collision courses!

Eric Dubay said...

In the Flat-Earth model, the Sun and Moon luminaries revolve around the 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)

Eric Dubay said...

The Eratosthenes Greek experiment you mentioned was done assuming the Sun was millions of miles away from the Earth with light rays all coming in at the same angle. They do not. The Sun and Moon are only 3,000 miles away, and 32 miles in diameter. NASA lies that the Sun is 93 million miles away, as proven at 3:00 in the following amateur balloon footage, you can see a hot-spot on the clouds directly underneath the Sun proving it is very close:

No Curvature on the Flat Earth

Anonymous said...

I checked flight times from LA to Sydney vs. Santiago to Sydney. Now, on the ball earth, they should be roughly the same flight duration. On a flat earth, the Santiago route should be much longer. If you look at Qantas non-stops from both locations to Sydney, the flight duration is roughly 14 hours -- consistent with ball earth distances. Am I missing something here?

Eric Dubay said...

I think that's covered quite well in the following video:

Flat Earth Long Haul

Tany said...

Hi Eric,

I found this on Wikipedia, they say that "Ranulph Fiennes is credited with the first north-south circumnavigation of the world."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumnavigation

Do you know any more about this? there isn't much detail in Fiennes' wiki page either, which leadsd me to believe it is hogwash!

Thank you
Tany

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately, your explanation of the Sydney to Santiago route was insufficient. On a flat earth map, you can't have a non-stop flight between these 2 cities. It would exceed the range of the 747 -- almost 24 hours of flight time. Qantas has a non-stop Sydney to Santiago. This does present a problem with the theory.

Anonymous said...

Eric, I too have had difficulty believing what we are inculcated with. The moon landing business I watched as a 4 or 5 year old and questioned in my own mind. Other things too have bothered me such as lights on the moon . Anyhow I too want to thank you for your work. Justin.

Harfang Des Neiges said...

usually, i dont take the time to write a comment when i visit a website but i felt the need to show you my respect for exposing the truth. i was already aware about the flat earth but never really wanted to expose the truth to my friend or my family because most people believe the earth is a ball because the school and NASA told them it was a ball which is in my opinion total bullshit and totally unnacceptable and im glad to see some people like you to expose them and their lie. keep up the good work man. cheer, and have a nice day

Brad Creeds said...

First of all I'd like to say I've thoroughly enjoyed reading the comments / answers here. Very thought provoking, and it does make a lot of sense.

I am however, stuck on two points that were raised;

The distance of the flight paths. This, in my opinion, simply cannot be ignore, no matter how logical the rest of the case is.

Secondly: Gravity. Okay, you say it doesn't exist. Fine. But then you mention how other gases rise, etc, and explain it with physics. Okay, what physics then if not gravity?

Perhaps I am tired now, and missing something (I've been up all night reading this).

Oh, that reminds me of a third question: The stars. You use Polaris as a shining example (pun intended), and give coordinates north and south. But if flat, shouldn't all stars be able to be seen from any coordinate on Earth?

Eric Dubay said...

You're right Tany, it's just heresay, no evidence of an actual south pole exists. If North / South circumnavigation is so simple and possible why did they let one guy on wikipedia do it decades ago and never again?

The flight routes question has been covered and re-covered on this IFERS thread. Thanks Harfang, Justin and Brad! I have a whole chapter dedicated to "gravity" and the surrounding physics in my book. And due to the law of perspective on plane surfaces you can only see a limited distance before things disappear beyond the vanishing line. Objects in the air receding towards the horizon fall lower and lower until the vanishing line, just as objects on the ground rise up to it.

“What can be more common than the observation that, standing at one end of a long row of lamp-posts, those nearest to us seem to be the highest; and those farthest away the lowest; whilst, as we move along towards the opposite end of the series, those which we approach seem to get higher, and those we are leaving behind appear to gradually become lower … It is an ordinary effect of perspective for an object to appear lower and lower as the observer goes farther and farther away from it. Let any one try the experiment of looking at a light-house, church spire, monument, gas lamp, or other elevated object, from a distance of only a few yards, and notice the angle at which it is observed. On going farther away, the angle under which it is seen will diminish, and the object will appear lower and lower as the distance of the observer increases, until, at a certain point, the line of sight to the object, and the apparently uprising surface of the earth upon or over which it stands, will converge to the angle which constitutes the ‘vanishing point’ or the horizon; beyond which it will be invisible.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!” (230-1)

Eric Dubay said...

Some heliocentrists have even tried to suggest that the Pole Star’s gradual declination overhead as an observer travels southwards is proof of a globular Earth. Far from it, the declination of the Pole Star or any other object is simply a result of the Law of Perspective. The Law of Perspective dictates that the angle and height at which an object is seen diminishes the farther one recedes from the object, until at a certain point the line of sight and the seemingly uprising surface of the Earth converges to a vanishing point (i.e. the horizon line) beyond which the object is invisible.

“If we select a flat street a mile long, containing a row of lamps, it will be noticed that from where we stand the lamps gradually decline to the ground, the last one being apparently quite on the ground. Take the lamp at the end of the street and walk away from it a hundred yards, and it will appear to be much nearer the ground than when we were close to it; keep on walking away from it and it will appear to be gradually depressed until it is last seen on the ground and then disappears. Now, according to the astronomers, the whole mile was only depressed about eight inches from one end to the other, so that this 8 in. could not account for the enormous depression of the light as we recede from it. This proves that the depression of the Pole Star can and does take place in relation to a flat surface, simply because we increase our distance from it, the same as from the street lamp. In other words, the further away we get from any object above us, as a star for example, the more it is depressed, and if we go far enough it will sink (or appear to sink) to the horizon and then disappear. The writer has tried the street lamp many times with the same result.” -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (34)

Pamela said...

Hello, I have been watching your videos and will be ordering your book. You may have addressed this question in the past. If the moon is a disc of light and not a solid sphere, why are there craters on the moon which are readily visible to the naked eye and through low resolution telescopes?
Thank you.

Eric Dubay said...

They claim the Moon (and Mars for that matter!) are habitable desert planets, much like Star Wars’ Tatooine, Dune’s Arrakis and other such imaginary science-fiction worlds. Since long before the staged Apollo “Moon landings” these Masonic Sun-worshipping heliocentrists have been claiming the Moon to be a solid planetoid complete with plains, plateaus, mountains, valleys and craters though nothing of the sort can be discerned even using the best telescopes.

“Astronomers have indulged in imagination to such a degree that the moon is now considered to be a solid, opaque spherical world, having mountains, valleys, lakes, or seas, volcanic craters, and other conditions analogous to the surface of the earth. So far has this fancy been carried that the whole visible disc has been mapped out, and special names given to its various peculiarities, as though they had been carefully observed, and actually measured by a party of terrestrial ordinance surveyors. All this has been done in direct opposition to the fact that whoever, for the first time, and without previous bias of mind, looks at the moon's surface through a powerful telescope, is puzzled to say what it is really like, or how to compare it with anything known to him. The comparison which may be made will depend upon the state of mind of the observer. It is well known that persons looking at the rough bark of a tree, or at the irregular lines or veins in certain kinds of marble and stone, or gazing at the red embers in a dull fire will, according to the degree of activity of the imagination, be able to see many different forms, even the outlines of animals and of human faces. It is in this way that persons may fancy that the moon's surface is broken up into hills and valleys, and other conditions such as are found on earth. But that anything really similar to the surface of our own world is anywhere visible upon the moon is altogether fallacious.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!” (335)

Anonymous said...

Hi Eric,
I recently was compelled by your Higherside Chats interview. I stopped by your site, and have read over about 80-90% of the comments, and I have to say, you have really dominated the argument.

However, I noticed you did not satisfactorily address the comment from November 28, which was a continuation of comments from the same poster:

"As I wrote, the issue is whether the Southern hemisphere is truly larger than the Northern hemisphere.

"Their exact flight path and average speed for each are unknown, so this is far from a smoking gun. Also, 33 degrees South latitude would not be nearly as noticeable compared to the numbers I was giving of explorers as deep as the 78th degree South latitude!"

I don't agree. First, if the Earth was indeed a flat disk with the North pole at the center and the Southern "pole" being effectively the circumference of the disk, there would already be a huge difference between the diameter of the circles of latitude at 33 degrees North and 33 degrees South. You have to be consistent with your flat Earth model - can't have it both ways! My point is that, even if it is not as noticeable, we should still see a difference. The fact that there is no significant difference indicates that the flat Earth model outlined above is not supported by actual data.

Second, the flight QF27 between Sydney and Santiago is actually the most southerly polar route currently in operation (I didn't know that when I picked this flight, just tried to pick cities as far in the South as I could). Even more interesting is that, according to Wikipedia, this flight "reaches 55 degrees south latitude, but other times 71 degrees, which is enough to cross the polar ice cap." We can also read on Wikipedia that "Depending on the winds, the Qantas flight QF 63 from Sydney to Johannesburg sometimes flies over the Antarctic Circle to latitude 71 degrees as well and allowing views of the icecap."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_route#Antarctica

Now, this is very important, because it suggests that, as in the Norther Hemisphere, flight times are shorter when flying closer to the poles (conspiracy or not, it's hard to argue that airlines want to maximize their profit!)."

Now, you did try to provide a video link on Feb26: "Flat Earth Long Haul", which unfortunately was inadequate. And then you provided a link on March21 on "this IFERS thread" which also does not address this simple question above.

Now, you have me sold on EVERYTHING else. But the existence of a ~12 hour flight on Quantas from Sydney to Santiago is something that has not been adequately explained by anyone on this entire thread or any of its links.

I think you have to reconcile exactly this point before anyone can really seriously move forward with this theory as it exists.

Thanks for your hard work.

D

Anonymous said...

Fascinating to read the comments on here. A few questions I would like to add:

Satellites - I assume there is some acceptance of the idea that there are many manmade objects above earth staying a relatively constant distance from the earth's surface for very long periofs of time. As it is highly unlikely that any such craft could carry enough fuel to push away from the flat earths surface for years at a time to avoud falling due to their weight, how do they avoid falling back to earth?

Can you provide a link to this 'perspective theory'? My recollection from drawing is that to draw in perspective you draw a straight horizon line then chose 2 points on that line to which all straight perspective lines disappear. My understanding was that this was a simplification because it did not account for any perceived earth curvature, but I have not heard of a form of curved perspective that ties in the theory of a flat earth so I am intrigued to hear it.

Anonymous said...

I am reading your book and finding it to be quite interesting. Every time I think of an objection, it seems to be answered a few pages, later.

Where I believe in the holographic universe theory, I can accept either the sphere or flat earth theory, but I find the flat earth plane to be a bit more intriguing.

Something happened to me in Aug., to which I have yet to find an answer.

I have watched the stars since I was a child.

As I was flying home from Alaska, via Seattle, to Boston, I was gazing out the window at night-time. This was only my second time flying at night;whereas I had been asleep the first time, I did not want to miss seeing the stars from the plane.

What I saw startled me so much, I am still puzzling over it.

There were no stars in the sky except for the Big Dipper. But, the Big Dipper was stretched across the entire expanse of the sky from one horizon to the other. It took up the entire sky and the stars seemed so much closer.

I don't understand how this could be. I don't think atmospheric conditions could explain it. And, certainly, if the stars are thousands upon thousands of light-years away, then being a few miles in the air should not have made that much of a difference.

I have not been able to find anything online about this phenomena. In fact, the only thing I could find were articles asking the question, "why can't we see stars from the plane? " The answer was always, well, the interior of the plane is too light. (Not an acceptable answer.)

I have not been able to find anyone who experienced what I experienced that night.

It was only recently that I came across your website and when I read what you stated about the stars, it really made me wonder.

Thank you.

Anonymous said...

Eric...very interested in your site and material. I will definitely be purchasing your book. I read a bunch of comments regarding the sun set and I thought that this video might help people visualize how the sun sets and rises in a flat earth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ywBPdo0gio

It certainly cleared up the nature of perspective for me. Keep up the good work.

Anonymous said...

I once got on a plane on the east coast of the US and flew to California. Then from there to Japan. After that I went to the UK for a week, and then over the Atlantic. Explain how that would work on a flat plane?

Anonymous said...

Hi Eric,

For me the distances of flights from Southern America (Santiago)to Auckland on Quantas provide a problem to great arguments and proof ALL globe images from NASA are fake. I have been on a flight from Santiago to Auckland. That would not be possible in the flat earth map.

Another question is if sun and moon disappear through perspective which is convincing, why doesn't the son become smaller in size upon approaching the horizons as other objects do in perspective? Very often they even appear larger near the horizon.

further link:
http://www.alexmeske.com/Essays/flatearth.htm

Anonymous said...

Hiya,
All very interesting and you have surly dedicated a lot of time and hard work to what you present,however before buying the book I would also like a decent explanation of the Sun set problem in flat earth theory......it is generally explained as perspective however if this was the case the sun would remain above the horizon and get smaller and smaller until it was a pinpoint of light like a night star until it vanishes on the horizon however in "reality" it stays exactly the same size and blatantly sinks below the horizon at this apparent size.??

I actually think that the earth is neither a ball or a flat plane but simply an illusion designed to keep us all arguing about what is real and correct....there are proofs and disproofs for every thing you can think of ....the whole evolution/ creation argument is, like the flat/ball earth argument,another example of what I suggest.
Its ALL a con and we are not humanity .
Frank.

Anonymous said...

There is a way for you to prove your model. There is no need really to cross the whole of the south pole, because to prove that's not possible is unfortunately not allowed.

But you could sail from the West Coast of US in a straight line West Ward (not following the parallel circle, you should arrive at the South Pole, even the part which is claimed by nobody (because it's too far out) and hence possibly there is no militairy there... You don't need millions of funds for that. Only time and dedication...

Anonymous said...

Hi, sorry it took me so long to write back. I had mentioned to you that my daughter is currently in Thailand and you had asked me what she was doing there. She is teaching English on a fellowship in Marasarakham. She does travel to Bangkok a lot and she recently went on a wonderful yoga retreat in Phuket.
I was wondering if you have ever read that some scientists believe the universe is flat? http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/april-2015/our-flat-universe. Anyway, the more I delve into your book the more I am astounded by the points you raise. My son's boss also believes in the flat earth theory and so I am going to recommend your book to him.

Anonymous said...

I really would appreciate it Eric if you would respond to the last three posts questions...

Eric Dubay said...

Thanks for the comments everyone! You will find answers to all the questions asked above and more at our International Flat Earth Research Society forum here: http://ifers.boards.net

RenaeS said...

what are the implications of having a flt earth..I hate freemasons

oliver simpson said...

After reading all of the above discussion...all I can say is... I guess Terry Pratchet was even more genius and even less crazy than he appeared... :)

Henk Schäfer said...

I came here for an exercise in critical thinking: using grammar/logic/rhetoric the correct way, to debunk flat earth. It would be easy and fun since I know the earth is round. Right? Suffice to say I spent most part of the past weekend debunking your claims and failed miserably. When I searched for other people debunking your claims, I discovered most of these articles are composed of logical fallacies (appeal to authority, appeal to ridicule, ad hominem attacks etc..).

I'm not done yet but, and if anyone would have told me this last week I would have laughed really hard, I am now leaning towards flat earth. Still doing more research. Drawing plane routes on a flat earth map is in most cases, really interesting!

Thanks a lot for your work!

Pamela said...

Today, I read this article: http://sputniknews.com/environment/20150609/1023116495.html. Before I read your book and your articles, I would not have thought twice about this discovery. But, now it's an 'hmmm' moment. I don't care how powerful any telescope is supposed to be or the science behind it, how can anything 'see' something that is 17 billion light years away? How is that possible? I mean, maybe it is possible, but this does not really make sense to me, any longer.

Anonymous said...

I don't know if this would be of any use, and maybe it has been said before, but it's interesting how in the film "2001 A Space Oddessy," Stanley Kubrick slips in about three seconds worth of imagery showing the sun rising up above the obelisk to meet the moon with shadow, both being well above the horizon of the Earth.

Anonymous said...

I don't know if this has been posted, so forgive me if it has. I'm thinking about planes and flying from the United States to Italy. If the earth were spinning, wouldn't flight time be different going to and returning? Why is the flying time the same, it doesn't seem possible for flights coming and going to be the same, actually if I were flying from Italy to the US, it should be a lot shorter flight. Just a thought.

Aron said...

You say "And as for sailors noticing it takes forever to sail around Antarctica, they absolutely have! During three voyages, lasting three years and eight days, Captain Cook and crew sailed a total of 60,000 miles along the Antarctic coastline never once finding an inlet or path through or beyond the massive glacial wall!"

You say again: "I also showed how Captain Cook sailed over 60,000 miles taking 3 years going around the Antarctic, and the HMS Challenger, even Wikipedia admits, was 68,000 miles in its Antarctic journey around the world! Based on the globe theory, an Antarctic circumnavigation should only be about 10-12,000 miles!"

You showed no such thing, because it's NOT true. This is taken out of context. The 60,000 miles sailed were from his ENTIRE trip from England to Cape Horn to points south then east to Australia and New Zealand on to Hawaii on to the Bering Strait before beginning the long journey back. It was NOT just "along the Antarctic coast." Furthermore, what Cook could not find a passage through was NOT the Antarctic coastline. He never made it that far! He could not find passage through the pack ice in the Southern Ocean. The comment is a disingenuous and sloppy attempt to sweep away legitimate questions.

"Cook's reputation was unchallenged and with his conclusion one can assume that all further exploration would have been unnecessary except for one detail...he kept thorough records of his sailing. Although governments were to turn their attentions elsewhere for exploration, the owners of whaling fleets in Europe and America were drawn to the southern waters by the constant mention in his journals of large numbers of seals and whales encountered during the voyages. Thus it was they, not the explorers, who now prepared themselves for exploration into the Antarctic waters."

--The Life of Captain James Cook, by J.C. Beaglehole.

Daniel Marcu said...

Hey Eric. I have only discovered the flat earth theory yesterday, which I believed in when I was only a little kid (and will continue to believe that from now on) and I would really want to know what is your opinion about the Universe itself or possible life outside our Earth.

Daniel Marcu said...

Hey Eric. I have only looked into the flat earth theory yesterday , for the first time, and I found the facts to be amazing. Deep down, since I was only 3-5 years old, I believed that the Earth is flat, but I learned in school the otherwise.
I really want to know your opinion regarding life beyond our Earth( ET) and the Universe itself. Looking forward to read your work. Thank you

Anonymous said...

Hi Eric,

I've been looking into the Flat-Earth theory for the past 6 months. Before this, I've done extensive research into history. In the second comment (your first response) in this long thread, the response about Isoder and the heliocentric theory, you said that the globe Earth goes back to Conpernicus. Just wanted to correct you on that. The first instance we actually see a Heliocentric model of the Sol System with ball planets can be found in Sumar depictions. They not only believed that the Earth was a globe but that it and the rest of the planets revolved around the sun. According to them, this information came to them from their gods.

I do find the Flat-Earth idea interesting but cannot believe in it as this theory came from a time in history where truely evil man in positions of power used it and similar ideas to subjugate those they thought were lesser than them. It is often taught that early mankind was simply too dumb and self centered until the age of enlightenment. This is simply not true. There is too much proof that early civilizations were actually quite intelligent up until the Dark Ages. We are now simply rediscovering what seems to be old technology.

Proof of this can be found in ancient artifacts, writings, and inscriptions. One such case would be the Bagdad Battery. Proof of the idea the electricity was first discovered during the time of Babylon and Egypt. This explains why when they first blew their way into the Giza Pyramids there was no soot to be found anywhere down the dark corridors. If they only used torches there would have been soot. None to be found.

I have to get your book as I would like to read and see what evidence you have to prove your theory. Not teying to go into it as a sceptic, there seems to be some things about some of the proof related to the Flat-Earth theory that I just can't explain away. These things seem wrong to me but when I look into them I cant figure them out. Like why airplanes seem to refuse to fly over the south pole to cut the distance and time of their flights like they do over the north pole.

I look foward to reading your book...

James

ReedRichards said...

Eric, you say that insects are capable of escaping gravity - but this is because the density of the atmosphere and the power of our muscles. Buildings and other heavy objects can't escape gravity because they are so heavy. Insects and things are tiny and have little gravity affecting them.

It's true gravity is an incredibly weak force.. this is why you supposedly can't see its effects easily except with massive bodies.

Christopher Rowley said...

O.k., Eric...I watched your documentary on flat earth theory. I'm willing to consider your arguments as potentially valid without the benefit of scientific research (for the moment). I am a very curious and open minded person, and I love to explore ideas like this. So, for the sake of this comment...let's assume that I have completely bought into the flat earth theory. I'm left with one question, "why?" Why would this lie be perpetrated on humanity? So, as I understand it...the earth is flat, the sky is a dome, and the sun and moon are projections (?). If yes, why? I assume the answer will be, "To enslave humanity." O.k., so we're all enslaved. Why? For what purpose are we enslaved? If we all "woke up" to "reality" and fought against whomever is enslaving us...who would we fight? What end would it achieve? If we were all able to live out from under the umbrella of the current "rulers", would we not still be stuck within the illusion? How would this change things? Wold we not find that the old systems worked and simply return to some form of them? What is freedom anyway? I don't really care if the world is flat or not--I want to know why I should care. Please, share that information with me.

Anonymous said...

I'm just going to lay out on the line the amazing potential of the human brain. Its said that only a small percentage of our brains are utilized to its fullest. And it sees what it wants. For example, if two paints of the same color are placed next to each other sometimes they will appear to be different colors. Now, when I think about the fact that the horizon is always at eye level, I get dizzy thinking about the possibilities of why this happens. Who is to say that we aren't looking down as we climb up into the atmosphere, our brains always placing the horizon at eye level. Now, Imagine going up into outer space and having the earth never leave your sight, the edge always at eye level no matter how far you travel. It just gets smaller the further you go. Thoughts or suggestions?
Also, it has been proven that the earth does not spin. The universe is spinning around the earth. The globe earth. Once we escape earths atmosphere we are now among the spinning universe and therefore will cause ourselves to spin along with it around and around the earth with the earths edge always at eye level. The earth getting smaller as we get farther away. Thoughts or suggestions?
Thanks.

Totuuden äänitorvi said...

The easiest way to prove that the earth is flat, is by jumping over the edge with a lot of cameras behind you and at the same time sending it as a live broadcast to all sceptics. The sceptics could be the first to jump since it will only be an illusion to them and not a real thing. They should be safe since there are no edge (for them). An another method could be to hire a jet and fly close the border with a camera crew. Why is no-one doing this to prove the world that the world is flat, or vice versa? Has the air traffic control something to do with it, or the "big brother" giving them orders?

KYLETHEPYRO said...

Hey Eric! So this whole flat earth thing has really been blowing my mind lately, and you're a really big part in that, so thank you! I am still not 100% on board with the flat aspect, and i have a question or two...

First, what holds us down? Like i understand the density thing, but why does a more dense object get pulled down in a less dense fluid medium? You say there is no such thing as gravity, so why are my feet planted firmly on the ground? I get the reason why i dont lift off, is that my body is more dense than the air, but why do i get pulled down? If the whole ball earth gravity thing is total bull, what fills that void in our way of thinking?

Second, if there are no satellites, what am i seeing at night when im looking at the stars, and they go moving past at a not-too-fast pace?
Again, what you're saying makes more sense the more i hear it, but these are a few points that i dont get.
My apologies if these have been discussed already, i just havent been able to find them! Thanks Eric!

Richard Bottomley said...

Hi, I have a question which I sure has a simple answer, however I can't quiet work it out myself.

From most locations in Antarctica you can see the sun for 24 a day for weeks and weeks on end. It's always visible and never sets until Autumn. For flat earth to be true that would mean that in the months from about November to February the sun is visible from anywhere on the "rim", but at the same time it's not visible from the darkness of the north pole, or centre.

So where is the sun that it's visible from all points on the edge but not in the centre.

Looking forward to reading your response,

Thanks!

Harfang Des Neiges said...

have you ever went to antarctica to see if what the liar from the government and the liar from NASA told you was true?

if you believe everything coming from NASA and/or from the government, you're not going to know the truth because they are a fucking bunch of liars

Melanie Martin said...

Im just starting to learn about all this,it makes sense ...

Anonymous said...

Hi I like your work and find it fascinating and more than a little troubling. I wonder if your familiar with Tesla motors , the owner partnered with other billionaires wants to build a high speed train from one end of the U.S. to the other east to west. The train will be magnetized and run in a vacuum tube similar to what's used in a bank. The trick is as long as the tube is perfectly straight the train can achieve extremely high speeds since it will hover over tracks and there are no g force since no turns. I'm curious how they could achieve this on a sphere and it does seem a dead give away. If the tube was touching the ground in the middle the ends would be as high as a skyscraper on the ends. How do they explain away that?

Tony Guanes said...

Tony G
Hi Eric:first time here
I just whant to tell you how good it's to hear all your's theory's, that it make a lot
more sense ( if you have little common sense and perspective knowledge) than NASA's
Hollywood crap so over rated ..! And I think they running out of BS.; now apparently
the aliens coming from some Cain of ultra dimensional something?...WATCH OUT !!!
Jajaja!
Only the truth will send you free.
Thanks Eric

Ned Matijasevic said...

Hi Eric,

Just wondering how the flat earth theory accounts for the six months of daylight in the artctic during the northern hemisphere summer, and six months of night in the antartctic during the southern hemisphere winter. In the northern hemisphere winter the arctic has six months of night while antarctica enters summer and six months of daylight.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 209   Newer› Newest»