Wednesday, April 20, 2016

The Globe Earth Lie





Wolves in sheep’s clothing have pulled the wool over our eyes.  For almost 500 years, the masses have been thoroughly deceived by a cosmic fairy-tale of astronomical proportions.  We have been taught a falsehood so gigantic and diabolical that it has blinded us from our own experience and common sense, from seeing the world and the universe as they truly are. Through pseudo-science books and programs, mass media and public education, universities and government propaganda, the world has been systematically brain-washed, slowly indoctrinated over centuries into the unquestioning belief of the greatest lie of all time.    

Children are taught in their geography books, when too young to apprehend aright the meaning of such things, that the world is a great globe revolving around the Sun, and the story is repeated continuously, year by year, till they reach maturity, at which time they generally become so absorbed in other matters as to be indifferent as to whether the teaching be true or not, and, as they hear of nobody contradicting it, they presume that it must be the correct thing, if not to believe at least to receive it as a fact. They thus tacitly give their assent to a theory which, if it had first been presented to them at what are called ‘years of discretion,’ they would at once have rejected.  The consequences of evil-teaching, whether in religion or in science, are far more disastrous than is generally supposed, especially in a luxurious laisser faire age like our own. The intellect becomes weakened and the conscience seared.”  -David Wardlaw Scott, “Terra Firma: The Earth Not a Planet Proved From Scripture, Reason, and Fact” (26)

For 500 years an elite cabal of Sun-worshippers has propagated this nihilistic, atheistic cosmology / cosmogony unquestioningly believed by the vast majority of the world.  We have been taught, contrary to all common sense and experience, that the seemingly motionless, flat Earth beneath our feet is actually a massive moving ball spinning through space at over 1,000 miles per hour, wobbling and tilted 23.5 degrees on its vertical axis, while orbiting the sun at a blinding 67,000 miles per hour, in concert with the entire solar system spiraling 500,000 miles per hour around the Milky Way and careening across the expanding universe away from the “Big Bang” at an incredible 670,000,000 miles per hour, but that you feel and experience none of it!  We have been taught that a mysterious force called “gravity,” a magical magnetism responsible for keeping everything from falling or flying off the spinning ball-Earth, is just strong enough to hold people, oceans, and the atmosphere tightly to the surface, but just weak enough to allow bugs, birds and planes to take off with ease!  

Whilst we sit drinking our cup of tea or coffee the world is supposedly rotating at 1,039 mph at the equator, whizzing around the Sun at 66,500 mph, hurtling towards Lyra at 20,000 mph, revolving around the centre of the 'Milky Way' at 500,000 mph and merrily moving at God knows what velocity as a consequence of the 'Big Bong.' And not even a hint of a ripple on the surface of our tea, yet tap the table lightly with your finger and ... !" -Neville T. Jones

I remember being taught when a boy, that the Earth was a great ball, revolving at a very rapid rate around the Sun, and, when I expressed to my teacher my fears that the waters of the oceans would tumble off, I was told that they were prevented from doing so by Newton’s great law of Gravitation, which kept everything in its proper place.  I presume that my countenance must have shown some signs of incredulity, for my teacher immediately added - I can show you a direct proof of this; a man can whirl around his head a pail filled with water without its being spilt, and so, in like manner, can the oceans be carried round the Sun without losing a drop.  As this illustration was evidently intended to settle the matter, I then said no more upon the subject.  Had such been proposed to me afterwards as a man, I would have answered somewhat as follows - Sir, I beg to say that the illustration you have given of a man whirling a pail of water round his head, and the oceans revolving round the Sun, does not in any degree confirm your argument, because the water in the two cases is placed under entirely different circumstances, but, to be of any value, the conditions in each case must be the same, which here they are not.  The pail is a hollow vessel which holds the water inside it, whereas, according to your teaching, the Earth is a ball, with a continuous curvature outside, which, in agreement with the laws of nature, could not retain any water.  -David Wardlaw Scott, “Terra Firma: The Earth Not a Planet Proved From Scripture, Reason, and Fact” (1-2)

We have been taught that the ball-Earth spins at a constant velocity perfectly dragging the atmosphere along so we cannot feel the slightest bit of motion, perturbation, wind, or air resistance.  They say we cannot feel any of this motion because the magical velcro of gravity pulls the atmosphere precisely along, and we cannot measure any of this motion because the stars are so incredibly far away that over a hundred million miles of supposed annual orbit around the Sun amounts to not a single inch of relative parallax change!  How convenient!?

We have been taught that the apparent orbit of the Sun, planets, and stars (but not the Moon!) around the Earth are all optical illusions, that it is in fact the Earth beneath our feet which moves, and our eyes that deceive us.  Special exception is made for the Moon, however, which is said to revolve around Earth just as it appears.  Since we only ever see one side of the Moon, we have been taught this is because the Moon’s supposed 10.3 mph West to East rotation combined with its 2,288 mph orbit of Earth just happens to be the EXACT motion and speed necessary to perfectly cancel out the Earth’s supposed 1,000 mph East to West rotation and 67,000 mph orbit of the Sun, thereby creating the perpetual dark side of the Moon illusion!  Oh really!?

Though the Sun and Moon appear to be relatively small equal-sized bodies revolving around a stationary Earth, we have been taught that this too is an optical illusion, and they are in fact thousands of miles divergent in diameter!  They say the Sun is actually a whopping 865,374 miles across, 109 times wider than the Earth, and, contrary to all experience, experiments, and common sense, that we revolve around it!  They say the Moon is 2,159 miles across, a quarter the size of the Earth, and why they appear the same size is because the Moon is “only” 238,000 miles away, while the Sun is an unfathomable 93,000,000 miles away from the Earth, and these just happen to be the EXACT diameters and distances necessary for a viewer from Earth to “falsely” perceive them as being the same size!  You don’t say!?

A sphere where people on the other side live with their feet above their heads, where rain, snow and hail fall upwards, where trees and crops grow upside-down and the sky is lower than the ground?  The ancient wonder of the hanging gardens of Babylon dwindle into nothing in comparison to the fields, seas, towns and mountains that pagan philosophers believe to be hanging from the earth without support!  -Lacantius, “On the False Wisdom of the Philosophers”

I confess that I cannot imagine how any human being, in his proper senses, can believe that the Sun is stationary when, with his own eyes, he sees it revolving around the heavens, nor how he can believe that the Earth, on which he stands, is whirling with the speed of lightning around the Sun, when he feels not the slightest motion.”  -David Wardlaw Scott, “Terra Firma” (66)

We have been taught that those tiny pin pricks of light in the night sky known as planets, or wandering stars, are actually physical, globular, Earth-like habitations millions of miles away.  We have even been shown supposed video footage of the one called Mars.  We have been taught that the tiny pin pricks of light in the night sky known as the fixed stars, are actually distant suns trillions of miles away each complete with their own solar systems, orbiting moons, and Earth-like planets which potentially harbor alien life! 

We have been taught that the Moon has no light of its own but is merely a reflector of the Sun’s light, that some Masons from NASA actually walked on the Moon, that some other Masons from NASA sent rovers to Mars, that satellites and space stations are incessantly spinning in suspended animation above the earth, that Hubble telescopes are taking snapshots of distant planets, galaxies, stars, quasars, black holes, worm holes, and other fantastic celestial phenomena.  We have been taught that our ignorant ancient ancestors for millennia falsely believed the Earth to be the flat, immovable center of the universe, but thanks to modern “science” and its Masonic prophets like Copernicus, Newton, Galileo, Collins, Aldrin and Armstrong we now believe the world to be a giant whirling sea-earth globe careening through infinite space. 

Modern astronomical teaching affirms that the world we live on is a globe, which rotates, revolves and spins away in space at brain-reeling rates of speed; that the sun is a million and a half times the volume of the earth-globe, and nearly a hundred million miles distant from it; that the moon is about a quarter the size of earth; that it receives all its light from the sun, and is thus only a reflector, and not a giver of light; that it attracts the body of the earth and thus causes the tides; that the stars are worlds and suns, some of them equal in importance to our own sun himself, and others vastly his superior; that these worlds, inhabited by sentient beings, are without numbers and occupy space boundless in extent and illimitable in duration; the whole of these interlaced bodies being subject to, and supported by, universal gravitation, the foundation and father of the whole fabric.  To fanciful minds and theoretical speculators, the so-called ‘science’ of modern astronomy furnishes a field, unsurpassed in any science for the unrestrained license of the imagination, and the building up of a complicated conjuration of absurdities such as to overawe the simpleton and make him gape with wonder; to deceive even those who truly believe their assumptions to be facts.  -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (iii)

We have been taught that “science” books like Newton’s Principia Mathematica which propound the spherical heliocentric myth are the bearers of truth while backwater “religious” books like the Holy Bible which propound a flat, geocentric Earth are merely outdated myths.   We have been taught that the universe was unintelligently designed and randomly created in a cosmic coincidence of nothing inexplicably becoming everything!  We have been taught that through millions upon millions of years of accidental “evolution” and happenstance the Big Bang universe began manifesting suns, moons, planets, then water, then somehow out of dead, inert elements, single-celled conscious organisms came to life, grew and multiplied and mutated into larger, different organisms which continued to grow, multiply and mutate gaining diversity and complexity (and losing credibility) to the point where amphibians crawled up on land, replaced gills with lungs, started breathing air, maturated into mammals, became bipedal, grew opposable thumbs, evolved into monkeys, then in one final fluke adaptation a hybrid monkey-man was made and the rest is human history.

Put together all the imaginary exploits in the air specially written to interest the young, add to this all the wonderful adventures of air-ships recorded in the ‘Daughter of the Revolution,’ and tack on to this all the wild and impossible things  found in current libraries of fiction, and I venture to say that the grand total will record nothing so utterly impossible or so supremely ridiculous as this modern scientific delusion of a globe spinning away in space in several different directions at the same time, at rates of speed which no man is able to grasp: with the inhabitants, some hanging heads down and others at various angles to suit the inclination.  Write down all the swindles that ever were perpetrated; name all the hoaxes you ever heard of or read about; include all the impostures and bubbles ever exposed; make a list of all the snares that popular credulity could ever be exposed to, and you will fail in getting within sight or hearing of an imposture so gross, a hoax so ingenious, or a bubble of such gigantic proportions as has been perpetrated and forced upon unthinking multitudes in the name of science, and as proved incontrovertible fact, by the expounders of modern astronomy.  Again and again have their theories been combated and exposed, but as often have the majority, who do not think for themselves, accepted the popular thing.”  -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (66)

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 was likely to laugh, mock the messenger, and deny the very possibility.

What strikes you as being some thoughts that people would have if - in the short space of a few weeks - the universally held conviction that the Earth rotates on an axis daily and orbits the sun annually were exposed as an unscientific deception? Keep in mind that a rotating, orbiting earth is not counted as a mere hypothesis or even a theory anywhere in the world today. Oh no. Rather, this concept is an unquestioned 'truth'; an established 'fact' in all books and other media everywhere, church media included. Copernicanism, in short, is a concept that is protected in a bunker under a 50 foot thick ceiling of solid 'scientific' concrete. It is meant to be impregnable. It is a concept that has become ensconced in men’s minds as the indestructible cornerstone of enlightened modern man’s knowledge. Virtually all people everywhere have been taught to believe - and do believe - that this concept is based on objective science and dispassionate secular reasoning." -Marshall Hall, "Exposing the Copernican Deception"



Ninety-nine people out of a hundred would give the same answer to the interrogation; and that same answer would be to the effect that ‘the earth is a globe which revolves round the sun.’ The ninety-nine who makes this reply would do it because they ‘know it is the case.’ (!!!) ‘How do they know it?’ Let this question be put to them, and they will bestow upon you a withering smile of pity at what they conceive to be an imbecility of mind on your part, and answer you in something like the following style: ‘It always has been so. We learnt it at school. Clever men say so; and look how astronomers can foretell eclipses;’ and then lose their temper at ‘the very idea’ of the globular theory being incorrect, and a haughty ‘ there can’t be a doubt about it,’ will close all they have to say on the subject. Now, if the ears of these ninety-nine could only be gained, they would be shown in an irresistible manner that the philosophy which would speak of a round and revolving world is a false philosophy.”  -B. Chas. Brough, “The Zetetic” Volume 1 Number 1, July 1872


Support independent publishing: Buy this book on Lulu.

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

177 comments:

Phil said...

Congratulations Eric! At last the voice of logic has dared to challenge the illogical status quo!
I'm almost convinced, but just have a couple of niggling queries. What are your thoughts on seismic activity? Events such as quakes, volcanoes, tectonic plate drift and tides?

Thomas said...

Wow, great post!! I too have been brain washed and am slowly coming out of it.. Your right about the stigma that is given to "flat earthers".

Eric Dubay said...

Thanks for the comments Phil and Thomas! 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)

Oz10 said...

To what benefit? All theories and thoughts about the details aside.
I can see why Geocentric vs Heliocentric would make an impact. To what benefit is it to have people believing flat vs round earth?

Eric Dubay said...

Geocentricity vs. Heliocentricity

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.

Nurseclaire said...

Is anyone else starting to feel like a star in "The Truman Show"? I had to stop and discuss this possibility with my husband, who gave me one of those "withering smiles", right up until I asked him "How do you know for certain that all you were taught is, in fact, the truth." His reply, "Because it's common sense." I said, "And what is common sense, but the combined minds of the Sheeple!"

Anonymous said...

First off...I greatly appreciate the open mindedness that it requires to hold on to a flat earth faith, and I recognize that mans belief in a globe earth is really just one of faith itself. None of us, save a few, have been high enough to confirm for ourselves the shape of this habitation. But let me ask a few questions.
1. Proponents of flat earth often say 'have you seen with your own eyes that what you live on is a ball?'. To which the only reply can be 'no...but I've seen pictures'. Fine. But...have you seen with your own eyes that what you live on is flat? A simple yes or no will do. I understand how 'common sense' should tell us its flat, but that's not my question.
2. It seems to me that a flat earth requires that the sun and moon and very near the earth and very close in shape and size, which I have no problem accepting. Are they also not globes? Does it make sense for them to be globes but not the earth? It seems if they are globes and earth is not, that the sun would shine on more than half the earth at once. And how could you explain the lunar cycle being different than the solar cycle if they are relative in size?
3. Why do flat earthers have a hard time accepting gravity as a magical invisible force, yet look to a magical invisible force to move the heavenly bodies around? I mean...its a battle of unprovable invisible magic forces.
4. There's many experiences and tests that can substantiate flat earth theory, and they all logically make sense. But there's also experiences and tests that can substantiate a round earth as well. Who is right? Amd what ultimately proves them right when there's scientifically ways to debunk both sides?

Please don't take any questions or comments to be in a condescending tone as that is not what is implied. I personally am not convinced of either theory entirely. Both have ways of holding weight. I've personally been having this thought that the earth, whether flat or globular, is surrounded by an extremely dense material that is somehow undetectable. So as objects leave the earth they are given the illusion of traveling a great distance because they are being measured in time and they are being measured from earth with our starting presumption being that 'space' is a 'vacuum'. But what if its very dense and thick and moving through it is like moving through...idk...jello or something. This could also be slowing down how fast light travels through 'space' giving the illusion of distance when measured in time. I'll look forward to your response. Keep up the good work on all you do that challenges our dogmatic programming.

Josh
Indiana

Sophia Perennis said...

You've done an excellent job discerning the inconsistencies and outright absurdities innate to Copernicanism and the subsequent theories thereof. I do however think the belief in a flat Earth is an error. As an example: the horizon being at eye level, while admittedly seemingly indicative of a Flat Earth, can also occur in a concave Earth; that is to say, an Earth in which the universe resides at its center and we reside on its inner surface.

The Wild Heretic has done a tremendous amount of work on the subject and I think you would benefit greatly from his expositions.

http://www.wildheretic.com/concave-earth-theory/

Anonymous said...

Eric, big fan. I feel you're just rebelling against everything and anything lately. Flat Earth? Hollow Earth maybe, but flat? If Earth is a disk, how could I fly from California to China? Wouldnt I have to go east over Eurasia? Im all for forbidden knowledge but this just flies in the face of FACTUAL information that's been known for centuries. Which direction did Japan attack Pearl Harbor from?

Anonymous said...

Who is the Bill Hicks wannabe guy who claimed to work for NASA? I'd really like to watch that lecture in its entirety.

Eric Dubay said...

Good point Nurse Claire, if we're honest with ourselves, then "common sense" tells every person who has ever walked the Earth that it is flat, motionless and everything in the sky revolves around us. That IS common sense. No one's eyes or experience shows them a spinning ball-Earth, only NASA and other lying government agencies tell us this. Our common sense, eyes and experience show a flat, motionless Earth, the Sun and Moon the same size, and revolving around us.

“If the Government or NASA had said to you that the Earth is stationary, imagine that. And then imagine we are trying to convince people that 'no, no it's not stationary, it's moving forward at 32 times rifle bullet speed and spinning at 1,000 miles per hour.' We would be laughed at! We would have so many people telling us 'you are crazy, the Earth is not moving!' We would be ridiculed for having no scientific backing for this convoluted moving Earth theory. And not only that but then people would say, 'oh then how do you explain a fixed, calm atmosphere and the Sun's observable movement, how do you explain that?' Imagine saying to people, 'no, no, the atmosphere is moving also but is somehow magically velcroed to the moving-Earth. The reason is not simply because the Earth is stationary.' So what we are actually doing is what makes sense. We are saying that the moving-Earth theory is nonsense. The stationary-Earth theory makes sense and we are being ridiculed. You've got to picture it being the other way around to realize just how RIDICULOUS this situation is. This theory from the Government and NASA that the Earth is rotating and orbiting and leaning over and wobbling is absolute nonsense and yet people are clinging to it, tightly, like a teddy bear. They just can't bring themselves to face the possibility that the Earth is stationary though ALL the evidence shows it: we feel no movement, the atmosphere hasn't been blown away, we see the Sun move from East-to-West, everything can be explained by a motionless Earth without bringing in all these assumptions to cover up previous assumptions gone bad.” -Allen Daves

Eric Dubay said...

Hey Josh, thanks for the questions and comment. I don't have "flat earth faith," nor any other kind of "faith" or "belief" system, I'm simply a truth-seeker who is swayed by evidence and reason, not faith or beliefs.

1) Yes, we can clearly see the Earth is flat for miles further than possible on a globe 25,000 miles in circumference. Experiments have been tested repeatedly finding no curvature, including light from lighthouses being seen at sea from up to 150 miles away where they should be over 1 1/2 miles below a supposedly convex wall of water:

Flat Earth Horizon Proof

2) Yes, the Sun and Moon are the same size, just as they appear, and relatively close to the Earth. Measuring with sextants and plane trigonometry they both figure to 32 miles in diameter and about 3,000 miles from the surface of the Earth. Just like the stars, they are simply flat luminous discs to light the Earth, not spheres of physical terra firma capable of landing Masons on as NASA would have you believe. See the following to clear up your Sun/Moon concerns:

Flat Earth and the Sun's Rays

Flat Earth and the Sun's Perspective

Flat Earth and the Setting Sun

Flat Earth and the Moon

Flat Earth Not Fazed by the Moon

3) The Sun, Moon, stars and planets are seen by every pair of eyes on Earth to clearly revolve perfect circles over the Earth around Polaris, the central star situated at the peak of the sky dome, over the magnetic north pole, the center of the universe (Type "star trails" into a Google image search). This is just as obvious as the fact that objects denser than the medium surrounding them fall and objects lighter than the medium surrounding them rise. Newton's "Gravity" takes this natural physical law of Earth and makes a mockery of it by reverse-engineering an explanation for why people, buildings and oceans don't fall off his spinning ball-Earth. The movements of the celestial bodies, just like the structure of the Earth, and the make-up of your very body and eyes reading this were made by the creator, the same creator materialist "scientists" deny, but my last book "Spiritual Science" proves exists.

4) There is only pseudo-science claiming the Earth to be a spinning ball (i.e. their lunar eclipse "shadow" BS, their circumnavigation BS, Foucault's Pendulum BS, Coriolis Effect BS, and disappearing ship's hulls BS). Actual scientific experiments by Michelson-Morley, Michelson-Gale, Airy, Sagnac, Kantor, Rowbotham and others prove the Earth flat and motionless with everything in the sky revolving around us. These experiments have been massively suppressed and are nowhere denied or debated, just brushed aside by Einstein's "absolute relativity" excuse. My new book has hundreds of proofs in it, including those from William Carpenter's book "100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe."

100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe

Eric Dubay said...

Thanks for the comment Sophia. Your "concave earth theory" link has only 4 "proofs" which even the author claims aren't conclusive. The first "proof," the Tamarack mines experiment, I covered in a previous blog, was published in Ray Palmer's "Flying Saucer Magazine" which "had a reputation for embellishing stories based on a minimum of facts. There's ample evidence that Palmer is an unreliable source in these matters, for he loved to embellish and skew facts to make a good story. Geologists I've talked to scratch their heads and suspect that the story is a myth." Link

The results have been chalked up to wind drafts or magnetic ores attracting the plumbs. And even if genuine, the result could be equally attributed to a rotating Earth (ala heliocentricism) or a rotating aether (ala geocentricism). If you watch the following Sagnac video or look up the Michelson-Gale or Kantor experiments, you'll see that the aether has been confirmed to exist and rotate, while the Earth itself is motionless. Einstein's "relativity theory" never disproved this, only covered it up with his "absolute relativity" excuse.

Sagnac's Successful Geocentricity Experiment

Airy's Failed Heliocentricity Experiment

The other 3 "proofs" offered use pictures and experiments from Samuel Rowbotham's flat-Earth book! He would roll over in his grave if he saw people named "Wild Heretic" and "Lord Steven Christ" using his excellent experiments claiming they prove the Earth concave! His experiments showed the Earth to be flat, where does this supposed ascending curvature begin? Using spherical trig, what angle does the curvature ascend at? These simple scientific questions cannot be answered because the whole ridiculous theory is based on the assumption of refracted light, not testable physical curvature like Rowbotham's legitimate experiments. Please read William Carpenter's "100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe" before deciding about Wild Heretics' 4 Lame Supposed Proofs the Earth is Concave.

Eric Dubay said...

For the 1st Anonymous, Circumnavigation is no different on a plane than 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...

And for the 2nd Anonymous, that's Matthew Boylan, he has many such comedic lectures on the YouTubes. Boylan, former NASA operational graphics manager, 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.

Anonymous said...

So if Earth is truly flat, wouldn't it have some end? couldn't we simply fall off somewhere? Why is it that nobody has ever found the end of the world? Why is it that we have THOUSANDS of images if earth from SPACE and not a single one shows Earth as simply flat?

Eric Dubay said...

Whether the Earth is an infinite plane like video games, has an edge like Dark City or a barrier like the Truman Show is unknown. Early Flat-Earther Andrea Bean tried 3 times to find the end of the Antarctic ice and died trying.

“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)

We absolutely do NOT have "thousands" of pictures of Earth from space. The same few are shown over and over again, and all of them come from NASA, the most untrustworthy band of Nazis and Masons ever assembled. Please see the following:

NASA Space Hoax 100% Case Closed

The highest non-NASA cameras have soared shows a panoramic flat horizon rising to the level of the observer. This is totally inconsistent with a ball-Earth horizon which would sink as you ascended forcing you to look down further and further the higher you climbed:

Flat Earth Horizon Proof

Anonymous said...

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hohohohohohohohohohohohohohohohoho
Heeheeheeheeheeheeheeeheeheeheeheehelolololololololololololoolollollollorotflrotflrotflrotflrotflrotfl

Eric Ive never heard anything so stupid in my my life can you believe people still believe the earth is a ball;)


Ps Star Wars forever
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMOVFvcNfvE

Anonymous said...

Ps im the hee hee ho ho hoo guy
some people think there is a glass dome covering the earth i know you dont if there was who could have put it there? God? do people say its glass because it looks like glass? hmmm



PPS Star wars still rules...

+ One other thing as a martial artist what do you think of the jedis skills where you ever influenced by them:)

Anonymous said...

Hi Eric i am a fan of your work and would like to say thanks for all your work and efforts.I have a few questions i would like to ask if i may,relating to the 'flat Earth'How do you include the hyperdimensional energy grid? as this phenomena occurs throughout the planets,primarily at 19.5 degrees,from volcanoes on Earth,to sunspots,storms on Jupiter etc..the Chinese even landed their rover at this latitude on the moon,this also includes the bermuda/dragons triangle anomalies as well.I am a researcher of Planet X (12 years) and i would like to know your opinion of the second sun? i have seen this myself and after my research i have no doubt of it's existence and pending arrival and indeed events are playing out precisely as predicted and followed by this site: http://poleshift.ning.com/
I would like to know if you reckon this second sun is anything but a binary twin of our sun? any ideas? i must say i sway more towards the hollow Earth theory and how it fits into the bigger picture and natural sequence of things,from macro to micro.I also think this so called theory in this video fits in well with the sequence of nature:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jHsq36_NTU
As for your calculations they are very intrigueing..and have provoked thought..going back to the sun and moon seeming to be the same size?..well, i am swaying more to the notion,that the moon was brought into orbit by the Anunnaki and therefore was moved into the 'perfect position' and not them being the same size..http://wespenre.com/ covers this area well and most of the moons in our Solar system are more than just moons..thanks in advance Eric..take care John.

Eric Dubay said...

Hi John, thanks for the questions. The "hyperdimensional energy grid" is a bunch of lies from NASA and that is all. Jupiter and the other planets seen through a telescope show simply luminous flat discs, not spherical terra firma with "hyperdimensional energy grids." You are taking that completely on blind faith from NASA, the most blatant group of liars, Nazis and Freemasons ever assembled, so be careful who/what you believe coming from them. The Face and Pyramid on Mars are all part of this hoax to convince you of aliens and ancient astronauts and other science-fiction fantasies they've concocted and want you to believe is science-fact.

Planet X does not exist, Earth is the only material plane in existence. Samuel Rowbotham proved this in the 1800s and recorded all his experiments in the excellent 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!” The South Pole does not exist and the Earth is not a ball, so you do NOT have to worry about those fear-mongering "pole shift" people. The North Pole is the immovable magnetic center of the universe, right beneath Polaris, the central polar star around which everything in the heavens revolves.

There are strange lights and happenings in the sky, however, and plenty of unexplained mysteries, so I can understand the speculation and intuition in something special happening out there. Check out these shooting-star explosions... talk about a second sun! :)

Flat Earth and Stars

Eric Dubay said...

Also see:

The Masonic Truth Behind UFOs/Aliens

Oz10 said...

Have you seen a rainbow? Why does it bend at the ends?

Eric Dubay said...

Are you suggesting the curve of rainbows is somehow related to the shape of the Earth? I don't think so. Even if that were the case on a ball-Earth with such slight curvature rainbows would have to be nearly straight lines. From an airplane, sometimes the entire arch of rainbows is visible. How could this be, if rainbows followed the 'curvature' of the Earth?

Anonymous said...

Hi Eric i really appreciate the prompt response i hope you're good!
I know you have referred to "hegalian dialectic" before, is it possible that NASA is doing just that? to discredit the existence of planet x? there is such a vast body of evidence to suggest of it's existence and this is there to see in the naturalrecords as well here on Earth,not to mention the info on that site!

I know you do a lot of work on the freemasons and atlantis?but do you know the link between them and our controllers the Annunaki?

Going back to the hyper dimensional grid,this can be proven here on Earth as the pyramids and all the great structures are aligned on it and in between this, exists leylines which can also be traced?

Thanks Eric!

Anonymous said...

Hmmm
Sunday, February 3, 2013
http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2011/01/hollow-earth-evidence.html

somebodys changed their tune;)

Eric Dubay said...

Hey Anon, my "hollow earth" section is still on the site, and I haven't "changed my tune," as I mentioned in the article you posted, I read all the hollow earth accounts, listed the circumstantial evidence (which still stands, and much of it is explained by the flat-Earth model), and asked what people thought of the possibility? I even linked people to a flat-Earth book in the comments section. That's not me changing my tune, that's the process of me tuning my discernment.

For the other anonymous, ley lines certainly exist and Freemasons are the ones who build on them! There are no other physical terra firma floating around in space, Earth is the only material plane. There is certainly plenty of evidence of giant human beings living in Earth's history (Annunaki, Nephilim, Raphiem, Titans), but no evidence of them being aliens from other planets... the word "planet" itself is relatively new, as Earth was always referred to as a "plane." The Earth plane. Not a "planet." The 7 "planets" were always called wandering stars, because you can see through a telescope, they are only different from the fixed stars in their relative motions. They are simply, clearly, flat luminous discs and nothing more. Not huge physical terra firma floating around with aliens stuck to all sides as they want you to believe.

Paul Heyes said...

If you wish to see for yourself that the Earth is not flat, go to Hessle in north Lincolnshire, and look at the two support towers of the Humber Bridge. They are not parallel. The reason they are not parallel is that, in the two miles or so between them, the Earth is not flat!

If you wish to prove it for yourself without even leaving your armchair, look up some airline schedules. For instance, flights from Seattle to New York, New York to Berlin, Berlin to China .. and then China to Seattle.

Anonymous said...

Its all a holograph, nothing is real, wake up!

Anonymous said...

The Earth is neither Flat or Round, because there is no Earth. There are no planets, and the sun and moon are also fake. You are nothing more than a sequence of numbers traveling in a digital matrix, its not even real.

Anonymous said...

Some questions
if the earth is flat why do the elites Build DUMBS?
not to protect themselves from something from space? like a asteroid then why?

Are we trapped here forever is there a universe at all?

Oz10 said...

What I was saying is that light can bend...refraction. so the lighthouse example is null. Along with every theory and unless you personally have seen it there is no proof. I still don't get how or who gets the benefit of a Flat vs Round earth model.

Sophia Perennis said...

"Thanks for the comment Sophia. Your "concave earth theory" link has only 4 "proofs" which even the author claims aren't conclusive."

Let's not be intellectually dishonest, TWH was very clear when in his conclusion he stated: "The above four pieces of evidence demonstrating a concave Earth ultimately rest on the Rectilineator and the US military’s camera...The probability that just one of the above items is correct is 99.99%. This proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth is concave and we are living inside."

As he stated, the foundation of his assertions are based upon the Rectilineator experiment and the military camera which was capable of seeing over 20 miles. You exposed the inadmissibility of the Tamarack mine shaft experiments, a conclusion I agree with; but what about the Rectilineator, is that not conclusive empirical evidence of Earth's concave nature? Even those who object to the Concave Earth Theory seem to accept the veracity of the data provided by the Rectilineator experiment.

"The other 3 "proofs" offered use pictures and experiments from Samuel Rowbotham's flat-Earth book!"

Make no mistake, proponents of the Concave Earth cosmology do reference Rowbotham and his Zetetic Astronomy, but only in as much as they need to. The subsequent three "proofs" provided by TWH had little to do with Rowbotham's work; the only part that was in reference to Rowbotham was in regards to lenses and the Horizon, something Teed and others have wrote on as well. No disrespect intended, but did you even read the whole article?

"He would roll over in his grave if he saw people named "Wild Heretic" and "Lord Steven Christ" using his excellent experiments claiming they prove the Earth concave! His experiments showed the Earth to be flat, where does this supposed ascending curvature begin? Using spherical trig, what angle does the curvature ascend at? These simple scientific questions cannot be answered because the whole ridiculous theory is based on the assumption of refracted light, not testable physical curvature like Rowbotham's legitimate experiments. Please read William Carpenter's "100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe" before deciding about Wild Heretics' 4 Lame Supposed Proofs the Earth is Concave."

I freely admit Lord Steven Christ is probably a shill, if not outright insane. But The Wild Heretic and his work is rather straightforward and concise, so I don't see why you need to call his work "lame" if you simply disagree with him. It seems like you have something personal against TWH.

All the best,

Sophia Perennis

Anonymous said...

When I rent a car they ask if I want the flat rate, now I know what they mean.

Nightwatchman said...

I want to open to all possibilities, so I can only offer my experience.

Well, I was a sailor in the Navy and the Merchant marines for 16 years, I spent many of my years a watch officer on the bridge, we could not see a ship in front of us unless it was 12 miles out or less, because the curvature of the earth, I have watch ships with binoculars go out of sight as they go beyond 12 miles.

As for lighthouses, some lighthouses are tall, so you can see them beyond 12 miles, depending on the elevation of the lighthouse.

But from my observation and many years standing bridge watches as a third and second mate, I witnessed the curve of the earth.

I saw ships as though they dropped off the edge of the ocean, only to see them reappear as we picked up speed and closed the 12 mile gap. Ships radars cannot pick up a ship much past 12 miles for this reason.

My 2 cents worth. What do I know anyway?

Richard




Eric Dubay said...

Hey Paul, bridges, canals, tunnels and railroads are all built with absolutely no "curvature" taken into account, I have quoted several engineers and surveyors in the book putting this point to rest, ex:

Engineer, W. Winckler, wrote into the Earth Review October 1893 regarding the Earth’s supposed curvature, stating, “As an engineer of many years standing, I saw that this absurd allowance is only permitted in school books. No engineer would dream of allowing anything of the kind. I have projected many miles of railways and many more of canals and the allowance has not even been thought of, much less allowed for. This allowance for curvature means this - that it is 8” for the first mile of a canal, and increasing at the ratio by the square of the distance in miles; thus a small navigable canal for boats, say 30 miles long, will have, by the above rule an allowance for curvature of 600 feet. Think of that and then please credit engineers as not being quite such fools. Nothing of the sort is allowed. We no more think of allowing 600 feet for a line of 30 miles of railway or canal, than of wasting our time trying to square the circle”

And flights/flight times prove the Earth is stationary, watch the following:

The Earth is Not Moving

The Earth is Not Spinning

Sophia, experiments have been done over 150 miles proving the Earth to have no curvature. I linked you to 100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe, my book is full of hundreds more, I've presented plenty of evidence here and other posts and videos, but you're still convinced by this 1 inconclusive experiment? You also seem to take too much offense to my comments... that's not you under a fake name promoting your site is it Wild Heretic? ;-) No, I'm sure you're legit "Sophia."

Eric Dubay said...

Hey Richard, lighthouses have been seen at see at up to 150 miles away. The law of perspective causes the disappearance of ships over the horizon, they are not disappearing behind a wall of convex water.

The Isle of Wight lighthouse in England is 180 feet high and can be seen up to 42 miles away, a distance at which modern astronomers say the light should fall 996 feet below line of sight. The Cape L’Agulhas lighthouse in South Africa is 33 feet high, 238 feet above sea level, and can be seen for over 50 miles. If the world was a globe, this light would fall 1,400 feet below an observer’s line of sight! The Statue of Liberty in New York stands 326 feet above sea level and on a clear day can be seen as far as 60 miles away. If the Earth was a globe, that would put Lady Liberty at an impossible 2,074 feet below the horizon! The lighthouse at Port Said, Egypt, at an elevation of only 60 feet has been seen an astonishing 58 miles away, where, according to modern astronomy it should be 2,182 feet below the line of sight!

“The distance at which lights can be seen at sea entirely disposes of the idea that we are living on a huge ball.” -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (58)

Another great example is the Notre Dame Antwerp spire standing 403 feet high from the foot of the tower with Strasburg measuring 468 feet above sea level. With the aid of a telescope, ships can be distinguished on the horizon and captains declare they can see the cathedral spire from an amazing 150 miles away. If the Earth were a globe, however, at that distance the spire should be an entire mile, 5,280 feet below the horizon!

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)

Sophia Perennis said...

"Sophia, experiments have been done over 150 miles proving the Earth to have no curvature."

A link to any particular experiment would be greatly appreciated. I can't find anything.

"I linked you to 100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe"

Yes, and I agree with a number of his philosophical proofs, but that is all they are, Philosophical proofs. The majority of proofs propounded by Flat Earth adherent, both philosophical and empirical, are equally explainable by a Concave Earth; it is only the Concave Earth proponents who have provided individual experiments which contradict both the Copernican cosmology and the Flat Earth cosmology - namely the refraction of light upwards and the Rectilineator experiment but also the Tamarack mine experiments, though inadmissible.

"my book is full of hundreds more, I've presented plenty of evidence here and other posts and videos"

Would you be willing to provide me with a PDF copy?

"but you're still convinced by this 1 inconclusive experiment?"

No. I believe in a Concave cosmology based on theological and philosophical grounds in addition to empirical evidence. I it is my belief belief, as is was the Platonist's and Neo-platonist's, that the sphere is the most perfect shape - and that it is logical for a sphere to be the foundation of the finite world, as God is the utmost intelligent and wise being. Likewise, the empirical evidence provided by Flat Earth proponents is lacking in the intellectuality I find present in the Concave Earth proponents; and their arguments, while mostly sound in regards to Heliocentricity, do not prove a flat Earth at all - as they are generally accounted for by a Concave cosmology as well.

"You also seem to take too much offense to my comments that's not you under a fake name promoting your site is it Wild Heretic? ;-) No, I'm sure you're legit "Sophia."

I suppose accusations like this are to be expected from a conspiracy minded individual. No, I am not The Wild Heretic; I am a Traditionalist and Metaphysician, he's not. I'd be willing to bet he doesn't even know what Sophia Perennis means. So yes, I am "legit".

Eric Dubay said...

Hi Sophia, the distance at which light-houses can be seen at sea proves the Earth/sea are flat. The Isle of Wight lighthouse in England is 180 feet high and can be seen up to 42 miles away, a distance at which modern astronomers say the light should fall 996 feet below line of sight. The Cape L’Agulhas lighthouse in South Africa is 33 feet high, 238 feet above sea level, and can be seen for over 50 miles. If the world was a globe, this light would fall 1,400 feet below an observer’s line of sight! The Statue of Liberty in New York stands 326 feet above sea level and on a clear day can be seen as far as 60 miles away. If the Earth was a globe, that would put Lady Liberty at an impossible 2,074 feet below the horizon! The lighthouse at Port Said, Egypt, at an elevation of only 60 feet has been seen an astonishing 58 miles away, where, according to modern astronomy it should be 2,182 feet below the line of sight!

Another great example is the Notre Dame Antwerp spire standing 403 feet high from the foot of the tower with Strasburg measuring 468 feet above sea level. With the aid of a telescope, ships can be distinguished on the horizon and captains declare they can see the cathedral spire from an amazing 150 miles away. If the Earth were a globe, however, at that distance the spire should be an entire mile, 5,280 feet below the horizon!

“The distance at which lights can be seen at sea entirely disposes of the idea that we are living on a huge ball.” -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (58)

The surface of water is not convex or concave, the surface of standing water is always and must be horizontal. It is part of the natural physics of water and other fluids to always find their level and remain flat. If disturbed in any way, motion ensues until the flat level is resumed. If dammed up then released, the nature of all liquids is to quickly flood outwards taking the easiest course towards finding its new level.

“The upper surface of a fluid at rest is a horizontal plane. Because if a part of the surface were higher than the rest, those parts of the fluid which were under it would exert a greater pressure upon the surrounding parts than they receive from them, so that motion would take place amongst the particles and continue until there were none at a higher level than the rest, that is, until the upper surface of the whole mass of fluid became a horizontal plane.” -W.T. Lynn, “First Principles of Natural Philosophy”

If the Earth is an extended flat plane, then this fundamental physical property of fluids finding and remaining level is consistent with experience and common sense. If, however, the Earth is a giant sphere tilted on its vertical axis spinning through never-ending space or a concave sphere then it follows that truly flat, consistently level surfaces do not exist here! Moreover, if the Earth is spherical then it follows that the surface of all Earth’s water, including the massive oceans, must maintain a certain degree of curvature. But this is contrary to the fundamental physical nature of water to always be and remain level!

Eric Dubay said...

As for my book, I'm willing to provide you and everyone with a PDF copy for $10 to support my tireless efforts to expose these truths. I've also been creating/compiling several free videos to help people wrap their heads around this ultimate deception. Here's one I just finished last night:

Sun, Moon, and Stars Prove the Flat Earth

If you look at the first picture at the top of this article you'll see that the universe is indeed shaped like a sphere. Perhaps we can agree that although the Earth plane is clearly flat, the universe is concave. It is like a hollowed out snow globe where the center is a circular flat plane, underneath being the Earth and oceans, surrounded by Antarctica and above being the dome of the sky with Polaris perfectly situated above the North Pole and the Sun, Moon, stars and "planets" revolving around Polaris and over the Earth one revolution per day. Please watch the linked video and let me know what you think. Peace

Sophia Perennis said...

"Hi Sophia, the distance at which light-houses can be seen at sea proves the Earth/sea are flat... The lighthouse at Port Said, Egypt, at an elevation of only 60 feet has been seen an astonishing 58 miles away, where, according to modern astronomy it should be 2,182 feet below the line of sight!

Another great example is the Notre Dame Antwerp spire standing 403 feet high from the foot of the tower with Strasburg measuring 468 feet above sea level. With the aid of a telescope, ships can be distinguished on the horizon and captains declare they can see the cathedral spire from an amazing 150 miles away. If the Earth were a globe, however, at that distance the spire should be an entire mile, 5,280 feet below the horizon!"

These are good examples of things which are equally explained by a Concave cosmology; you are correct that on a convex globe the distance at which objects can be seen is impossible, but this is not the case in a concave globe. In a concave globe, as we reside on the internal surface of a hollow sphere and not on the outside of it, linear sight would only be limited by the refraction of light and the celestial sphere's outermost firmament which is ~62 miles up - thereby allowing for allegedly "impossible" distances to be seen. Simply put, we can see objects at these extreme distances becomes the Earth is curving upward from our relative perspective. It isn't until our vision becomes obscured by the celestial sphere or light refraction that our sight becomes restricted - this is also why the horizon is always at eye level despite an increased line of sight.

"The surface of water is not convex or concave, the surface of standing water is always and must be horizontal. It is part of the natural physics of water and other fluids to always find their level and remain flat. If disturbed in any way, motion ensues until the flat level is resumed. If dammed up then released, the nature of all liquids is to quickly flood outwards taking the easiest course towards finding its new level."

I agree water forms a natural horizontal plane when undisturbed, I'm just not sure that the form in which water takes would be indicative of any sort of cosmology - flat, concave, or otherwise.

"If the Earth is an extended flat plane, then this fundamental physical property of fluids finding and remaining level is consistent with experience and common sense. If, however, the Earth is a giant sphere tilted on its vertical axis spinning through never-ending space or a concave sphere then it follows that truly flat, consistently level surfaces do not exist here! Moreover, if the Earth is spherical then it follows that the surface of all Earth’s water, including the massive oceans, must maintain a certain degree of curvature. But this is contrary to the fundamental physical nature of water to always be and remain level!"

In a concave cosmology, there is no need for a spinning Earth flying through infinite "space" at absurd speeds, so atleast there we agree Copernicanism is nonsense. I can only suggest that a force akin to what we currently call gravity but without the tenets of the theory of gravity, is responsible for this phenomena. It would seem that without such a force, a flat Earth would adequately account for the form water naturally presumes.

Anonymous said...

Can you explain please Eric how people in Australia cannot see Polaris? if indeed the earth is flat.

Thanks very much.

Eric Dubay said...

Hey Anonymous, thanks for the question. Polaris can be seen from the North Pole all the way to 23.5 degrees South latitude which is exactly 23.5 degrees too far to be possible on a ball-Earth. This is the reason the heliocentric theory adopted the 23.5 degree "tilt" we are taught about to account for this glaring problem (their "tilt" later changed to "tilt and wobble" because tilt alone didn't allow them to account for seasons).

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.

“Another thing is certain, that from within the equator the north pole star, and the constellations Ursa Major, Ursa Minor, and many others, can be seen from every meridian simultaneously; whereas in the south, from the equator, neither the so-called south pole star, nor the remarkable constellation of the Southern Cross, can be seen simultaneously from every meridian, showing that all the constellations of the south - pole star included - sweep over a great southern arc and across the meridian, from their rise in the evening to their setting in the morning. But if the earth is a globe, Sigma Octantis, a south pole star, and the Southern Cross, a southern circumpolar constellation, they would all be visible at the same time from every longitude on the same latitude, as is the case with the northern pole star and the northern circumpolar constellations. Such, however, is not the case.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!” (286)

The reason people in Australia or beyond 23.5 degrees South latitude cannot see Polaris is because at that distance from the North Pole (over which it is located) it slowly descends towards the horizon as the observer travels Southward until at last it sinks beyond the horizon vanishing line, due to 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.

Eric Dubay said...

“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)

“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)

Chandra said...

If the Earth is plane, how could aeroplanes fly around the World. There are thousands of satellites orbiting Earth. If the Earth is plane they would have noticed it.

Anonymous said...

Great work, Eric. I am wondering though if you can explain the geographic South pole? Is it a hoax? Where are all the photos from the South pole taken? Why would they go there? Is it only for show? Also, if Antarctica basically surrounds the entire Earth wouldn't that mean that it has enormously long coastline and the distance from one polar station might be even 15,000 km, for instance? How does it work?
Merry Christmas :)

Eric Dubay said...

Hey Chandra, satellites are a hoax and do not orbit the Earth, as I explained in this NASA Fail Compilation.

As for circumnavigation it is no different on the flat-Earth than it would be on a ball-Earth. 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...

Thanks Anonymous, Merry Christmas to you too! Yes the South Pole is a hoax, they merely picked an arbitrary point along the Antarctic ice and put a red/white barbershop poll with a ball-Earth on it. They even admit that it's not the South pole though:

Antarctica Has No South Pole

It is just for show and to help along their deception.

Antarctica Key to Flat Earth

And yes, Antarctica is huge, closer to 70,000 miles in circumference. 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.”

“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)

Glenn said...

why go to the trouble to use latitude and longitude to express the world as an ellipsoid used by flight simulators that train pilots?

Anonymous said...

Thanks a lot for your response, Eric.

What if the South pole is real, but it is simply a point above which the stars in the firmament are fixed? I mean, there could be two virtual celestial hemispheres which overlap. One celestial hemisphere fixed at the North pole, and another at the South pole. My point is that the Earth can be flat and have two poles at the same time. A half of the celestial sphere rotates around the South pole, the other half around the North pole. But this is all happening above a flat surface. When sailors navigate they use the stars for orientation, so it is clear that they couldn't have a clue where they really are without having some reference point. When we know the satellites are a hoax, it seems that navigation is a bit misleading as you're guided by the celestial objects. It can help you sail and travel, but only where you have mapped the celestial sphere above you to use as a reference. Without the sky and its stars, without the Sun and the Moon, people could have never navigated the oceans and map the world. Astronomical measurements were used to determine one's location, so if there are two poles it doesn't mean the Earth is a sphere, it simply means the Earth is covered by a literal dome where the stars follow their course and there are two literal points on the surface above which the stars seem to be rotating. I am not sure if I am making much sense, however, I find it possible at least hypothetically, that we can have two poles without having a spherical Earth.

Thomas said...

Eric, thank you for your efforts! It is really appreciated.

One serious question I do have though is:

If the earth was flat, wouldn't Australia be able to see the north star?

Please tell me your thoughts on this, and thank you in advance!

Eric Dubay said...

Hey Thomas, just scroll up a little bit and you'll see that question and answer already given. We could certainly have two poles without a spherical Earth Anon, but we don't, as explained the motions of the stars seen in the southern "hemisphere" are not reversed or circling around a southern star in the way they do the North, they are over-simplifying it to fit their model.

Anonymous said...

I agree, but still the idea should be explained in a better way, as right now it would appear that the polar stations are 20,000 or even 60,000 km apart. After all there are many of them in Antarctica, if Antarctica is the ice wall, then the stations are spread all over the place and are huge distances apart, which I am not sure is the case. Don't get me wrong, I agree with your general conclusions and you really did a great job presenting the information, but I think more details need to be added. This is what is missing from the other videos and articles on the topic as well. Perhaps a better map is needed. Perhaps the stations are concentrated in a certain relatively small area and not spread all over the place. Where is this area? It is not exactly true that each location in Antarctica is 90 degrees S, so how does it work if Antarctica is the ice wall, but only one location there shows 90 degrees S? I guess, it should be explained how the hoax is done. Anyway, I am looking forward to your next video.

Eric Dubay said...

Earth is like a ring magnet with the north pole in the very center-point and the south "pole" being ALL points along the outer circumference. They claim to know where the "south pole" is, but using a compass you can only know where the north pole is. No matter where you are in Antarctica, the compass will point north towards the north pole and south will always be pointing further outwards along the Antarctica ice-plateau.

Anonymous said...

Hi again, Eric,

You're kind of trying to manipulate here. I am sorry to say that, but it is simply not true that everywhere on what we know today as Antarctica the compass points north in all direction. At least, no one claims that to be true but you. Plus the location of the pole is not determined only with a compass. Or are you suggesting that is the case? In order to be at the south pole the compass has to show north in all direction. What you said about it showing always north is not relevant as it shows north everywhere on Earth, but you don't say you're at the south pole when you're in London and the compass shows north, right? It has to show north in all directions!!! That is why I asked you about the polar stations. There are many of them and they are in Antarctica. If every point of Antarctica is the south pole then anyone staying at one of those stations would have the compass showing north in every direction, when this is not the case. They can also use a sextant and other equipment. You might say it is a hoax, but you have to explain how the hoax is done. Also, you need to show an alternative map with the real locations of the polar stations around this ice wall. The current distances between them are known, so you can't simply say that the distance from point A to B is 30000 km, when it is known to be only 1500 km, for instance. From your explanation, the only way this is possible is if everyone lies. There are many people who have been to Antarctica; not talking about the south pole. Are you saying that they all are stupid and have no clue how to use a compass and when they were there the compass was showing north in all directions, but they never noticed? Such argumentation only undermines the flat Earth idea. I would understand if you claimed that the south pole is only the point above which the stars spin, but to claim that any point in Antarctica is the south pole sounds wrong.

Eric Dubay said...

I'm not trying to manipulate thanks very much, the ball-Earth establishment are the ones manipulating you and I'm trying to help you see through their lies. You're also manipulating with straw men, saying, "If every point of Antarctica is the south pole then anyone staying at one of those stations would have the compass showing north in every direction, when this is not the case." I never said that that, you're putting words in my mouth. I said the opposite pole is every point along the circumference, not every point in Antarctica! Then again you end your comment with, "but to claim that any point in Antarctica is the south pole sounds wrong." So you put wrong things into my mouth that I didn't say and tell me they're wrong. Congratulations. And you call me manipulative?

Anonymous said...


I am sorry I called you manipulative, but I can't see how you don't understand the fallacy in your argument. It is obvious that only one point or a small area can have coordinates 90 degrees S, and Antarctica is not 1 by 1 meter wide, so the other stations which are not at the south pole don't have such coordinates which means the south pole is only one specific location. There are many stations in Antarctica, not just one.Think about it. Furthermore, as I said the south pole's location can be easily determined by using a sextant or compass. When you're there it would be north in every direction. I repeat, not every place in Antarctica has such coordinates. There is no other place where the compass shows north in every direction! Please explain where is Antarctica then, as apparently now you're trying to say that you're not claiming Antarctica is the ice rim. So what is Antarctica and how does it work that when you reach a specific place there the compass would show north in every direction? My guess is the poles are just related to the rotation of the stars. But there are two specific poles. I am wondering why you insist there is no south pole. And for the record, I wouldn't even be here if I was a round Earther.

Eric Dubay said...

This is why they put the little red/white barbershop "south pole" somewhere that they ADMIT isn't the south pole! They didn't want tourists bringing their compasses to the little pole and saying, "hey, wait a minute, this isn't the south pole."

Antarctica Has No South Pole

So instead they claim "the real south pole" is several hundred meters away from the ceremonial pole they posted, that way you would have to spend hours outside your tour group with a compass scratching your head trying to figure out why the south pole clearly isn't the south pole.

Antarctica IS the ice-rim of the oceans, but no one has publicly admitted to finding the edge or barrier (or it could be an infinite plane) so we can't say where the outer-most circumference of the Earth is, or if in fact it is infinite. Can you find me a video of someone at the actual "south pole," with a compass, walking around 360 degrees and showing north in all directions!? I need to see that before believing that little red/white barbershop pole with a ball-Earth on it is actually at "the south pole."

Anonymous said...

Okay, I admit you have every right to be skeptical. By the way, the compass won't show north in every direction unless you're at the magnetic south pole which is not the same as the geographic south pole.So I was wrong when I said that they would know where the south pole is just by looking at the compass. They wouldn't. But you can know if you take sextant readings. That is exactly what Amundsen did. Of course, you can doubt anything. I don't see why you don't like the south pole so much. It doesn't really negate the flat Earth theory. On the other hand, I find the Antarctica being the ice rim idea unbelievable due to the polar stations which are not so far apart but are all over Antarctica. If they were on the rim the distance between them would be enormous. It would really help a lot if you went to Antarctica yourself and provided some evidence. I am planning to myself. It is not true it is guarded. In fact it is the only place in the world which doesn't have any military presence apart from the military planes which bring supplies.

Anonymous said...

Eric,
Now I think I must have been wrong. You have every right to doubt the official story. I was just trying to suggest that even if there is a south pole, the Earth still can be flat and infinite. However, it seems the issue is more complex, and it is true it is rather tricky what they are doing. Especially since the magnetic south and magnetic north are even officially in completely different locations than the geographic north and south poles. It leaves a lot of room for faking and manipulation. I can imagine how people who visited Antarctica won't even have a clue where they really are. Well, I guess anything is possible then, sorry for the fruitless arguing. I guess if I ever visit I would know more :)

David Gilbert said...

A lot of what you say seems logical, I have to ask though, how can you justify saying that you know for absolute fact that Earth is the only planet of its kind, and that there is no other life out there? How do you actually know? I doubt that you do.

David

Eric Dubay said...

Hey David, Earth is a plane, not a "planet." The "planets" were known for thousands of years as "wandering stars" as they differ from the fixed stars in their relative motions only. They are NOT spherical terra firma capable of landing Masons on as NASA would have you believe. All the images of spherical ball-planets you've seen are clearly fake CGI, but people are willfully ignorant as they marvel at the technicolor gradients in NASA's every latest "planet" or "galaxy" photoshop photo. The end game of this whole deception is the fake alien invasion to usher in the New World Order, so they've been working hard to get you to believe in aliens:

Invasion Earth Agenda Exposed

Then I recommend either reading my book "The Flat Earth Conspiracy" or Dr. Samuel Rowbotham's 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!” Peace

David Gilbert said...

Hi Eric,

Thanks for coming back to me, that's a reasonable explanation, I'm not one for disregarding things without research or proof so I will look into it further

A couple of things I have to ask, what about amateurs with affordable telescopes that take pictures of planets, for example Saturn with its rings?

Also if there aren't actually satellites, what are the bright lights I see passing through the sky every now and again, definitely not a natural phenomena, most definitely not aircraft either? Also any explanation for all the UFO sightings every year and credible footage? Namaste

Eric Dubay said...

Hey David, through telescopes the stars and planets, Saturn included in no way appear to me like terrestrial solid Earth-like habitations as NASA presents them to us. They merely appear to be round dots of light rotating over and around us like a planetarium dome.

For example, through a non-NASA telescope, Jupiter looks like a flat, round dot of light, like all the other stars:

Jupiter Through Telescope

Through a super-duper CGI photoshop NASA Mason's telescope, however, Jupiter looks like this!:

Jupiter By NASA

As for satellites, I just put together the following:

Satellite Hoax - Satellites Do Not Exist!

Bright lights in the sky could certainly be a number of things from planes, to shooting stars, to government UFO activity. Regarding that mystery, check out these two links as well, let me know what you think. Peace!

The Masonic Truth Behind UFOs/Aliens

Flat Earth and Stars

Anonymous said...

Okay, this is my first time hearing this theory, so I have some questions about it.

Okay first I thought the conspiracy was by the "dark ones" was to in fact say the earth was flat and therefore keep us in the dark about being able to explore the earth.

( Ex. If you go too far, you will fall off the edge).

In either case though couldn't they just as well distort facts to remove God in a flat world existing just as well as they could with a round world?

I mean I am trying to understand why this is a big deal and who really gains from it because like I said I think they could lie about God in either scenario.

Also, assuming the earth is flat, then how do you explain the "evidence" against such a theory like photos from satellites?

I am not trying to attack you or anything, just trying to understand the very nature behind the "conspiracy" here.

Eric Dubay said...

Hey Anon, they could certainly lie about God in any given scenario, but this particular "atheist materialist heliocentric ball-Earth Big Bang cosmic accidental evolution paradigm" is very convincing and succeeds in deluding most of the world that there is no need for an intelligent designer. This makes us very easy to control when we believe every CGI picture of galaxies, stars and quasars they show us. We start thinking existence is all the result of an unconscious, unintelligent, accidental creationary sneeze that constructed and ordered the entirety of life, consciousness, and nature. Case in point are the CGI pictures of satellites and the ball-Earth which you believe are evidence of their existence. Have a look at the following:

Satellite Hoax - Satellites Do Not Exist!

Jamie Lee said...

HI Eric,
Great job! I read your book, then ordered, and am reading, Zetetic Astronomy.

All of what you say, prove and theorize makes sense to me except for one calculation which i cannot figure out yet.

I noticed that plane flights from Down under to lower South America do not fly over the alleged South Pole and that Branson of Virgin Airlines just got approval in 2011 to fly the "Santa Route" over the North Pole.

Yet a flight time from Santiago to Sidney by air is 12hr, 30 min. and travels 7058.31.

If a flat earth this traveling is nearly the farthest distance between to land masses right?

If the circumference of the Earth is some 24,000 miles, then the trip would take some 3 1/2 times longer in a straight line. No?

Keep up the great work, it is really inspiring and appreciated.

Jamie Lee

Eric Dubay said...

Hey Jamie, thanks so much for the support and encouragement! The circumference of the flat Earth is clearly larger than 25,000 miles because early explorers attempting to circumnavigate the Antarctic found themselves traveling upwards of 50,000 miles taking several years to complete the journey. The Ball-Earth crew claim Antarctica is only about 12,000 miles around, but this is proven incorrect by several early Antarctic sailors logs. I don't quite follow your logic about the Sydney to Chile flights needing to be 3.5 times longer. My only guess is that you're confusing "diameter" with "circumference," which is messing up the math. Peace!

Richard Paulson said...

Hi Eric,

I stumbled across this new blog whilst researching, and thought to make some points on this topic. I don't believe the globe earth is a lie. So here it is:

When we look at the sky we observe a rotating celestial sphere, because that the sun, moon and stars follow an arched path in the sky. They are seen to rise and descend in the horizon. This already suggests that the Earth is curved and is a sphere. If the earth is flat, then what is beneath our feet? Or what is under the earth, or under the surface? Is that flat also? And how far does it go down? If it goes too far down then the celestial bodies would hit them as they revolved along the celestial sphere. If it is limited, then you have a thick flat disc in the middle of the celestial equator. But if the disc were an infinite plane, as you said might be possible, the celestial bodies could not go down, because they would hit that plane. So you have a very limited flat disc in the middle of a spherical universe. That is a strange looking creation, or a thing for God to make, rather than make the earth a sphere also. Especially since the sun has in this scenario wasted half its journey shining upon no one.

But the facts speak against it.

1.If the earth were flat, then how could there be day and night at different times in different places of the earth? Clearly there cannot be. When the sun goes down, it would go down upon all the earth at the same time. When it rose it would rise upon us all at the same time. But all one has to do is make long distance phone calls to see that this is not so.
2.At the equator or closer to it, the earth is hotter. At the poles it is coldest. This speaks of a sun spiralling around a spherical earth. The sun is always closest to the equator even when it is farthest north or farthest south, because the earth is a sphere and in a sphere or ball it is thickest in the middle and the middle reaches the farthest east and the farthest west. That is why it is always hottest along the equator and always coldest at the poles.
3.At the north and south poles the sun is seen to circle the horizon and not go down for six months. Then it is absent for six months. But to those of us who are not at the north and south poles, the sun is not seen to circle the horizon, because it actually goes down. The reason is because the earth is curved - it is a sphere. Moreover, toward the north and south poles there is more light when the sun is present, and more darkness when it is not, and the twilight in these regions is long lasting, because the earth is a sphere. For these things would have to be the case in the northern and southern regions, because the sun spirals northward and southward from east to west and because that the earth is a globe. Around the equator of a ball/globe, it is thickest, and therefore the sun is more quickly hidden by the curve of the earth. The further you go north or south, the less this is true. This is exactly what is observed throughout all the earth.
4.If anyone who believes the Bible should cite “Bible proofs” to confirm a flat earth, he is taking those verses out of context or interpreting his own meaning into it, because the Bible indicates the opposite, and there is no Bible verse that can be used to prove it.

These things cannot be explained away by a flat earth. You would have to imagine ridiculous things to try to. Thus any cited "proofs" such as seeing things from far away are untrustworthy and they are only alleged "facts" because they cannot disprove the obvious. They would have to be lies.

Eric Dubay said...

Hey Richard, thanks for the comment. 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 seasons are caused by the Sun’s circuit round the Earth in a spiral ecliptic. In the Winter Solstice (December 21st), the Sun is vertical over the Tropic of Capricorn. Looking South from London, he appears to make a small circuit in the Southern sky, during the same period he is seen to cross the sky at almost overhead in Cape Town, thus causing Summer in the Southern Hemisphere. In the Summer Solstice (June 21st), the Sun is vertical over the Tropic of Cancer, (nearly overhead in London), while looking North from Cape Town, he appears to make a small circuit in the Northern sky, causing Winter in the Southern and Summer in the Northern Hemisphere.” -E. Eschini, “Foundations of Many Generations” (7)

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.

“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)

“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...

Contrary to NASA and the modern Masonic astronomical establishment, the Bible affirms and re-affirms in several passages that the Earth is stationary and absolutely motionless. 1 Chronicles 16:30 and Psalm 96:10 both read, “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.” Isaiah 45:18 states, “God who made the earth and fashioned it, himself fixed it fast.” And Psalm 93:1 says, “The world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.”

Also contrary to NASA and other propagators of the ball-Earth theory, the Bible repeatedly affirms that the Earth is “outstretched” as a plane, with the outstretched heavens everywhere above (not all around), that it is firmly fixed on foundations or pillars, and has ends and corners jutting out into the sea. Exodus 20:1-4 declares that the heavens are above the Earth (not all around it) and that the waters of the mighty deep are under the Earth. In Luke 4:5 Satan takes Jesus to a mountain high enough to see “all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time,” and Revelation 1:7 promises every eye shall see Christ’s coming in the clouds, feats only possible over a flat-Earth, not a globe.

“The essential flatness of the earth's surface is required by verses like Daniel 4:10-11. In Daniel, the king ‘saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth...reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds.’ If the earth were flat, a sufficiently tall tree would be visible to ‘the earth's farthest bounds,’ but this is impossible on a spherical earth. Likewise, in describing the temptation of Jesus by Satan, Matthew 4:8 says, ‘Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world [cosmos] in their glory.’ Obviously, this would be possible only if the earth were flat. The same is true of Revelation 1:7: ‘Behold, he is coming with the clouds! Every eye shall see him.’” -Robert Schadewald, “The Flat Earth Bible” (4)

In the Bible, “the waters” are created before the Earth and surround the Earth. Genesis 1:9-10 reads, “And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear. And God called the dry land earth; and the gathering together of the waters called He seas.” Psalm 136:6 confirms that God, “stretched out the earth above the waters,” and Psalm 24:1-2 says, “He hath founded earth upon the seas, and established it upon the floods.” 2 Peter 3:5 describes, “the earth standing out of the water and in the water,” and Exodus 20:4 and Deuteronomy 4:18 both mention “the waters beneath the earth.”

“That the surface of water is horizontal is a matter of absolute truth, and as the earth is founded upon the seas, and stretched out above the waters, it is of necessity a plane; and being a concrete mass of variable elements and compounds, with different specific gravities, it must be a floating structure, standing in and out of the waters, just as we see a ship or an iceberg.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!” (364)

The Sun, Moon and stars were placed by God within the “firmament” or “the vault of heaven,” and move around and above the earth, so that day and night are “ruled” by their motions/lights, not by the supposed axial motion of the ball-Earth. They are luminaries only (not physical planetoids), intended for “signs and seasons,” to give light to this, the only world, and were purposely positioned relatively close to Earth, not millions of miles away as false astronomers say. Genesis 1:16-18 reads, “And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth. And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness.” Psalm 19:4-6 also affirms that it is the Sun which rotates over and around the Earth, and not the opposite as contended by the heliocentric establishment.

Richard Paulson said...

Hi Eric,

Thanks for your in depth reply. If you recall our lengthy discussion in October last year, you can know certainly that I don't believe in the heliocentric view. You are right about saying that the heliocentric view is false. You are right about saying that gravity does not exist. You are right about saying that NASA lies, and that space travel and the heavens they present to us as fact is total fiction. And I do believe the geocentric view is Biblical and true according to our observation and the ability to deduce logically from the facts.

But I can't see that the Bible says that the earth is flat. I have looked at the Scriptures that people use to claim that it does, but the verses they use are often not from the true Bible and thus the wording they use is more inclined to suggest that the earth is flat. But if those words are from a twisted version of the Bible, then they are not from the Bible! In the true Bible, a flat earth is not really stated or even truly implied. Some would still argue otherwise, but clearly they are only making baseless suppositions. It is easy to take Scriptures out of context, and thus one principle for Bible study means examining every Scripture on a subject to obtain the truth; and this many do not do.

Look at this verse from the Authorized King James Bible (the only perfect and true Bible translated into English):

Isaiah 40:22 “It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers...” The Bible refers to the earth as a circle as looking from above. Now, because God is in heaven, looking down (and sitting upon his throne), the earth appears as a circle. This is because the earth is a sphere. I also read somewhere, someone who pointed out that unless the earth is a sphere, it would not look like a circle from every angle above the earth. Logically, of course, “circle” might mean a flat disc. But the reason why it CANNOT mean this, is because the Bible also affirms that there is a north, east, south and west. For in a flat circle, it is IMPOSSIBLE to have a “north, east, south and west”!

What do you mean by “north center” and “southern circumference”? According to the dictionary, north and south are opposite directions, just like east and west are opposite directions. In order to make the flat earth idea work, you have to change the meaning of words! (And the Bible was translated into English words defined by the dictionary - including relevant archaic English words.) But you can’t do that. If east and west are opposite directions, then north and south are opposite directions. You can’t redefine words to make the flat earth idea work.

If “south” meant or terminated in the circumference of a circle, and north meant the center of a circle, then going north from this circumference you would eventually get to the north center; HOWEVER, going further “north” or in the same direction from the circumference or side that we left, becomes going “south”! So it simply does not work like that!

Continued in the next post

Richard Paulson said...

Part Two

In a sphere, going north would mean you eventually reach the top of the sphere, or the geographical north pole. But you can’t go any further north. North is the end and from the geographical north “pole” you can only go south. This is not true in the model you are describing. In the model you are describing, going north from the southern circumference is the same as going south; for you make north and south synonyms, seeing that they lie in the same direction from a point in the southern circumference.

You speak of “northern latitudes” but accordingly, there are no “northern latitudes”, for the “equator” would lie somewhere in the exact middle between the southern circumference and the north center. But that is not the definition of “equator”. But even granting it so, north from this equator is also south, as I pointed out. But would not a line dividing across the center of the circle also be the “equator” in a certain sense? But if it was, then one side would be the northern hemisphere and the other side would be the southern hemisphere. But that is not the model you are describing, when you speak of a southern circumference and a north center.

Moreover, from where across the middle of the circle would you define the equator? You can’t say from the east to the west, or from the north to the south. You can only say from the south to the south. But where from south to south if the southern edge is the circumference of a circle? Also, if the universe is a sphere, then it has a north, south, east and west different from the plane; which plane itself is proven not to be able to have. What you are describing then, does not work in a number of ways.

I was also therefore, not able to follow your line of reasoning, as it does not make sense. You even use the words “higher latitudes”. There are no “higher” latitudes on a flat earth. I cannot make sense of what you are saying. I also have not seen any of my points logically refuted.

The law of perspective you quoted to me about, is an idea, not a proof.

The Bible does say that the earth is fixed. Of course I believe that as I have already stated.

You say that the Bible repeatedly affirms that the earth is outstretched as a plane. This is simply NOT SO! Who are the people that claim to be quoting from the Bible when it is a false version of the Bible? Or who are the interpreters? Only once is the word “outstretched” mentioned in the entire Bible, in reference to the earth, and I quote it here:

Jeremiah 27:5 “I have made the earth, the man and the beast that are upon the ground, by my great power and by my outstretched arm, and have given it unto whom it seemed meet unto me.”

Does this Bible verse say that God outstretched the earth? Absolutely not!

However, the Bible does say that heaven is “above the earth”. But saying that this must mean that heaven is not all around the earth is illogical. For in a spherical earth, the heavens are above the earth, all around. There is no contradiction.

Continued in the next post.

Richard Paulson said...

Part 3

Regarding earth’s “pillars” and “cornerstone” in the Bible:

1 Samuel 2:8 “He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD’s, and he hath set the world upon them.”

Job 9:4-10 “He is wise in heart, and mighty in strength: who hath hardened himself against him, and hath prospered? Which removeth the mountains, and they know not: which overturneth them in his anger. Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble. Which commandeth the sun, and it riseth not; and sealeth up the stars. Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea. Which maketh Arcturus, Orion, and Pleiades, and the chambers of the south. Which doeth great things past finding out; yea, and wonders without number.”

Psalm 75:3 “The earth and all the inhabitants thereof are dissolved: I bear up the pillars of it. Selah.”

Job 38:6 “Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;”

If you think of the earth as a sphere, then “pillars” make sense in terms of what is inside that sphere. The earth’s pillars cannot mean and does not have to mean that the earth is flat. If a flat earth were supported by pillars, then what is supporting the pillars? The Bible also says that from the “windows of heaven” comes the rain. Well, obviously this doesn’t mean literal windows like you have in your home. You might as well say there are literal windows in heaven made of glass that you can open, as to say that the pillars of the earth must be the same as those that support the roof of a building/temple; and even if they were, it still doesn’t show the earth to be flat. “Cornerstone” can mean something of prime, fundamental importance. It is not proof of a literal edged corner from where the entire earth is held up. In fact, the Bible says in Job, that God hangs the world upon nothing.

The Bible DOES NOT SAY that the earth has ends and corners jutting out to sea. The Bible does speak however, of the “ends of the earth”. But I have looked at ALL the Bible verses talking about the ends of the earth, and clearly, it can only be referring to coast lands, or where sea and land meet. The “ends of the earth” are simply where land and sea meets! As for “corners”, the Bible speaks particularly of four. But the dictionary meaning for “corner” is not just “edge”. It also means “region” or “quarter”. Thus in the Bible, the four corners of the earth refer to the north, south, east and west “regions” or “quarters”.

And the Bible saying that there is water beneath the earth’s surface doesn’t mean that the earth is flat.

Satan showing Jesus all the kingdoms of the world on a high mountain is not evidence for a flat earth.
1.No one can see thousands of miles on a high mountain, except supernaturally, and if it was supernatural, then he could have seen the whole world even though it is a sphere.
2.It was obviously a vision happening “in a moment of time”.
3.The high mountain would have given him a vantage point of the known world, in which were the nature of all the kingdoms of the world. It wasn’t speaking of him seeing every kingdom of the world with his natural eyes - and certainly not in a moment of time! That would be absurd.

Continued in the next post.

Richard Paulson said...

Part 5

The Bible does say that every eye will see Jesus when he comes with clouds. But why should this mean seeing him at only one point in the sky at the same time? That is ridiculous. Even if the earth were flat, no one could see him from thousands of miles away, unless they had supernatural vision. The Bible says the army of heaven will follow Jesus to avenge his elect and that his angels will go throughout the world and gather his elect from one end of heaven to the other, or that is, from one celestial pole to the other. In other words, you might conclude that he and his angels will go everywhere under heaven gathering his elect.

As for the verses in:

Daniel 4:9-12 “O Belteshazzar, master of the magicians, because I know that the spirit of the holy gods is in thee, and no secret troubleth thee, tell me the visions of my dream that I have seen, and the interpretation thereof. Thus were the visions of mine head in my bed; I saw, and behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great. The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth: the leaves thereof were fair, and the fruit thereof much, and in it was meat for all: the beasts of the field had shadow under it, and the fowls of the heaven dwelt in the boughs thereof, and all flesh was fed of it.”

To use this as a Biblical proof for a flat earth is absolutely ridiculous. First of all in Daniel it is describing a dream, not an actual reality. In the tree was “meat for all” and the beasts could shade under it, and all flesh was fed of it. The tree is representing Nebuchadnezzar himself. And certainly he was not tall enough to be seen by everyone even if the earth were flat!

As for “the end of all the earth”, it represented the extent of Nebuchadnezzar’s influence and it was certainly not literally all the earth. The “end of all the earth” would mean an extent ending all around the coast, even if you were to take it literally.

In the Bible the waters were NOT created before the earth. They existed and therefore were created at the same time. Read the first verse of the Bible and also the second verse, in Genesis from the Authorized Bible which shows this to be a fact. Also, if God caused the waters to be gathered to one place so that the dry land may appear, how does this mean the earth wasn’t already there?!

Psalm 136:6 “To him that stretched out the earth above the waters: for his mercy endureth for ever.”

Stretching out the earth here simply means this dry land appearing. It doesn’t mean stretching it out flat. It can mean stretching it out in all directions. This can’t be used as a proof for a flat earth.

Of course God has founded the earth upon the seas, but not just upon the seas, but also established it upon the floods, because the Bible says so; but this is not evidence for a flat earth.

Psalm 24:1-2 “THE earth is the LORD’s, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein. For he hath founded it upon the seas, and established it upon the floods.”

It doesn’t mean that there is no earth underneath the seas or underneath the floods. What are the “floods”? The floods are the waters that once covered all the earth, of course. It may mean then that there is water under the continents which are also the “earth”, and also that this water, along with earthy “pillars” support them. This sounds likely, for there is obviously water below the surface of the earth and even underneath the continents, because the Bible speaks of subterranean waters which were once used to flood the earth. Thus, this also is not evidence for a flat earth. For beneath those waters there is still much more “earth” all the way down to the “heart of the earth”.

Conclusion in the next post.

Richard Paulson said...

Conclusion

The Bible does describe the earth standing in and out of the water. I also see that when I go to the beach.
That is not proof for a flat earth.

Quoting Dr. Samuel R. “That the surface of water is horizontal is a matter of absolute truth.”

I am supposing then that this Samuel fellow never took a shower, or perhaps never stood beside a tree or beside plants after the rain? Or never encountered water droplets on surface anywhere? LOL

I see curved water all the time. I see water droplets hanging off the leaves of a tree or from flower petals etc, and if not for the fact that they rested clinging and hanging off the branches or leaves etc, I could also imagine them to be perfectly spherical. I see the same hanging on my shower walls etc.

Also he says “specific gravities”; what is that supposed to mean? He believes in gravity in his own mysterious way.

The “firmament” goes all around the earth.

Who can prove what the celestial lights are made of, unless he asks God? The only available evidence is meteorites; namely, physical objects falling from the sky. But that the Moon is physically solid is evident. I can see its surface, especially with my binoculars!

Gravity does not exist. It can’t be shown to exist. Why do things then fall to the earth etc? I am certain that it is because of the earth’s magnetic field pushing on the atmosphere, and thus causing things to accelerate toward the surface of the earth.

But for a Bible verse that shows that the Earth is a sphere and that the sun goes around it:

Psalm 19:6 “His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.”

Once you understand what the “end of heaven” means, you know from this verse that the earth is a sphere. The ends of heaven are the celestial poles. For east and west have no end, but north and south do. The sun spirals around the earth from the north pole to the south pole and back again to the north pole, and so on, and thus “there is nothing hid from the heat thereof”.

Eric Dubay said...

Hey Richard, I'm glad to hear you've seen through the deceptions of heliocentricism and gravity, NASA's lies and the space travel hoax, but I'm quite surprised to hear of your adamant belief in the ball-Earth. There are many proofs that Earth is not a globe, for example William Carpenter's book, 100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe:

100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe

Or of course I highly recommend my new book, The Flat Earth Conspiracy, which contains many more proofs such as the following:

The Natural Physics of Water Proves Earth Flat

The Always Horizontal Horizon Proves Earth Flat

If you know NASA, the governments, schools etc. lie about heliocentricism, gravity, the Moon/Mars landings and space travel in general, then I implore you to consider the reason they bother hoaxing all this stuff in the first place is to propagate the ball-Earth deception. They "went to the Moon" not to go to the Moon, but so that they could have an event, an excuse to bring them far enough away to take a picture (albeit faked through a round window in a high-altitude plane) showing after 500 years of telling people the Earth was a ball, show them it WAS a ball after all. Please watch the following two videos when you have the free time Richard, I promise you they are worth your time and will change the way the think of the world completely:

NASA's Fake Ball-Earth vs. The True Flat Earth

The Flat Earth Conspiracy Documentary

There is a word for "sphere" in Hebrew and I'm sure Issiah was right and knew he was right when he chose the word "circle." Usually you're the one arguing for literal Bible interpretations when we talk Richard! :) As for "North/South" definitions, it is actually ball-Earthers who have changed the definition, as the flat-Earth definition reigned supreme since the invention of the compass. You cannot show me a sphere magnet that works with the magnetism attributed to the Earth with two polar opposite points at specific points on the ball being caused by a molten liquid center. This supposed magnetic field of Earth has never been reproduced on a smaller scale. Earth's actual magnetic structure is like a ring magnet found in loud speakers with the North pole in the middle and the opposite pole being all points along the outer circumference.

Eric Dubay said...

I understand the terms "northern latitudes" and "equator" have very different meanings on a flat Earth but I'm just using the nomenclature you're used to. The surface of standing water has been found to be flat over stretches long enough to prove the Earth is NOT a ball 25,000 miles in circumference as they tell us, or even 100,000 miles in circumference, as there is not an inch of curvature detected over many, many miles. Therefore your assertion that water droplets are round so the Earth is round is unfounded and not scientific. Spherical trigonometry dictates the 25,000 mile ball Earth must curvate downwards 8 inches per mile squared, but it does no such thing. You can even see the horizon completely flat from over 20 miles high in this amateur balloon footage.

Gravity does not exist. It can’t be shown to exist. Why do things then fall to the earth etc? I am certain that it is because of the earth’s magnetic field pushing on the atmosphere, and thus causing things to accelerate toward the surface of the earth.

I find this to be the most interesting thing you wrote. You know gravity doesn't exist, but you think "the Earth's magnetic field pushing on the atmosphere" causes huge buildings, people and the massive oceans to stay stuck to the underside of a static ball-Earth!? There is no metal in the ocean waters for them to be magnetically stuck to the underside of a ball, how could this be!? Your idea of some magical magnetism holding us stuck to the Earth is just as unprovable and imaginary as Newton's "gravity."

“The physical properties of a physical globe would create insurmountable difficulties for the being called ‘man’ for man is a two-legged, smooth-footed, clawless-toed, and heavily-built creature. Picture him on the outside of a sphere in our popular 34 degree South latitude. He has his boots on and his head is depressed in space 34 degrees to his feet. Consider him magnetized through his boots to the center of the globe, where the ‘big magnet’ is located. Picture him looking down in to the gaseous void, with his eyes gouging out of their sockets and his heart in his mouth; and his prayer that his ‘hob-nailed’ boots will not lose their magnetism. No wonder the world’s brain got addled! The reader has been hoaxed by the stupidest manifest hoax ever perpetrated.” -S.G. Fowler, “Truth - The Earth is Flat” (3)

“With the Modem Astronomer there is theoretically neither ‘Up’ nor ‘Down,’ though his experience belies his assertion, every time he looks ‘up’ to the heavens or ‘down’ to the ground. Such aberration of intellect is really to be pitied.” -David Wardlaw Scott, “Terra Firma” (274)

“Astronomer Denison Olmsted, in describing a diagram which is supposed to represent the Earth as a globe, with a figure of a man sticking out at each side and one hanging head downwards, says ‘We should dwell on this point until it appears to us as truly up,’ In the direction given to these figures as it does with regard to a figure which he has placed on the top! Now, a system of philosophy which requires us to do something which is, really, the going out of our minds, by dwelling on an absurdity until we think it is a fact, cannot be a system based on God's truth, which never requires anything of the kind. Since, then, the popular theoretical astronomy of the day requires this, it is evident that it is the wrong thing, and that this conclusion furnishes us with a proof that the Earth is not a globe.” -William Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe” (65)

David Gilbert said...

Afternoon Eric, I've had a thought.... What happens when Virgin Galactic commence their commercial flights into space, surely that will blow the lid off it if what you're saying is true?

Eric Dubay said...

Hey David, all their attempts have failed and will continue to fail until they decide to just fake it like NASA or give up. As I've shown in the following NASA Fail Compilation, all rockets and the Virgin flights can only reach a certain height, they do not and can not go completely straight up, they always start curving down parabolically and then ultimately fall back to Earth. The "successful" ones are the ones which curve out of sight before falling into the ocean away from witnessing eyes and cameras. Those ones NASA claims made it to outer space after curving around the ball-Earth:

NASA Fail Compilation

Eric Dubay said...

The old adage is true, "what goes up, must come down." And since the Earth is NOT a ball, "up" and "down" really do exist.

David Gilbert said...

Thanks for the reply Eric; interesting, so what are your thoughts then as far as where Richard Branson stands? Do you think he is oblivious to the matter or is in on the whole thing? He also has an investor who has pumped in over 200 million for a 30 something percent share. I don't get it.

Eric Dubay said...

Hey, I'm not sure about that either, whether he is completely genuine and unaware of NASA's space travel hoax, whether he's genuine and aware of NASA's space travel hoax (most interesting but least plausible option), or whether he's fully aware because he's in on and part of the deception, potentially with a role in future deceptions.

Richard Paulson said...

Hey Eric,

I quote, “I implore you to consider the reason they bother hoaxing all this stuff in the first place is to propagate the ball-Earth deception”.

Now I must ask you: Why should this be the reason? It makes absolutely no difference to say that the Earth is a ball or flat to anyone’s life (except of course that it’s preferable not to live with a delusion). Unless they are just like little mischievous “monkeys” who like to play a trick to make you believe something is real when it is not. Since it not essential to any end, this would be a foolish reason for people to go out of their way and to such extremes to make people believe the earth is a globe. Such people would certainly not be intelligent enough to deceive the whole world. They could say for instance that the earth is flat and make up some reason for people to believe that all the little stars in the sky are flat worlds etc.

Deception and lies are effective because they are based on at least some realities. It is too simple to say that everything the liars say must be a lie.

I don’t know why you are surprised that I think the earth is a globe. The real reason for the heliocentric hoax is to make out that the universe is infinite and therefore providing chances for evolution. The real reason is to make you insignificant and infinitely small. But in seeing that the universe is nothing close to infinitely large, you suddenly take on substance and meaning you didn’t have before, and the fact that God is real and that he lives in the heavens becomes shining and clear.

The lies are about the heavens and not about the geography of the earth. The earth has been very precisely mapped which was a great accomplishment over centuries, and there is no big lie about it. (There are lies about what is inside the earth - but that is another matter.)

What are you going to say about longitude and latitude? How would that work on an earth that is only a disc? It doesn’t.

I spent considerable time going point by point through the said Bible proofs that the earth is flat and shown them ALL to be wrong. Isaiah was indeed right for choosing the word “circle” because that is the appearance of the earth from above. Just because there is a Hebrew word for sphere, does not mean that he refused to use it because the earth is not a sphere. The Bible describes appearances “literally” also. When Joshua commanded the sun and moon to stand still over places of the earth, he was speaking according to “the law of perspective” you might call it. He was speaking of where the sun and moon shone into, and not their literal location. He was speaking from his perspective and it did include a measure of literal meaning. Now, if you were to take a person absolutely literally every time he spoke, there would be times when it would be difficult if not almost impossible to communicate. When I said about taking the Bible literally, I meant it, of course; BUT, I certainly did not mean going from one infinite extreme (in believing it all to be allegorical) to another infinite extreme (and taking verses out of context and not measuring them with everything else in the Bible)!

You said the reason America deceived the world into believing they went to the moon was to provide evidence for a globe earth. But that would be a silly reason because it accomplishes nothing. What they wanted is to make themselves look bigger, better, more powerful than other nations.


Continued in the next post

Richard Paulson said...

Part 2

Eric, you are making some claims that I am going to have to examine more closely in order to reply more fully. I will look at the things you sent me. I am not ignoring you. But it will take some time. But, I would implore you to see thus far, that the evidence for a flat earth is at least NOT truly found in the Bible. The cited proofs are grasping at straws and I proved them all to be false, flawed or taken out of context. There is no verse in the Bible saying “the earth is flat”. That would be a literal word, and otherwise it is not a literal word! So I am still taking the Bible literally, but the words “the earth is flat” is not literally stated!

You have not admitted (or refuted) to me that my points are true on this. Also, you didn’t admit or refute that the moon clearly appears to be physically solid and to the point that it is ridiculous to say otherwise. And where then do meteorites come from, if they are not from physical realities in the sky? Did NASA dig up a crater and call it a meteorite crater. That’s ridiculous. Or has no one actually seen a bolide in the sky?

But just some more brief things for the present I noted in reading your comments:

You said, “Earth’s actual magnetic structure is like a ring magnet in loud speakers with the North pole in the middle and the opposite pole being all points along the outer circumference.”

The middle of a circle is not the “opposite” of the circumference of a circle. And the circumference of a circle is not the "opposite" of the middle of a circle.The circumference of a circle is not a pole. The circumference of a circle does not have a pole.

You said to me, “your assertion that water droplets are round so the earth is round is unfounded and not scientific”.

Firstly, you are not denying that the earth is round, you are denying that it is a sphere. Now, if I were to take you literally, I would be taking you out of context this time, wouldn’t I? Secondly, I did not say that water droplets are round and therefore that this proves that the world is a sphere. You are taking me out of context. I am saying that Samuel’s statement is so absolute and so easy to refute. Water does curve and this indicates the possibility of a curved earth, which he was denying. Therefore his statement is unfounded and unscientific.

You said: “There is no metal in the ocean waters for them to be magnetically stuck to the underside of a ball, how could this be? Your idea of some magical magnetism holding us stuck to the Earth is just as unprovable and imaginary as Newton’s “gravity”.

This statement is false. Because one, Newton’s gravity cannot be demonstrated. The helium balloon rising alone proves it false. But magnetism is easily shown to be real (and it has been mistaken for “gravity”). Just because you don’t understand how something works, it doesn’t mean it is imaginary and “unprovable”. I was simply providing the only explanation that makes any sense according to the facts, without resorting to a “flat earth” idea.

So do you think that magnetism only attracts or repels metal? Obviously if that is the case, there is a lot about magnetism you don’t understand or you are ruling out other reasonable possibilities. Looking at sites that help explain magnetism as truly being mistaken for gravity might help answer your question.

I quote: “Magnets don't only attract metals, they attract and repel many things, usually you don't notice in everyday life.” 


Continued in the next post.

Richard Paulson said...

Part 3

And from Wikipedia: “Something that is strongly attracted to a magnet is said to have a high permeability. Iron and steel are two examples of materials with very high permeability, and they are strongly attracted to magnets. Liquid oxygen is an example of something with a low permeability, and it is only weakly attracted to a magnetic field. Water has such a low permeability that it is actually repelled by magnetic fields. Everything has a measurable permeability: people, gases and even the vacuum of outer space.”

Look up diamagnetism for instance. They have made a live frog levitate in a magnetic field. “A live frog levitates inside a 32 mm diameter vertical bore of a Bitter solenoid in a magnetic field of about 16teslas at the Nijmegen High Field Magnet Laboratory.”

Here is a quote from wikipedia on diamagnetism:

"Curving water surfaces":

"If a powerful magnet (such as a supermagnet) is covered with a layer of water (that is thin compared to the diameter of the magnet) then the field of the magnet significantly repels the water. This causes a slight dimple in the water's surface that may be seen by its reflection.”

S.G Fowler said that a spherical world would create insurmountable difficulties for an upright man without clawed feet. But only in his ignorant mind. He calls the idea of an invisible force causing things to hold to earth’s surface the most stupid idea. That is of course his own silliness and absolutely ridiculous. Just show him a magnet - what, doesn’t he believe magnetism exists? But he is also calling magnetism gravity, which it isn’t. Gravity and magnetism don't work the same way - they are not the same thing. Gravity was falsely used to explain what is really due to earth’s magnetic field.

Up and down is a matter of perspective. In a geocentric universe there really is an up and down in the sense of north being up and south being down. But also there is the up and down from one’s own perspective. This is not an “aberration of intellect”. Earth is always down and heaven is always up. There is a beauty in this actually, and the fear of some flat earther’s seem to have, is that of falling off, or else they are offended at the thought of “clinging” to one side of the earth.

But what is really confusing is that in a spherical universe, and a flat earth “system”, the celestial north and south are not in the same direction as the north and south on a flat earth etc! That certainly cannot be God’s truth!

William Carpenter’s thinking is also ridiculous. So what difference does it make, if my “up” is not your “up”. I don’t get bothered because a person's right and left is not the same as my right and left, if he is standing opposite to me. And I don't deny that right and left exist, because he can have a different right hand side and left hand side to me. If I am in a valley I don’t get bothered because my surface is lower than someone who is higher up. His "down" is still my "up". The earth is not flat in a sense also - there are mountains. There are hills. Him saying that earth being a globe cannot be God’s truth is ridiculous.

I have answered some of your words but not all your claims of proof as I will need to look at the sites and videos you mentioned. That will take time.

P.S. Eric, I noticed another comment you made but not to me. “What goes up must come down”. But why? Why not fall upward or sideways? That question was a legitimate, scientific and logical one. It was the reason why Newton came up with his conclusion and why people accepted it. It does require an explanation, and if not gravity then it is something else. Since it is not gravity it must be something else. You saying the earth is flat doesn't solve this problem!

Eric Dubay said...

Hey Richard, I answered at the beginning of this comments section the reason behind the deception (please check it out), and it is very close to what you deemed the"heliocentric hoax" and "lies about the heavens."

Latitude is exactly that same on a flat Earth and lines of longitude are straight perpendicular tangents from the North central pole instead of being curved arcs as in the spherical model. Plane sailing is the most common and reliable navigation method, and if you think about it, compasses only make sense on a flat surface.

For thousands of years plane trigonometry has time and again proven more accurate than spherical trigonometry in determining distances across the oceans. It is so commonly used at sea; “Navigation in Theory and Practice” states that, “In practice scarcely any other rules are used but those derived from plane sailing. The great and serious objection to Plane Sailing is that longitude cannot be found by it accurately, although in practice, it is more frequently found by it than by any other method.” So both latitude and longitude are found most often and most accurately by assuming the Earth to be flat, more accurately even than assuming the Earth to be spherical!

“Plane sailing proves that the surface of water is a plane or horizontal surface and in practice it is shown that this plane extends for many thousands of miles. Whether the voyage is outwards or homewards makes no difference; thus showing that a ‘short voyage’ to the Cape and back to England can be accomplished by plane sailing. The fact that water is flat like a sheet of paper (when undisturbed by wind and tide) is my ‘working anchor,’ and the powerful ‘ground tackle’ of all those who reject the delusions of modern theoretical astronomy. Prove water to be convex, and we will at once and forever recant and grant you anything you like to demand.” -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (91)

“If the Earth were a globe, a small model globe would be the very best - because the truest - thing for the navigator to take to sea with him. But such a thing as that is not known: with such a toy as a guide, the mariner would wreck his ship, of a certainty! This is a proof that Earth is not a globe … 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...

The Earth, Sun, Moon, stars and "planets" are all flat discs. That is why the Moon has a "dark side," and no matter where/when on Earth everyone 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 it 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!

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.

Eric Dubay said...

“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”

That stars and planets have been seen through the Moon is a fact, but to this day NASA, modern astronomy and a world full of brainwashed heliocentrists maintain that the Moon is a spherical, Earth-like habitation capable of landing spaceships on. 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)

Eric Dubay said...

The quote you provided says, "If a powerful magnet (such as a supermagnet) is covered with a layer of water (that is thin compared to the diameter of the magnet) then the field of the magnet significantly repels the water." If magnetism repels water how can you claim Earth's magnetism is keeping the oceans stuck to the underside of the ball-Earth? They should be repelled! If this magnetism keeps me stuck to the underside of a ball, how is it I can jump? If I overcome the magnetism enough for both feet to leave the ground and spring say 3 feet up, at 3 feet up, the magnetism would be slightly less than the magnetism I've already conquered closer to Earth by jumping, so what stops me from drifting off into space? How does the magnetism know to kick in to high gear after I leave the surface to bring me back? Why can't I feel the magnetism like a heavy boot when walking if this is what keeps me stuck at all angles to the ball-Earth? Please do read the articles and watch the videos I linked previously. I've been researching the flat Earth for years and promise you I am not wrong about this. Peace

Richard Paulson said...

Hi again Eric,

Don’t you think it is possible for magnetism to repel water from above? But it wasn't even my point to say that this is the way it works. Besides, I did not say that it all had to do with magnetism only. But I said that the magnetic field pushes on the atmosphere. I don't think you or I are expert enough to know how it all works. I am not claiming to know how it all works. I was simply telling you that there are other possibilities for you to consider that had to do with the earth’s magnetic field. That was my only point, and not trying to prove how it all works.

Also, I don't believe that anyone has seen stars through the Moon. Why do you believe people have, and yet not believe the other lies? What makes one person's alleged proof superior to another?

I started looking at your first cited reference/link. From the very beginning I see that this man is talking nonsense and making illogical claims.

I quote his first proof:

1.The aeronaut can see for himself that Earth is a Plane. The appearance presented to him, even at the highest elevation he has ever attained, is that of a concave surface—this being exactly what is to be expected of a surface that is truly level, since it is the nature of level surfaces to appear to rise to a level with the' eye of the observer. This is ocular demonstration and proof that Earth is not a globe.

Eric this is a statement not a proof. One can make up a video of a flying saucer and say it is evidence. Where is his proof? But the fact is that the curve of the Earth cannot be observed at any altitude in earth's atmosphere!!! I would have to be far higher up than the atmosphere goes to be able to see that the earth is a ball, just as I would have to be above a ball to see it as a ball - to see it has more than two dimensions. The horizon cannot curve downwards because it is my horizon! It would have to appear level all around!!! And a person cannot see the curve of the earth also because being a curve it drops from his line of vision. I can only tell that the moon is a ball, because it seems to have dimensions exactly like that of a ball, and only because I can see all around it and carefully examine it, because I am so very far away from it.

But get this: you cannot tell me for sure whether or not the moon is a ball by looking at it even though it is high above your head!!! You can still not disprove it is a ball, even from that far away, but you will claim that it is a disc!!!

I went to another link you gave me, when looking at this point, and there was an illustration showing the balloon above the earth. Well this illustration is so laughable. Nothing has been drawn to scale. The balloon is pictured hundreds of miles above the earth! No one has been that high. To try and prove the earth is not a sphere by going up a few miles is so ridiculous. The horizon cannot bend downwards.

I quote proof number 2

2. Whenever experiments have been tried on the surface of standing water, this surface has always been found to be level. If the Earth were a globe, the surface of all standing water would be convex. This is an experimental proof that Earth is not a globe.

This is silly. All I have to do is go to my kitchen sink and see standing water that is curved! Again, he makes a statement but where are his references on this point? There are none.

Continued in the next post.

Eric Dubay said...

Standing water is not curved Richard. Please watch the videos I linked, and finish reading the articles, you are debating me too much and researching my evidence too little.

Richard Paulson said...

Part 2

I quote proof number 3:

3. Surveyors’ operations in the construction of railroads, tunnels, or Canals are conducted without the slightest “ allowance” being made for “ curvature,” although it is tau^^ht that this so-called allowance is absolutely necessary! This is a cutting proof that Earth is not a globe.

This is just plain stupid! So this is “cutting proof”!! And again he makes an unverified statement that this allowance is absolutely necessary. And yet he calls it “so-called” (bizarre nonsense). Oh really? LOL Why would an allowance need to be made for curvature in the construction of railroads, tunnels or Canals? That might be true if they were placing material down that were each very many miles long, but otherwise there is no need!!!

I quote proof number 4

4. There are rivers that flow for hundreds of miles towards the level of the sea without falling more than a few feef—notably, the Nile, which, in a thousand miles, falls but a foot. A level expanse of this extent is quite incompatible with the idea of the Earth’s “ convexity.” It is, therefore, a reasonable proof that Earth is not a globe.

So how did he manage to find out that the Nile only falls a foot? Measuring from what?! And who did the measuring? The Nile is running water running many miles and yet this could be measured??? That is so ridiculous!! It doesn’t even change more than a foot!!? LOL So the Nile he reckons doesn’t go on any curved surfaces - just a completely flat plain (except for a foot)? There is no up hill or down hill? Not even more than a foot of difference? So does this mean that if it were going down a little hill more significantly and thus not on a completely (or almost completely flat plain) in the stretch of a “thousand miles” that it proves that the earth is curved all around/a sphere? No, it would only prove that it went down hill. This doesn’t prove a single thing. You can’t disprove a curved/spherical earth this way. How can anyone read this senseless rubbish?!

Eric I have only read the first four points and it is absolute trash and I irrefutably have pointed that out. Why are you believing people like this? Why do you call it evidence?

Richard Paulson said...

Eric my point is that standing water can be curved and that the statement that all standing water is not curved is unscientific and false. Look at the puddles on a kitchen sink! Look at water droplets. That is curved water and it isn't moving. It is standing water. Some standing water is not curved, as in a bath tub where it is all walled up with edges.

Richard Paulson said...

Hey Eric I am not debating too much and researching too little. I have only begun to look at the alleged evidence and it is nonsense. How can you even expect me to look further when I continually disprove what I am reading? You would have to refute my points first, but you haven't done that.

You have a blog that says that a level horizon proves a flat earth. That is ridiculous. The horizon cannot bend downward. It is impossible, because it is a horizon.
You are just ignoring the points I am making.

Eric Dubay said...

You're not making points, you're knee-jerk denying valid points offhandedly, stating tautologies like "the horizon cannot bend because it is a horizon." The horizon does not bend because it is a horizon on a flat Earth.

Why would an allowance need to be made for curvature in the construction of railroads, tunnels or Canals?

“As an engineer of many years standing, I saw that this absurd allowance is only permitted in school books. No engineer would dream of allowing anything of the kind. I have projected many miles of railways and many more of canals and the allowance has not even been thought of, much less allowed for. This allowance for curvature means this - that it is 8” for the first mile of a canal, and increasing at the ratio by the square of the distance in miles; thus a small navigable canal for boats, say 30 miles long, will have, by the above rule an allowance for curvature of 600 feet. Think of that and then please credit engineers as not being quite such fools. Nothing of the sort is allowed. We no more think of allowing 600 feet for a line of 30 miles of railway or canal, than of wasting our time trying to square the circle” -W. Winckler, "Earth Review"

The Suez Canal which connects the Mediterranean Sea with the Gulf of Suez on the Red Sea is a clear proof of the Earth’s and water’s non-convexity. The canal is 100 miles long and without any locks so the water within is an uninterrupted continuation of the Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea. When it was constructed, the Earth’s supposed curvature was not taken into account, it was dug along a horizontal datum line 26 feet below sea-level, passing through several lakes from one sea to the other, with the datum line and the water’s surface running perfectly parallel over the 100 miles. The average level of the Mediterranean is 6 inches above the Red Sea, while the floodtides in the Red Sea rise 4 feet above the highest and drop 3 feet below the lowest in the Mediterranean, making the half-tide level of the Red Sea, the surface of the Mediterranean Sea, and the 100 miles of water in the canal, all a clear continuation of the same horizontal line! Were they instead the supposed curved line of globe-Earthers, the water in the center of the canal would be 1666 feet (502 x 8 inches = 1666 feet 8 inches) above the respective Seas on either side!

“The distance between the Red Sea at Suez and the Mediterranean Sea is 100 statute miles, the datum line of the Canal being 26 feet below the level of the Mediterranean, and is continued horizontally the whole way from sea to sea, there not being a single lock on the Canal, the surface of the water being parallel with the datum line. It is thus clear that there is no curvature or globularity for the whole hundred miles between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea; had there been, according to the Astronomic theory, the middle of the Canal would have been 1,666 feet higher than at either end, whereas the Canal is perfectly horizontal for the whole distance. The Great Canal of China, said to be 700 miles in length, was made without regard to any allowance for supposed curvature, as the Chinese believe the Earth to be a Stationary Plane. I may also add that no allowance was made for it in the North Sea Canal, or in the Manchester Ship Canal, both recently constructed, thus clearly proving that there is no globularity in Earth or Sea, so that the world cannot possibly be a Planet.” -David Wardlaw Scott, “Terra Firma” (134)

Eric Dubay said...

“If the earth be the globe of popular belief, it is very evident that in cutting a canal, an allowance must be made for the curvature of the globe, which allowance would correspond to the square of the distance multiplied by eight inches. From The Age, of 5th August 1892, I extract the following: ‘The German Emperor performed the ceremony of opening the Gates of the Baltic and North Sea Canal, in the spring of 1891. The canal starts at Holtenau, on the south side of Kiel Bay, and joins the Elbe 15 miles above its mouth. It is 61 miles long, 200 feet wide at the surface and 85 feet at the bottom, the depth being 28 feet. No locks are required, as the surface of the two seas is level.’ Let those who believe it is the practice for surveyors to make allowance for ‘curvature’ ponder over the following from the Manchester Ship Canal Company (Earth Review, October, 1893) ‘It is customary in Railway and Canal constructions for all levels to be referred to a datum which is nominally horizontal and is so shown on all sections. It is not the practice in laying out Public Works to make allowances for the curvature of the earth.” -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (23)

The London and Northwestern Railway forms a straight line 180 miles long between London and Liverpool. The railroad’s highest point, midway at Birmingham station, is only 240 feet above sea-level. If the world were actually a globe, however, curveting 8 inches per mile squared, the 180 mile stretch of rail would form an arc with the center point at Birmingham raising a full 5,400 feet above London and Liverpool. Adding the station’s actual height (240 feet) to its theoretical inclination (5,400 feet) gives 5,640 feet as the rail’s necessary height on a globe-Earth, more than a thousand feet taller than Ben Nevis, the tallest mountain in Great Britain!

“In projecting railways on a globe, the datum line would be the arc of a circle corresponding to the latitude of the place. That the datum line for the railway projections is always a horizontal line, proves that the general configuration of the world is horizontal. To support the globe theory, the gentlemen of the observatories should call upon the surveyor to prove that he allows the necessary amount for ‘curvature.’ But this is what the learned men dare not do, as it is well-known that the allowance for the supposed curvature is never made.” -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (107)

“In a long line, like that of the Great Pacific Railway, extending across North America, the supposed curvature would, of course, be proportionately great, extending to many miles in height, but not one inch was allowed by the engineers for curvature during the whole course of the construction of that vast line of Railway. And, if we think of it, how could it be otherwise? All Railway metals must, of necessity, be straight, for how could any engine or carriage run with safety on a convex surface?” -David Wardlaw Scott, “Terra Firma” (125)

J.C. Bourne in his book, “The History of the Great Western Railway” stated that the entire original English railroad, more than 118 miles long, that the whole line with the exception of the inclined planes, may be regarded practically as level. The British Parliament Session in 1862 that approved its construction recorded in Order No. 44 for the proposed railway, “That the section be drawn to the same HORIZONTAL scale as the plan, and to a vertical scale of not less than one inch to every one hundred feet, and shall show the surface of the ground marked on the plan, the intended level of the proposed work, the height of every embankment, and the depth of every cutting, and a DATUM HORIZONTAL LINE which shall be the same throughout the whole length of the work.”

Eric Dubay said...

“One hundred and eighteen miles of LEVEL railway, and yet the surface on which it is projected a globe? Impossible. It cannot be. Early in 1898 I met Mr. Hughes, chief officer of the steamer ‘City of Lincoln.’ This gentleman told me he had projected thousands of miles of level railway in South America, and never heard of any allowance for curvature being made. On one occasion he surveyed over one thousand miles of railway which was a perfect straight line all the way. It is well known that in the Argentine Republic and other parts of South America, there are railways thousands of miles long without curve or gradient. In projecting railways, the world is acknowledged to be a plane, and if it were a globe the rules of projection have yet to be discovered. Level railways prove a level world, to the utter confusion of the globular school of impractical men with high salaries and little brains.” -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (109)

“That in all surveys no allowance is made for curvature, which would be a necessity on a globe; that a horizontal line is in every case the datum line, the same line being continuous throughout the whole length of the work; and that the theodolite cuts a line at equal altitudes on either side of it, which altitude is the same as that of the instrument, clearly proves, to those who will accept proof when it is furnished, that the world is a plane and not a globe.” -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (126)

Richard Paulson said...

Hi Eric,

You made this statement:

"You're not making points, you're knee-jerk denying valid points offhandedly, stating tautologies like "the horizon cannot bend because it is a horizon." The horizon does not bend because it is a horizon on a flat Earth."

I am making points, quite obviously. I am not denying valid points in any way whatsoever. I am denying laughable nonsense.

I am not stating tautologies, but because you say this, and the obvious is still not clear to you, (due to the confusion of all those quotations you make which have no sense/proof in them) I will spell this one out as clearly as possible.

If necessary, please go outside somewhere where you can actually see the horizon (preferably all around you). Don't just look at a photo of one little part with a horizontal line drawn across.

I hope this will make it clear enough.

Definition of horizon from the dictionary: "the line at which the earth's surface and the sky appear to meet."

Now if you look with your own eyes, you ought to see that all around you there is this line. This line is called the horizon.

Do you notice that this line is horizontal? Yes of course. It goes horizontal all the way around. Now try and imagine this line of the horizon arching downward at any point. Is it possible? No. Why? Because it is a horizon.

A HORIZON BY DEFINITION IS HORIZONTAL.

You cannot break the line of the horizon at any point and make it curve or go downward. This is true even if the earth were flat. Why? Because it is a physical impossibility. It is absolute nonsense. For it could then not be a horizon, and you cannot be anywhere near earth without having a horizon. And thus it makes no difference how high up in the atmosphere you are when you look at the horizon. The horizon must always be horizontal. Why? Because (and I repeat):

A HORIZON BY DEFINITION IS HORIZONTAL.

Yet you have a blog stating that the always horizontal horizon proves a flat earth. This is the same as saying that the horizon always being a horizon proves that the earth is flat. And that statement is absolute nonsense.

Now, if this, including all my other points are "not points", then I am with Alice in Wonderland.

Eric Dubay said...

A horizontal horizon always rising to the eye-level of the observer is consistent only on a flat plane. If we were living on a ball-Earth, no matter how large, the horizon could NOT rise to the eye-level of the observer all the way up. The horizon would stay where it was and you would have to look DOWN further and further the higher you ascended. Also, the fact that you can zoom in dozens more miles of the flat Earth beyond the horizon using a telescope proves the horizon is the vanishing line of your perspective, NOT the beginning of "the curvature of the Earth" as you are taught.

Richard Paulson said...

For the sake of clarity, just a little correction to my previous post where I said:

"You cannot break the line of the horizon at any point and make it curve or go downward. This is true even if the earth were flat."

But I meant to say this: You cannot break the line of the horizon at any point and make it curve or go downward. This is true if the earth is a sphere just as much as it is true with a flat earth.

Actually also to be technically correct, the earth is not a sphere but an oblate spheroid. It is not a perfect sphere, but very close to it.

Now, to answer your words in your last post.

Without regard to the validity of my last point proving your statement in one of your blog's to be incorrect, you said:

“A horizontal horizon always rising to the eye-level of the observer is consistent only on a flat plane. If we were living on a ball Earth, no matter how large, the horizon could NOT rise to the eye-level of the observer all the way up.”

I don’t think these are real facts. The people you quote from are not speaking scientifically, as there is a very pushy feel to them, and unnecessarily derogatory remarks are made regarding having “little brains”. I don’t know why you think such sources reliable or scientific. I already showed that a horizontal horizon must obviously, always exist whether the earth is spherical or flat. A horizontal horizon is not consistent only on a flat plane.

You said:

“Also, the fact that you can zoom in dozens more miles of the flat Earth beyond the horizon using a telescope proves the horizon is the vanishing line of your perspective, NOT the beginning of the curvature of the Earth as you are taught.”

My answer to this is how do you know you are zooming dozens of more miles (presumably of earth’s surface) beyond the horizon? I don’t think this statement is proven fact. I’ll need more than just someone’s claims on that point.

I found a site to a scientific paper, which shows that there is visual evidence for the curvature of the earth from altitudes. I ask you to read it - it is not long. You will notice that it is without a voice of bias and makes no derogatory remarks concerning a person’s intelligence.

It is in PDF and it is called "Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth" by DK Lynch.

Eric Dubay said...

Apparently you haven't kept up with your NASA lies. The Earth is no longer a sphere or an oblate spheroid, it is now officially pear-shaped, see the following:

Neil DeGrasse Tyson Says Earth is Pear-Shaped

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)

And I'll read your PDF when you watch the documentaries I linked above and you still haven't watched.

Richard Paulson said...

Eric lately you've been mostly quoting other people's stuff and you're not showing your own reasoning much. It is just faith in these particular sources you keep pointing to, and they seem to be as big liars as NASA.

I don't care what NASA thinks. They don't control the whole world. Not everything comes from NASA. I don't believe in the diameter and size and shape of the Earth because of what NASA says. NASA DIDN'T DISCOVER ANY OF THIS. Geography is a well accomplished field of study; it is not astronomy. Maps have been made over the centuries and now we have precise maps of the earth. It's a privilege to have this hard worked for knowledge. NASA absolutely has nothing to do with it. For I base the size and shape of the earth and its actual diameter at the equator and from pole to pole, on other sources that are scientific.

The site I wanted you to read is not from NASA. How do you expect me to read entire books and see entire videos when you can't see the truth of what I am saying?

There is only about 5 or so pages I am asking you to read. I have continually researched since this correspondence and looked at a measure of what you have given me, but then just look at a measure of what I ask you to. That's pretty fair. If you don't want to, you don't have to, as you seem pretty adamant not to change your mind.

I haven't in any way dismissed you, or been unwilling to hear you out, but I can't go against logic and facts.

Here is another thought I wanted to add. The horizon is not really defined as being horizontal at all. The definition of horizon from the dictionary is:

1. the line or circle which forms the apparent boundary between earth and sky (apparent or visible horizon).

So horizon can't be a horizontal line. I knew this, when I agreed it was, but I wasn't even sure what I was trying to refute, because it is so much nonsense. What I meant was that if you look at a small piece of the horizon there is a level or horizontal line. And I thought you were saying that the line had to curve downwards, like an arch, if one was high above, which didn't make any sense. But even if you didn't mean that, none of it actually makes sense anyhow. So how can I understand even exactly what you mean or what to refute since I can't even really see or follow your logic or your point on this? It is so nonsensical. There doesn't seem to be any logic.

The horizon does curve. It is a circle. So making a horizontal line across it in a photo that shows only a small portion of it, and saying there is no curve and that it is always horizontal, is nonsensical. It does curve around and therefore it is not horizontal at all. It is a circle, and a circle is not a horizontal line. Thus what you are saying about the horizon proving a flat earth, because it is always horizontal, can't be true; because that the horizon is never horizontal. That is to say, if you consider the whole picture, and not just one little snippet of the horizon.

So you see the difficulty I am having? What really are the points? Every point you have made has made no sense. And just asking me to look at more information, when everything I have looked at I can easily disprove, or see no evidence for, and without refuting what I am saying, seems unreasonable.

Richard Paulson said...

Hey Eric, I will look at the documentaries because you asked me to. I simply haven't had the time in doing all this, and I only watch videos using the library internet. So it will take time.

Richard Paulson said...

If you look at a photo of the horizon or just see with your own eyes the boundary of a horizontal plane passing through a point of vision then of course there is always a horizontal line. In that sense/definition the horizon is always horizontal (defined as horizontal) and can’t be anything else regardless of whether the earth is spherical or flat. The horizon can’t bend downward because it goes around, because it is also defined as a circle. Because the entire horizon is defined as a circle it is also never completely a horizontal line. It does curve all around. So saying on one hand it never curves is wrong. Because it always curves all around. And saying on another hand that it is always horizontal, means nothing, because a small portion of the horizon can’t be anything but horizontal (whether the earth is spherical or flat).

From what I read in David K Lynch’s article/scientific paper, is that even high up in an airplane, the curve of the earth can be discerned, but that it is difficult to observe or even capture in a photo. So someone’s photo showing that it can’t be or isn’t there, is a joke, because it requires special photography and careful examination. It is not clearly obvious from even up high and often questionable as to whether one sees it or not, and so it is expected to be for one still only high up in the atmosphere. But there is nonetheless photographic evidence that there is a curvature of the earth.

Why would the horizon only rise up to the eye-level of an observer in a flat earth? Because you extend the plane as long as you like? The horizon will rise to the level of an observer going up in an airplane in a spherical earth also. If you draw a circle 19.8 cm in diameter, representing the earth as being 7,926 miles in diameter at the equator, with 40 miles represented by a millimeter (this being as drawn to scale as possible for a small drawing), and 20 miles represented by half a millimeter, you will see that at 20 miles or half a millimeter above that circle the horizon should still have risen to the observer as if the earth were flat. If you have a large enough compass draw the circle twice the size or 39.6 cm in diameter and make 20 miles 1 millimeter. You will see that it makes no difference and to the observer the horizon is as level to him as if the earth were flat.

Richard Paulson said...

Having a closer look at your blog that says an always horizontal horizon proves a flat earth is cause for hysterical laughter. I was right the fist time in what I thought you were saying. There is an illustration showing that the horizon should arch even at sea level (although a horizon can't arch at all, because it goes around)! This is not even fit for a comic book Eric.

One can spend a lot of time laughing at material such as this. This is as close to science as a cartoon show.

I quote, for e.g.

"If the Earth were actually a big ball 25,000 miles in circumference, the horizon would be noticeably curved (even at sea-level), and everything on or approaching the horizon would appear to tilt backwards slightly from your perspective. Distant buildings along the horizon would all look like leaning towers of Piza falling away from the observer."

This is drivel Eric, not science.

Richard Paulson said...

I found further interesting and scientific evidence for a round earth:

Turbulent ship wakes: further evidence that
the Earth is round
David K. Lynch
"When viewed from the stern, a ship’s turbulent wake appears as a narrow strip of bubble-whitened water
converging toward the horizon. The wake does not reach a sharp point on the horizon but has a finite
angular width, indicating that the Earth is not flat, but rather round. A simple analysis of the geometry
of the observations shows that the radius of the Earth can be estimated using only simple instruments
and observations."

This is another short article that can be read by the same guy.

Richard Paulson said...

Hi again Eric

I am reporting after having watched the videos. I have quite a bit to say, and these are my conclusions. I provide a lot of thoughts, and things that I believe ought to be considered, so try to be patient.

I didn’t see that the videos provided any sound evidence for a flat earth, but only some points on the false astronomy people are taught. But it was clear from these videos also that the flat earth idea is just an imaginary theory which does not fit with what is observed or even with the Bible, which I originally explained. Ancient mythologies comparable to aboriginal mythologies which have no basis in reality is not proof. A serpent surrounds their world; and is coiled around and is supporting their world. A clear sign that this is from satanic religions and cults and listening to them/or taking on board their ideas will make one a victim in degrees to influences of evil/lies. Also why is there a snake described as existing in the spine (symbolic or otherwise)? Is Satan up your spine? A clear sign of Satan wanting to be, of course, and wanting to say that he controls or owns the world (thus blasphemously and hideously declaring himself to be God). So this is satanic religion. Satan is the serpent. Or is your version of God a serpent? It is all too obvious. Don’t mix the Bible with ancient satanic religions and mythologies. This is just a belief in cults. The ying yang symbol/idea is also of the occult. Such religions and mythologies are as infinite as one’s ability to imagine and clearly inspired by Satan. I don't know why such imagery doesn't bother your sensibilities. Besides there is no proof.

Has anyone seen ice walls six miles high (enough to cover mount Everest) in a flood? Did a flood cover the high mountains, and yet no water fall off the earth? This is inconsistent with the Bible’s account of the flood of the earth. For water came primarily from beneath the earth. And they were simply subterranean waters.

There is another explanation for God separating the waters from the waters as stated in the Bible. There is not a glass dome over the earth keeping the water out. We are not in a fish tank. One might even notice this because we would be drowned seeing that meteorites constantly fall through it.

If the world had edges and an end as described in a flat earth model then airplanes could easily wander off and people would see a void or alternately possibly reach the fish tank walls. There would be reports of this happening continually. No one can guard airplanes all around the earth’s circumference. That would be just imagining things without the slightest bit of evidence. And anyone can make a video up perhaps to be used as evidence to the contrary just as they make up videos of UFO’s etc. Also people are not crashing into dome or glass walls.

The man who said he saw a lake beneath him in the ocean was talking nonsense. He was in water and yet he could see a lake beneath him? His words made no sense. So this is evidence? LOL You might as well believe in big foot and UFO videos etc.

The flat earth model does not work also because celestial lights go up and down, and clearly are revolving around the earth. To say otherwise is to deny the evidence of one’s own eyes. The sun, moon and stars do not circle around a flat earth. None of them do. They go up around in an arch and come down. Also, the lights would be seen from afar (especially with a telescope) if the earth were flat. The sun and moon and stars DO NOT RECEDE INTO THE DISTANCE. They don’t become dimmer and dimmer to eventually fade from view, like a ship might. This is blazing obvious with the sun, because that sun is fully strong on the horizon, and then twilight and darkness quickly comes. There is no gradual receding light. It quite obviously went down.

Continued in the next post.

Eric Dubay said...

Richard, you are commenting on my Ancient Flat Earth Beliefs video. That is not what I requested for you to watch! There are two videos I asked that you watch and that was not one of them. Please see the two videos I said to watch:

NASA's Fake Ball Earth vs. The True Flat Earth

The Flat Earth Conspiracy Documentary

Richard Paulson said...

My comments are valid. I am commenting then on more than what you asked and have looked at three videos. I include comments on everything I thought significant and I noticed points being repeated, I think perhaps because I watched the other one too. Sorry if that annoyed you. I don’t know how I got the other video you say you didn’t recommend, because I just linked from the same blog and the links you gave me. But I am glad I watched that one too because I needed to understand the actual flat earth models somewhat more to make my comments. Looking at the history of an idea is important also. And in all three I did not see anything convincing. Someone calling things fact is not the same as being fact. It needs to be scrutinized and a person doesn’t just get the truth in a few videos. I continue therefore:

Richard Paulson said...

Part 2

Moreover, I can’t observe the sun in the distance while I am in darkness, or in twilight, like I can the lights of a football stadium in the distance. I can’t see anyone in the light while I myself am in twilight or in a shade of darkness. No one on earth has ever observed such a thing. This alone is proof enough that the earth is not flat. So this ancient mythology is clearly not based in reality. I am speaking here of the continual testimony of one’s own eyes. Are ancient myths greater than what one sees?

Are you actually going to tell me that when I see the sun at the beach descend on the horizon that this is an illusion and expect me/anyone to rather believe in mythology? Or are you going to tell me that when I see the sun rise and arch across the sky that this is an illusion?

How is this different than people saying the stars are suns billions of light years away? It is just as bad as the NASA lies and false astronomy. I already agree that there is presented to the world a completely false teaching of outer space and fake videos and images. But that doesn’t prove a flat earth or speak in favour of it even slightly. I can for instance create fake images of a building, but that doesn’t mean that if the images are false, that therefore a building does not exist. That is fundamental logic, of course.

In these other videos too, I saw things that I already showed to be ridiculous/impossible and senseless and it runs like an entertainment movie with sensationalism and beginning with the most ignorant observations. Have these people not the slightest concept how big the earth is? It would seem they are completely clueless - so I would think they have no idea how big the earth is (even if they say they do). Their talk about the horizon was senseless. I won’t cover that ground much again here, because I already have. This appears to be another spiritual deception that blinds the mind to the obvious. On a ball, if you are small enough the surface never appears to curve. It is always flat. So the surface of the seas when it is calm will appear flat also. People who see in a measure that the infinite universe presented to them in astronomy today is false, are throwing out the baby with the bathwater with this flat earth idea.

I am referring again to one thing though, about what I said before and will briefly mention it. I said that it is “drivel” or ludicrous to say that the earth is flat based on being unable to detect “tower of piza” like objects in the distant horizon. I didn’t think it necessary to state the obvious reason why. The Earth’s curve is too subtle and the Earth too large to see it curve like this. We are microscopic on the earth by comparison. To say one ought to see buildings bending backward on the distant horizon especially at so great a distance when they are scarcely visible is laughable. This could not be discerned at a distance on the horizon.

But even according to their own “logic” this does not work. For they say that ships appearing from beneath the horizon line does not prove a round earth, however, they use the same image or idea to prove that the earth must be flat, because they say that the ships or objects on the horizon should appear to bend backward. They say that seeing ships sink on the horizon is an illusion, but they nonetheless expect to be able to see objects leaning backward from that far. They show things rising above the horizon line and say that a discernible backward bend (however slight) ought to be visible from afar.

Continued in the next post.

Eric Dubay said...

I can’t observe the sun in the distance while I am in darkness, or in twilight, like I can the lights of a football stadium in the distance. I can’t see anyone in the light while I myself am in twilight or in a shade of darkness. No one on earth has ever observed such a thing. This alone is proof enough that the earth is not flat.

No, I've already explained to you, and it was shown in the videos, 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.

“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)

“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)

Richard Paulson said...

Part 3

But why then do ships sink into the horizon? I quote from a flat earth site:

“While the sails of the ship may still be visible while the hull is perceptively merged, it's only a matter of time before it too shrinks into the vanishing point which rests on the surface of the sea and becomes indiscernible from the surface. We know that this explanation is true because there are reports of half sunken ships restored by looking at them through telescopes. It has been found that the sinking ship effect effect is purely perceptual, that a good telescope with sufficient zoom will change the observer's perspective and bring the ship's hull back in full view. This is not possible if the ship were really behind a "hill of water." Hence, the effect which is usually thought to prove the earth as a globe really proves it to be a plane. It's one of the first and primary proofs of a Flat Earth. The fact that a telescope can restore a half-sunken ship demonstrates that the ship is not traveling behind a convex earth.”

So am I just to believe this? No. Notice that the above quotation taken out of the flat earth society says “there are reports”. Why only “reports”? A half sunken ship being made more visible would not prove it is not going to eventually go down the horizon (and therefore not at all prove the earth is flat) if its image is restored by a telescope. Do these reports come because the seas are turbulent at those times? If a ship that is fully sunken beneath the horizon repeatedly can’t be found using binoculars or a telescope, after it has slowly sunk away, then it is showing that the earth is round. Furthermore, they say you must use a good telescope with sufficient zoom. These words are already highly suspect. This implies that without sufficient zoom you can’t see it, and could be used to explain away the facts. No. But just wait until the ship has fully descended into the horizon and then try to find it. The binoculars should pick it up immediately thereafter. If you don’t see anything then the earth is curved.

I quote again from the flat earth site the same thought:

“It is proven that the ship does not sink behind a hill of water, but that it is actually perspective which hides it. This demonstrates that the earth is not a globe. There have been experiments where half-sunken ships have been restored by simply looking at them through telescopes, showing that they are not actually hiding behind "hills water":”

Why only half sunken ships? So a fully sunken ship can’t be restored? That should not be true. This is deceptive speech.

From another site explaining this phenomenon I quote:

“As a ship sails away from your vantage point on shore, it appears not only to get smaller with distance but also to sink below the horizon, the lower parts of the ship disappearing first. This is a consequence of the curvature of the Earth.”

So it doesn’t just get smaller, it sinks. This explanation makes sense.

“Here is a Demonstration [not shown in this quote] that simulates this phenomenon. When the ship nears the horizon, you begin to view it through a telescope. You can then observe it dipping under the horizon until it disappears from view. For example, if your eyes are at an elevation of 1.7 meters (approximately 5' 7"), the visible horizon is about 5 km away. The ship will disappear from view at about 20 km. Because of refraction of light rays, you can actually see about 15% farther than the actual distance when the air temperature is 20°C.”

Continued in the next post.

Eric Dubay said...

You talk about me not knowing the size of the Earth. I know exactly how big they claim the ball is, 25,000 miles circumference, which, as I've told you, determines 8 inches per mile squared measurable curvature which has been repeatedly measured and found NOT to exist. You are in some crazy form of long-winded denial. You're not refuting my evidence, or showing me an experiment that successfully measured curvature of the Earth, most of your comments are just ad hominem attacks.

Eric Dubay said...

So am I just to believe this? No. Notice that the above quotation taken out of the flat earth society says “there are reports”. Why only “reports”?

No, don't believe it, check for yourself, Richard:

The Flat Earth and Ships Beyond the Horizon

It is a fact that the ship's hulls disappear due to perspective, and this is proved by zooming in with binoculars, telescope or camera and watching the entire ship come back into view. 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)

Eric Dubay said...

Why only half sunken ships? So a fully sunken ship can’t be restored? That should not be true. This is deceptive speech.

It's not Richard! I've shown examples in the videos you claim to have watched. At 8:15 in my Flat Earth Documentary you can see a completely clear beach horizon, then when zoomed in you can see the entire opposite shoreline which was previously invisible beyond the horizon. This proves the horizon is the vanishing line of perspective and NOT the curvature of the ball-Earth as I keep telling you! You are ignoring my facts with your opinions.

Richard Paulson said...

Eric can you please wait until I finish my posts as they are in parts. Study them like I studied what you showed me, and then make your comments. I have researched much more than what you have told me too. And I am including research you haven't mentioned.

Part 4

Flat earthers make statements without sufficient learning or demonstrations as to what they are speaking is fact. Lots of people can also do that whatever their persuasion may be. Web sites are commonly filled with errors. I will make a much better quote now. I am in the following quoting from an old English book and have “translated” the words a little as best as I could from some older English spelling but could not figure out what “reft” meant. Anyhow you can look it up:

In a book called the “Royal Road To Geometry” by Thomas Malton, in book 1, “Elements of Geometry” page 151, he states:

“This convexity of the earth would be obvious, to ocular conviction, if its Surface was regular. In a perfect Calm, when the Surface of the Sea is at reft, it is discernible, that a Ship at a distance, in going from Land, will gradually appear to descend; the Bottom or Hull of the Vessel will soon be lost to sight; and, by means of Telescopes, the Sails and Rigging of the Ship may be seen, when the Hull is apparently sunk in the Water; which alone, is sufficient conviction, to any thinking Person, of the Earth’s rotundity.”

You will note that he is saying that if the earth were flat the entire ship would be recoverable through observing via a telescope. He said that entire ships could not be seen with telescopes. This is from a learned man.

Moreover, instead of just believing videos and ancient mythologies, get yourself a telescope or binoculars and just see. Test out the words.
If this is supposed to be sound evidence, from these videos, then they have scarcely done any research and this research proves that they are wholly ignorant of many things. They did point out some lies about space travel which supports an unimaginable infinite universe, as the sun for instance cannot be as far as people are told. But it is just swallowing another lie to say the earth is flat.

Perhaps some of the said proofs for a spherical earth are laughable too, and this may put people off from seeing the truth. But the point of false images of earth is not to prove the shape of the earth (except in flat earth thinking), but it is to prove they are in space.

Regardless of anyone’s said evidence, simply your own eyes and logic ought to be able to see the truth. Just by looking at the horizon, one ought to see what I am saying - that the stated or said proofs for a flat earth is absurd. It ought to be obvious, but false information blurs the perception.

Some of the stated evidence for a round earth that appear legitimate are:

1. Ships and the horizon (as mentioned) but test it out. Study learned books
2. Varying star constellations
3. Shadows and sticks
4. Seeing farther from higher
5. Riding a plane

Not all the said mentioned proofs for a round earth are real in the site I got these points from. I got this from a site called “top 10 ways to know the earth is not flat”. I don’t agree with them all however or think they are the top 10.

Even if I (or we) didn’t believe anyone’s evidence regarding whether the earth is spherical or flat, the proof of one’s eyes attests to a spherical earth, and the fact that visually and sensibly the flat earth concept is not logically conceivable.

Conclusion in the next post.

Richard Paulson said...

Conclusion:

If we start with a clean slate and say we don’t believe anyone, but only what our own eyes see and mind can tell us, we should see that the earth is spherical.

The sun, moon and stars are seen to go up and arch and come down. This tells us that the universe is spherical. Even the flat earth model of the universe that I have seen doesn’t argue against a spherical universe. I saw an illustration of a flat earth model in a spherical universe and the actual model doesn’t make sense, even if I/one discards everything else from the mind for or against any model of the universe.
The flat earth model appears as a disc hovering within a sphere. Now, it is true that in another version it may be floating on water, but then why have ice walls at all at the edge of the earth? If the earth were just a surface in a fish tank then there is no need. A person could walk up to the edge of the universe and tap it with his finger. This fish tank image is just too absurd. Thus I will speak of this other model of a flat earth hovering in space.

This flat earth model shows that things must fall if not supported by anything. Then why doesn’t the disc in that sphere fall to the bottom of the spherical universe? It must therefore admit invisible forces that hold it up. But these invisible forces work in a spherical universe. The flat earth idea states that things must fall to the ground and it thus creates an ice barrier all around the alleged disc of the earth. This is to keep the water from seeping off, and yet the earth itself can be held upon nothing. See the obvious contradiction? But in seeing the sun rise and arch across the sky (a sun strong enough to keep much of the earth constantly hot) I must see it also coming down and shining upon those ice walls. The sun is even witnessed to remain shining at these icy regions for 6 months at a time. But even regardless of that, why don’t these ice walls melt? The sun rising and coming down continually would at least create some melting in parts of the alleged disc-earth and all the water would seep out and fall off the earth or fall to the bottom of the spherical universe where the earth should (by the same logic) already be.

Also, you cannot make the earth an infinite plane. The heavenly bodies/lights then could not revolve around the earth because they would hit that plane as I mentioned once before. But also, an infinite plane is already impossible. One cannot have an infinite number of things already in existence. An infinite number is no number at all. So creation must be limited and a closed system.

A straight line does not close a system but a circular one does. But it must be more than a circle. It must be spherical because a circle may represent only a disc. It must be a closed system on every side. And since the earth is not all there is, attested to by the fact that the heavens are above and hence all around as clearly witnessed, “up” and “down” are not laws defining motion. Otherwise the disc-earth would itself fall down to the bottom of the spherical universe. Thus the earth in order to exist within that closed system must be spherical in nature or a closed system itself held by forces where nothing can fall or leap off. (And beyond the limited spherical universe, there is nothing at all - not even empty space.)

My conclusion concludes in the next post.

Richard Paulson said...

Conclusion

For the only way to keep people or water from “falling off”, is by creating forces (not mere walls inconsistent with a spherical universe) that work in such a way as to make things stay on the surface or fall to the surface. If one understands fundamental logic, as Newton did (regardless of all his false conclusions), one can see that there is no reason why an object within free space, ought to fall one way such as “down” and not another, such as “up” or “sideways”. Invisible forces must exist in order to create the phenomena we see. This concept is denied in a simplistic flat earth model, because everything accordingly must fall down. I see this and I haven’t yet needed to cite the Bible as proof. Yet here it is in Job 26:7 “He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.” God does hang the earth upon nothing. Nothing is “no physically tangible thing”. The earth does not float upon water. Thus I come to the same conclusion of a spherical earth and universe based on what my own eyes see and my own logic must from them deduce.

Eric Dubay said...

I've gone through each of the 10 "proofs" in that article in another post Richard, they are all easily debunked and far from proof of anything but the gullibility of the masses.

I explained #1 completely above, #2 varying star constellations is based on perspective not the Earth being a ball, that's why you can see the pole star descend in the sky as you move away from the North Pole. Perspective, not a ball. #3 Eratosthenes experiment is assuming the Sun is millions of miles away with light rays coming in all at the same angle. They do not, they Sun is very close, as proven at 3:00 here. #4 Seeing further at higher altitudes is again clearly explained by the law of perspective on plane surfaces and has nothing to do with proving the Earth a ball. And #5 East / West circumnavigation in a plane is just as possible on a flat plane as a ball as I've already explained. You claim to have watched my documentary and the ball-Earth vid, 2 hours of damning evidence, but you mentioned nothing about them, you just talked about these ball-Earth "proofs" you found and ignored everything in my documentary, why is that?

Richard Paulson said...

I am not ignoring your facts with my opinions (which are not opinions but plain facts). But your opinions are not facts. Someone’s video is not proof Eric. Stop quoting videos. I will go to the shore myself and tell you what I see. And if still that isn’t proof, a flat earth is still disproved in so many ways, already.

You said:

“You are in some crazy form of long-winded denial. You're not refuting my evidence, or showing me an experiment that successfully measured curvature of the Earth, most of your comments are just ad hominem attacks.”

So what would have me do? I will not renounce the Bible's statements, my own vision, and reason, for the sake of YouTube videos. Why are you so silent about all I have spoken of how you have taken all the Scriptures out of context? I have also shown that the Bible supports a spherical earth because it is hung upon nothing. It is you who have continually ignored what I have shown.

I find your saying all this very odd. I am not in some crazy form of long-winded denial. I have continually refuted your evidence - which is easy to do since there is no evidence whatsoever. They are your beliefs not evidence. And when I have raised the points continually you have denied them as being real, and only gone back to your same erroneous sources. All you need to do is realize a small part of what I have said, and you will see that your view is false. This law of perspective you keep mentioning is just an imagination. Just get yourself a pair of binoculars or telescope and see for yourself. Ships don’t just fade out into a tiny speck, they sink.

But you can disregard every claim you think is not real proof and just use your own eyes and see that your sources are talking nonsense.

You didn’t even admit that the Bible refutes what you believe rather than supports your view like you claimed. The Bible itself says the sun goes up and down. It is very clear on this. So are your own eyes, but you prefer to hold to some obscure books that you have so much faith in and is no proof. This is simply a denial of reality itself. Also, the world has been mapped in terms of a spherical earth.

One doesn’t even need to quote anything (although I have). One just needs to see with one’s own eyes. You call my words some crazy form of long winded denial because I don’t believe YouTube videos. That is utterly ridiculous. And yet I have shown the folly of your quotes and of your sources. It seems to me the other way around. Your sources are definitely crazy and a long winded denial of reality itself. If I am attacking anything then it is the spirit of these lies you are so focused upon.

So I have no idea what you mean. You say I “claim” to have watched the videos. Are you really so certain that it provides such solid proof that any reasonable person watching them must be convinced? That is an exceedingly odd view to take considering what I have seen. You have implied twice that I am lying to you. I am not lying. I have watched them but if that is supposed to mean I took in or captured every part, especially when I was still writing to you, then no. But I took more time today to be sure I got the main parts. Just listening to music and seeing images of space, didn’t particularly interest me and was irrelevant to this discussion so I did skim parts - if you want to be technical. Overall, it is irrelevant. If you can only understand my words, you would see there is no evidence and that you have quoted from ridiculous sources to prove your theory about the earth. But I am not ignoring and haven’t ignored anything. I have suffered through the rubbish of this brainwashing material and groaned at the absolute ridiculousness of it. So don’t just expect me to soak it in.

Also I did answer the things that were in your videos, besides other things, so I don’t know what you are talking about. The videos didn’t actually cover much more ground that was already covered in what I had read and already wrote to you about.


Continued in the next post.

Richard Paulson said...

You say you have already explained everything but nothing is clear, because it is nonsense as I keep telling you, and you seem to only want to refuse to hear that it is possibly nonsense.

You are quoting and believing utter lies. It is NOT proven. Your sources are lies and from liars if not merely stupid people, who you credit with knowledge.

All 10 proofs are not easily debunked, (and I wasn’t saying some of them weren’t false, because they certainly are). But I wasn’t relying on that to disprove a flat earth. I was in effect saying that your “proof” is no better.

I quote:

“You talk about me not knowing the size of the Earth. I know exactly how big they claim the ball is, 25,000 miles circumference, which, as I've told you, determines 8 inches per mile squared measurable curvature which has been repeatedly measured and found NOT to exist.”

So you know the miles of it? But then how is it possible for you to have kindergarten pictures of so called proof on your “an always horizontal horizon proves a flat earth” blog? How then can you miss the obviousness of this? This alone discredits your whole position and shows it to be false. I hoped that in my striving to show you this point you would see how struck blind you have been. If you can at least admit and just see one point! Just one!

This is not a new point and I am in absolute wonder that you cannot see it. But I will try again.

The illustrations in that blog are enough to kick your entire belief about this goodbye. For this shows the quality of your sources.

I ask you to look at the silliness of your own stuff. Look at the level, tripods, and wooden plank illustration. It shows the ocean and horizon in the background as it allegedly should be in a round earth, namely with the earth/ocean arching across, and beneath that, it shows the way it allegedly really is, in a flat earth. Now how completely idiotic is this “proof” Eric!?

For goodness sake, wake up. The earth does not and cannot arch like this in a spherical earth also. Have you never stepped outside of your house that you can’t see this? Go to the beach. Look at the ocean. Unless there is an actual hill on the horizon, the horizon must be level, or horizontal, because it curves around, it does not go up and down like an arch. If you have eyes to see, then see. There is no controversy.

You have complicated a simple matter. There is no and never was a question about the earth being spherical in my mind because I have two eyes in my head. The flat earth is all a lie. You are off on tangents with invalid or alleged proofs - mere theories that deny reality as I have time and again pointed out.

Look again also at the illustration beneath the one I just mentioned with the picture of land on top across the earth. On the left it shows the earth as it allegedly should appear if it was round. On the right hand side it shows it as it allegedly is on a flat earth. How can a person see the earth like this unless he wasn’t anywhere near the earth? He cannot. This doesn’t even belong in a kindergarten book for education Eric.

So now you know why I said what I said about you not knowing the size of the earth. I didn’t mean about not knowing the miles, but that your perspective has been manipulated from lying words. This law of perspective is the biggest rubbish. You can’t blame me for saying any of this if you can just realize this point. And is it still possible that you cannot see this though I have repeatedly stated it? And do you still want to talk to me about videos? I am very astonished.

Richard Paulson said...

Postscript.

Anything might be argued as being “possible” but who circumnavigates the world in the way you claim can happen, today? Who is using a flat earth map today to circumnavigate the world? Fairies? A flat earth map must be very different from the spherical earth map that is used constantly today, of course!

Show me historical records and reports from all around the world of ice walls that run along the entire circumference of the earth.

Cartographers and navigators and sailors and pilots have not recorded any such thing. There should be an abundance of maps by now showing these mythic ice walls. Or will you still search or prefer to believe in fairy tale literature? The world has been mapped to a tee and it has been travelled for long time using longitude and latitude. This longitude and latitude is only usable in a spherical earth.

I quote from Wikipedia:
“The history of longitude is a record of the effort, by navigators and scientists over several centuries, to discover a means of determining longitude.
The measurement of longitude is important to both cartography and navigation. Historically, the most important practical application of these was to provide safe ocean navigation. Knowledge of both latitude and longitude was required. Finding a method of determining longitude took centuries and involved some of the greatest scientific minds.”

Longitude and latitude was and is used to define every point on a spherical earth. The fact that it is possible to travel to every point on earth using longitude and latitude proves that the earth is spherical.

The whole world has been travelled and mapped using longitude and latitude according to a spherical earth. A person can get lost without it. So it works because the earth is spherical.

“Every point on Earth can be expressed with a unique set of latitude and longitude coordinates (i.e., lat/lon coordinates). Latitude—specified as degrees north (N) or south (S)—and longitude—specified as degrees east (E) or west (W)—are expressed in degrees, arcminutes, and arcseconds (e.g., a lat/lon of 39:46:05N, 104:52:22W specifies a point in Denver, Colorado).”

Read more: Latitude and Longitude - Lines, Earth, North, and Distance - JRank Articles http://science.jrank.org/pages/3852/Latitude-Longitude.html#ixzz3QjmGPYjz

Eric Dubay said...

Why are you so silent about all I have spoken of how you have taken all the Scriptures out of context?

Because I've already sufficiently explained the Biblical evidence, and unlike yourself, I don't take the King James Bible to be the infallible word of God, I take it to be one of many ancient Holy texts with much true factual information mixed with parables, allegories, astrotheology, numerology, and occult symbolism. Just observing how different our two interpretations of the Bible are, shows how using scripture as "proof" of anything is futile.

This law of perspective you keep mentioning is just an imagination.

You're ridiculous, ask any artist. Look up at a flock of geese and notice the first one in the flying "V" shape flying away from you seems closer to the horizon. It's not. It's flying the same height as the rest of the geese, but it seems lower towards the horizon because of the law of perspective you think doesn't exist. The same happens with a row of street lights. "Just my imagination," that's rich!

Who is using a flat earth map today to circumnavigate the world? Fairies? A flat earth map must be very different from the spherical earth map that is used constantly today, of course!

Both Plane Sailing and Great Circle Sailing, the most popular navigation methods, use plane, not spherical, trigonometry, Richard.

“Plane Sailing is usually defined to be the art of navigating a ship on the supposition that the earth is a plane … even when longitude enters into consideration, it is still with the plane triangle only that we have to deal … but as the investigation here given in the text shows, the rules for plane sailing would equally hold good though the surface were a plane.” -J.R. Young, “Navigation and Nautical Astronomy”

“It must be evident to everyone who understands what a triangle is, that the base of any such figure on a globe would be an arc of a circle, of which the center would be the center of the globe. Thus, instead of a plane triangle, the figure would contain one plane angle and two spherical angles. Hence, if the plane triangle is what we have to deal with, and such is the case, the base of the triangle would be a straight line - the ocean. That all triangulation used at sea is plane, proves that the sea is a plane. The foregoing quotation states that a plane triangle is used for a spherical surface, but ‘the rules for plane sailing would equally hold good though the surface were a plane.’ What fine reasoning! It is like saying that the rules for describing a circle are those used for drawing a square, but they would equally hold good though the figure were a square.” -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (88)

Eric Dubay said...

Plane Sailing is navigating a ship making all mathematical calculations on the assumption that the Earth is perfectly flat. If the Earth were in fact a sphere, such an errant assumption would lead to constant glaring inaccuracies, and the necessity for using spherical trigonometry would become obvious. Plane Sailing has worked perfectly fine in both theory and practice for thousands of years, however, and plane trigonometry has time and again proven more accurate than spherical trigonometry in determining distances across the oceans. It is so commonly used at sea; “Navigation in Theory and Practice” states that, “In practice scarcely any other rules are used but those derived from plane sailing. The great and serious objection to Plane Sailing is that longitude cannot be found by it accurately, although in practice, it is more frequently found by it than by any other method.” So both latitude and longitude are found most often and most accurately by assuming the Earth to be flat, more accurately even than assuming the Earth to be spherical!

“Plane sailing proves that the surface of water is a plane or horizontal surface and in practice it is shown that this plane extends for many thousands of miles. Whether the voyage is outwards or homewards makes no difference; thus showing that a ‘short voyage’ to the Cape and back to England can be accomplished by plane sailing. The fact that water is flat like a sheet of paper (when undisturbed by wind and tide) is my ‘working anchor,’ and the powerful ‘ground tackle’ of all those who reject the delusions of modern theoretical astronomy. Prove water to be convex, and we will at once and forever recant and grant you anything you like to demand.” -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (91)

“If the Earth were a globe, a small model globe would be the very best - because the truest - thing for the navigator to take to sea with him. But such a thing as that is not known: with such a toy as a guide, the mariner would wreck his ship, of a certainty! This is a proof that Earth is not a globe … 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)

Richard Paulson said...

I am not ridiculous Eric. You are ridiculous. Have you read the entire Bible like you said you would? Or does it take a couple of months for you to know and assess everything? You don’t know what the Bible is. You don’t know its history or have any knowledge of its truth. Also, if you did you would know there are no other versions. You can't have contradicting versions of truth. That is silly.

You seem to just accept anything that suits your palate. The Bible is not an occult book. You ought to fear God and find out who he is rather than speak against his Word. You haven't done that. The Bible says the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.

If one wants to see occult/evil material just look at your site. Did you change for instance in one of your books at least, saying that Jesus is not God etc? I doubt it yet you said to me you would not at least deny that he is.

You focus on exposing freemasonry etc, and yet you have a freemasonry yin yang symbol in your philosophy. You are clearly very confused about everything.

A flock of geese going in the horizon does not prove a flat earth. There may be such a thing as a law of perspective in many ways, I wasn't denying that, but not as you understand it demanding it proves a flat earth.

You show you don’t know how to research. You don’t weigh any evidence justly. It doesn't appear to be honest, so I don’t know why you claim to be a seeker of truth.

You have sources that are satanic and beliefs that come from or are based in satanic religions, philosophy and mythology.

If using anything from the Bible is futile then why did you use it? So you are speaking rubbish Eric. You are not being honest or reasonable.

Why don’t you actually read my words? I said who uses a flat earth map to circumnavigate the world? So what you said about that is irrelevant.

This is enough proof Eric:

Longitude and latitude was and is used to define every point on a spherical earth. It doesn't work on a flat earth. The fact that it is possible to travel to every point on earth using longitude and latitude which only works on a spherical earth proves that the earth is spherical. Who uses a flat earth map!? Tell me Eric: Who uses a flat earth map? Who uses a map showing ice walls surrounding the earth with odd lines inconsistent with true longitude and latitude?

Read again:

So you know the miles of it (earth)? But then how is it possible for you to have kindergarten pictures of so called proof on your “an always horizontal horizon proves a flat earth” blog? How then can you miss the obviousness of this? This alone discredits your whole position and shows it to be false.

The illustrations in that blog are enough to kick your entire belief about this goodbye. For this shows the quality of your sources.

I ask you to look at the silliness of your own stuff. Look at the level, tripods, and wooden plank illustration. It shows the ocean and horizon in the background as it allegedly should be in a round earth, namely with the earth/ocean arching across, and beneath that, it shows the way it allegedly really is, in a flat earth. Now how completely idiotic is this “proof” Eric!? 

Also, provide solid evidence for ice walls surrounding the entire earth. Provide scientific journals, written historical records etc. Don’t just use your imagination. Imagination is not proof.

I want scientific proof. Documentation. Where is it Eric? Where is it?

So far, it seems I just ought to ignore you, because you are not answering or reading properly anything I am saying and I have been very patient, and studious to answer you.

Richard Paulson said...

The quotes you made are incredibly idiotic and foolish.

"Plane sailing proves that the surface of water is a plane or horizontal surface"

This doesn't prove the earth is not curved. This is so dumb.

"If the Earth were a globe, a small model globe would be the very best - because the truest - thing for the navigator to take to sea with him. But such a thing as that is not known: with such a toy as a guide, the mariner would wreck his ship, of a certainty!"

It is by longitude and latitude you moron, William Carpenter.

"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,

O you idiot David Wardlaw Scott. Which is easier to read, a globe or a flat piece of paper?

So these idiots are your sources Eric?

Richard Paulson said...

So you call me ridiculous and try to feed me with more ridiculous thoughts. Let me prove just on this point even that you are really declaring yourself to be ridiculous, because clearly, you saying I am ridiculous for not believing your view of the law of perspective is a lie. You said:

"Look up at a flock of geese and notice the first one in the flying "V" shape flying away from you seems closer to the horizon. It's not. It's flying the same height as the rest of the geese, but it seems lower towards the horizon because of the law of perspective you think doesn't exist."

1. The first bird appears lower toward the horizon because it is smaller. It is smaller to my vision seeing it is further away. Thus it appears lower. I still see however, the entire bird. The bird has not sunk beneath the horizon line where I can no longer see it.

Also the next point proves this most clearly,

2. The street light row shows this too. The furthest street light toward the horizon appears lower because it also appears smaller due to the fact that it is further away. But I still can see the bottom of it, regardless of its distance. The bottom of it does not sink below my vision. The bottom of it does not sink out of view or beneath the horizon line. I see it in its entirety. And with binoculars I can see it more clearly.

So your particular law of perspective that allegedly proves a flat earth does not exist as I said. In denying it as truth I again show that ships gradually sinking beneath the horizon line proves that the earth is round.

Your particular version of the law of perspective is not true. It is imaginary.

You have throughout this correspondence ignored my many proofs of reality and ranted on without sense. Stop listening to stupid people and stupid books.

Another point is that there are no errors in the King James Bible, and you can't prove that it has a single error; and yet you claim it is not infallible.

Prove something before you make a conclusion. Prove that it is not infallible.

Eric Dubay said...

I give up on you Richard, have fun on your bouncing ball-Earth! Peace

Nicole Kenworthy said...

My friend told me to look into this and all I can say is Wow. I feel like an idiot for just nodding my head yes when they said all these silly things in school. The only thing I can not understand or find information on would be why? What do they gain from having us believe the earth is round?? Maybe it was written right in my face and I did not notice it, but that's the most challenging part for me.

Patrick Huet said...

Hi Eric
Just finished reading "The Flat Earth Conspiracy" for the second time. Thank you for removing another layer of amnesia and clearing more of my mental cobwebs. I have a question.
In the heliocentric fantasy model we are told that the sequential "planetary" order of proximity to the Sun is Mercury, Venus, Terra (Earth), Mars, Asteroid Belt, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto.
My question is as follows: is the sequence the same in the geocentric flat Earth model considering the lies from NASA (Never A Straight Answer)?
Any information on that subject would be greatly appreciated.
Your work is a breath of fresh air. Many thanks.
Patrick Huet

Eric Dubay said...

Hey Nicole, you can find the answer for motive here:

Why They Lie to us About the Flat Earth

Patrick, thanks so much for the support! As far as I know from old Geocentric info, the model of Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, (and perhaps Pluto?) are wandering stars which instead of orbiting fixed circles around the heavens, make circular orbits around the Sun, which itself is circling. The resulting spirographic patterns show the "retrograde motion" and are likely in the correct order for closest and farthest from the Sun in their orbits. I discussed and have a visual of it here:

Eric Dubay Real Flat Earther Interview

Patrick Huet said...

Hi Eric
Thank you for answering my question. Your answer was most helpful. Now that we know that Terra is flat, does not rotate, is not inclined and most importantly does not wobble on its axis, how would you explain the so-called precession of the Spring equinox which is not a scientific fact according to this website?: http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Articles/3-3/uwe-pub.htm.
(Sorry I don't know how to insert a link into your document yet!) The author of that article, Uwe Homann, mentioned that his father Karl-Heinz Homann discovered that Sirius does not precess http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.org/srg/SiriusResearchIntro.shtml.
So does that mean that Sirius is also stationary like Terra and somehow is Terra's twin if the binary model is accepted? If precession is not a fact then what makes the Spring Equinox retrograde against the backdrop of the constellations at the rate of 1 degree every 72 years? Is this due to an alleged rotation of Terra and Sirius around a common center which according to the flat Earth model does not apply or is this due to the rotation of the stars around Polaris? Or is the cause of this retrograde motion explained by the rotation of the firmament?
I apologize for throwing all these questions at you and as you can tell by now, I have much confusion in my mind. Again any help from you in answering my questions would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks.
Patrick

jello069 said...

Hello Eric! It's been awhile now that I've intuitively felt there's is much to understand about the "Flat Earth" model and the truth of our place within this plane. I do not express this openly with anyone, but now that you're eloquently explaining the theory along with several proofs of it's existence, I'm slowly feeling like creeping "out the closet" about this conviction, and pointing others to your work. Everything being taught to humanity at large are, for the most part, lies and deceit elitists in secret societies are pushing for an agenda. An agenda I've yet to fully comprehend as I'm not a part, but would love more than anything to expose. You're on the right path brother. :) I've a question regarding these blood moon Tetrads. Unless it's already been addressed and you can point me towards an answer, I'd like to know how it is the moon would acquire that red hue as was witnessed the other night... there's definitely something strange about these Tetrads. Please let me know your thoughts on this. Peace and blessings.

Anonymous said...

why are we at all here on earth...?
why do we do all the things we do...?
why we went up to the moon..?
why we discover things...?
why is life given to us...?
is there really a thing called GOD...?
.
.
.
can anybody answer...?

brian50g said...

I am no physicist, just some guy with a lot of common sense. Hoping I can word this right so is makes sense...On the moon orbiting the Earth, or any 2 sherical bodies that orbit eachother...I am guessing that thier theories say that the distance between the two is such that the pull of gravity that would make the two bodies colide is overcome by the centrifugal force of the orbit, balanced just right to keep the two at a constant distance without gravity eventually overcoming the centrifugal force and pulling the two bodies together or the opposite and centifugal force eventually overpowering the gravity and causing the two "planets" to go farther away from eachother. If this is the case wouldn't that be perpetual motion? I thought that by the laws of physics perpetual motion is not possible?

Anonymous said...

Hi there, I'm keen to learn "Who created the firmament and why?", from your perspective.

Thanks very much

Steve Thomas said...

Interesting video. I'm not here to disagree with the video as a whole, but I just want to point out a couple things so that, perhaps, the next video will have more strength in the argument.

On the Horizon bit, with the camera in space and straight lines etc. If you look at the corner of a wall where it meets the ceiling, Keeping your eyes in one spot gives off a curvature effect as it appears to get lower toward the corners. This effect will take place as you follow it along, HOWEVER, say you take a camera, or something with a fixed smaller frame and follow it along the way, the wall will stay as a straight line, but the direction will change as you pan across. Point being that with a smaller frame of reference it is always going to appear straight.

The 2nd thing i'd like to say is in the same vein, but the 'Inverted Earth' Go Pro camera thing, It's just using a Fish-Eyed Lense. It's like looking at a spoon, you'll see your reflection get inverted.

Again, not to debunk or anything, Just offering advice to strengthen your argument. :) Cheers

Sam I. said...

I have only been introduced to the flat earth theory a couple of days ago but I find that a lot of what is being said makes sense. You wrote how we have been taught that the moon does not give off any light of its own but is merely a reflection of the sun's light. I had forgotten that I had learned that in school (a long time ago). This statement contradicts what the Bible says. The Bible says that God created two great lights. The greater light is the sun and the lesser light the moon. But they are both lights. This fact alone has peeked my interest a step further into looking at the flat earth logic.

Sam I. said...

Hi Eric,
I see things that make sense and other things that don't make sense on both sides of the equation all the while trying to wrap my brain around the fact that the earth may be totally different than what I have believed all my life. As you can understand I have many questions and the more I read about the flat earth the more questions arise. Questions, not only regarding flat earth but ball-earth. One question that I do have for you is why are there different phases of the moon? Full moon, quarter moon, new moon? How is that explained in a flat earth?
I must add that you have now made me a sceptic. Not so much a sceptic of a flat earth but a sceptic of both sides. I am having trouble knowing WHAT to believe. I'm digging and looking for answers. One thing that I do know is that scientist have lied about evolution to discredit a Creator God. So I am leaving an opened mind to the lie of a ball-earth.
Thanks

AndysGame Sym said...

My uncle past away a couple years ago and left me his Earthquake Engineering book. He was a engineer back in the Vietnam war. It has so much information on Earthquakes and other seismic activity logs, etc.. I could post a few screenshots if anyone cares to see.

Anonymous said...

Good Day Eric,

About Satellites & Digital TV

First of all, thank you for this blog and the massive amount of documents you published free of charge !
I had a conversation lately with one of my colleagues who knows a bit about waves and transmission.

And this is what he states :

If SATs do not exist, then the TV signals would have to be generated straight from the ground to the ""Sky"" at a certain height in order to reach the domestic dishes.
And this would imply:

- The presence of significantly high, ground-based antennas in every country in the world
- These antennas should be located roughly every mile as TV signals (found on a 11/12Ghz spectrum) do not propagate on a very long distance.

But so far, such an infrastructure does not exist. Even if it did, many people living nearby these antennas would "fry" in such terrible conditions !


Therefore, I have 2 questions for you Eric, if you will :

- If SATs dont exist, how do boats manage to get TV signals in the middle of the ocean (where obviously there are no relays)
- How is it possible to receive , for instance , Japanese TV in Europe 24/24 / with no interruption ?


On the technical side of things, can you explain what mecanism is used to propagate such high frequency waves from the ground on a very long distance and then create the "illusion" of a proper SAT system ? Indeed, these clarifications are missing on the YT video "Satellites do not exist".


Many thanks in anticipation,

Greetings from France,

Anthony

© 2015 Microsoft Terms Privacy & cookies Developers English (United Kingdom)

Anonymous said...

So if the earth is flat, what are the so called stars and planets? holograms? if yes then the space is also a black hologram. but what's really outside the flat earth?

Josh La Russa said...

Eric, I would like some help in defeating the concave earth theory. Do you have any great resources? I have thus far just been reversing the convex earth problems onto the concave earthers. Thanks.

AndysGame Sym said...

Satellites don't exist it's just radio comm towers and ariel photos from airplanes

AndysGame Sym said...

aerial photos*

Anonymous said...

Hi AndysGame Sym,

"Satellites don't exist it's just radio comm towers and aerial photos from airplanes"

Thanks for your reply, but I already knew about this.
And to date, my questions still remain unanswered :-(


1/

TV waves (micro-waves, supra-high frequency waves, Ku band), which are found on a 11/12GHz spectrum, DO NOT propgate very well on a long distance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_band).
To "make it work", you would need to deploy a pylon relay at every mile or so... and since such an infrastructure doesn't exist, how do they do ? what is the trick ?


2/

If SATs dont exist, how do boats manage to get TV signals in the middle of the ocean (where obviously there are no relays) ?

3/

How is it possible to receive , for instance , Japanese TV in Europe 24/24 / with no interruption ?


Thanks in anticipation to whomever will anwser my questions.


Cheers.

Anthony.

Jenny Venter said...

Hi Eric!
I'm an absolute sworn flat earther! Although I have a few questions I need to get answered. I understand that the sun, moon and stars are ABOVE the glass dome firmament.
If so, what about the waters above the firmament, according to Genesis 1?
Are the sun, moon and stars above the water, above the firmament?
Another thing that's puzzling me is a video - actually 2 seperate ones - about the sun, and the other about the moon with clouds BEHIND it?
How is that possible? Seeing that clouds are lower than the sun and moon. [UNDER the firmament]
And shooting stars?
Thank you so very much for all your patience answering everbody's questions!
Also for all the info you give!
May Yahuweh bless you and keep you and your loved ones!
Jenny
South Africa

Iron bull said...

Eric, I have one question that I can't rap my head around. The supposedly fact of asteroids. Comets. Objects hitting the earth! How is this possible in a enclosed earth, we even bare the marks of impact on the earth.. Peace!

AndysGame Sym said...

The moon is resting on the glass sky firmament I believe, we can't and will not be able to see the back side because we can't get past the glass sky firmament layers. The force is too strong.

AndysGame Sym said...

Satellites don't exist, how the f__k do I reply to someone named Anonymous? I guess like this :D Anyways the boats get the signal from high rise comm towers, everything is mapped out from ariel photos from jets/planes that can climb right before the glass firmament 100-120km but the highest these planes can go is 60k ft I believe which is right near the glass sky firmament. The glass sky is what's protecting us from the celestial ocean surrounding Earth. Earth is a container/ARC housing unit, we all live inside it.

Catherine Heferen said...

Brilliant work Eric! Have just been reading Facebook posts from one of your strong supporters, Santos Bonacci. :) https://www.facebook.com/santos.bonacci?fref=ts

Anonymous said...

Hey Eric, how are you? Hope your doing well in lovely Thailand with your beautiful partner, you two make a picture perfect couple! I'll be brief in word but lengthy in Copy/paste.. It wasn't till I read your discussion with Richard that I finally realized that I had fallen back into the movie again by collapsing the wave function in favor of a flat earth as opposed to a globular earth. You are both wrong and both right at the same time as demonstrated in the double slit experiment. The fact that you are both looking at this paradox from a material perspective won't allow you to solve the riddle! The one thing that the both of you have neglected to include in your disscusion is consciousness! Eric I'm surprise that you did not allude to that having heard you comments in an interview you did.. There is a great site called "Thinking with someone else's head." Out of San Paulo Brazil (the life long work of Dr Umberto Keppe) with lots of interviews and disscusion on how we live in an inverted society (science/philosophy/theology all inverted) and who the perpetrators were. How the seperation and compartmentalization of the sciences has led to an extreme lack of consilience as discribed by Edward O Wilson in his book "Consilience" But that was not what I initially wanted to present. Here are some points from the work of Robert Lanza and his model of a Biocentric universe... Cont.

Anonymous said...

Cont...
Biocentrism states that life and biology are central to being, reality, and the cosmos — consciousness creates the universe rather than the other way around. It asserts that current theories of the physical world do not work, and can never be made to work, until they fully account for life and consciousness. While physics is considered fundamental to the study of the universe, and chemistry fundamental to the study of life, biocentrism claims that scientists will need to place biology before the other sciences to produce a theory of everything.
Biocentrism argues that the primacy of consciousness features in the work of Descartes, Kant, Leibniz, Berkeley, Schopenhauer, and Bergson. He sees this as supporting the central claim that what we call space and time are forms of animal sense perception, rather than external physical objects. Lanza argues that biocentrism offers insight into several major puzzles of science, including Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, the double-slit experiment, and the fine tuning of the forces, constants, and laws that shape the universe as we perceive it. According to Lanza, and Bob Berman, “biocentrism offers a more promising way to bring together all of physics, as scientists have been trying to do since Einstein’s unsuccessful unified field theories of eight decades ago.”
Seven principles form the core of biocentrism. The first principle of biocentrism is based on the premise that what we observe is dependent on the observer, and says that what we perceive as reality is “a process that involves our consciousness." The second and third principles state that “our external and internal perceptions are intertwined” and that the behavior of particles “is inextricably linked to the presence of an observer,” respectively. The fourth principle suggests that consciousness must exist and that without it “matter dwells in an undetermined state of probability." The fifth principle points to the structure of the universe itself, and that the laws, forces, and constants of the universe appear to be fine-tuned for life.nFinally, the sixth and seventh principles state that space and time are not objects or things, but rather tools of our animal understanding. Lanza says that we carry space and time around with us “like turtles with shells.
According to Lanza's book, Biocentrism suggests that life is not an accidental byproduct of physics, but rather is a key part of our understanding of the universe. Biocentrism states that there is no independent external universe outside of biological existence. Part of what it sees as evidence of this is that there are over 200 physical parameters within the universe so exact that it is seen as more probable that they are that way in order to allow for existence of life and consciousness, rather than coming about at random. Biocentrism claims that allowing the observer into the equation opens new approaches to understanding cognition. Through this, biocentrism purports to offer a way to unify the laws of the universe.
I'll leave it there
Let Love rule!!

Erin Mizumoto said...

you are simply amazing and i hope you know that because of you many ppl not only know the truth but are teaching it !!!

Federico Lopa said...

Eric, if the Sun sets because of the prospective WHY it is not getting smaller as it gets away from our point of view? It is descending, but it is not shrinking.

Also, when it sets, by the prospective law we should see the Sun in its entire circle shape (but just very small), instead the Disc's bottom progressively disappear behind the horizon while the dimensions reman intact.

Victor Talha said...

Thnx so much Eric Dubay for opening up our eyes and having us look at some really great juxtapositions. I am very impressed by You knowledge base and will continue to follow Your videos. I am starting to do some of my own fact finding and research. It blew my mind away about the Southern Hemisphere flight paths. Realllllly crazy, my friend! :-)

Best of luck with everything and hope You have a blessed, prosperous, and fortuitously favored NEW YEAR 2016!!! :-)

Anonymous said...

Hi Eric,

Over the past three weeks your videos along with others have been fascinating and keeping me up with the cognitive dissonance associated with such revelations.

The comment poster above has a valid viewpoint on the setting sun it would appear so I hope we can clear that one up.

I have not always questioned the establishment but since having a life changing testimony back in 2006, it has changed my whole perspective, (pardon the pun, non intended).

Nasa and the governing bodies of this world have a lot of explaining to do which I am sure will be met with extreme violence by them at some point.

It is time for the Antartica regions to be unfolded to the eyes of the world and have this Ball Earth proven or debunked.

Water experiments for me are the real key in that the curvature is non existent no matter how hard I try to find one. Einstein, Newton and many others are thus thrown out of the equation and if it was not for people like you, Malcolm and Jeranism/Riba etc.

Well Done and I look forward to flying across the South Pole with Santa. LOL.

Anonymous said...

I always questioned the ball earth model from the moment I was presented to me. I never understood how aeroplanes could fly vertically downwards and upside down, under the globe. It never made sense, but like almost everybody else; I assumed that questioning the science was not a good idea. Thanks to Eric dubay for exposing this conspiracy on a large platform. This information will spread and those who are intelligent enough, will figure things out for themselves.

Anonymous said...

I was arguing this with my know-it-all brother and he pointed out something I didn't have an answer for. Could explain how when the sun has just set in the west, the top of the mountain to the east is still lit up, as are airplanes flying high in the sky. We've all seen this. How is this consistent with the sun being a spotlight circling above a flat earth? What am I missing?

Thanks!

Anonymous said...

Thanks for your work Eric. I have been a believer in a flat earth as long as I have been a believer in the Lord as God. I have read several posts regarding scripture stating or not stating the shape and character of the earth. I would like to provide my findings for you to review. I must post them in two parts.
Part 1:
the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.
Psalms 93:1 (KJV)

the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved:
Psalms 96:10 (KJV)

5 Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.
Psalms 104:5 (KJV)

6 Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains.
Psalms 104:6 (KJV)

who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:
Psalms 104:2 (KJV)

16 And the channels of the sea appeared, the foundations of the world were discovered, at the rebuking of the LORD
2 Sam 22:16 (KJV)

God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited:
Isaiah 45:18 (KJV)

Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Job 38:4 (KJV)

5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? 6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
Job 38:5-6 (KJV)

5 The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.
Eccl 1:5 (KJV)

22 The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. 23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. 24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. 25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: 26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. 27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: 28 When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep: 29 When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:
Prov 8:22-29 (KJV)

If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath
Jer 31:37 (KJV)

Anonymous said...

Part 2
The following happened before there was a sun:

Chapter 1
Creation of heaven and earth
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Creation of the light
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Creation of the firmament
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

The earth separated from the waters
9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. 11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
Gen 1:1-13 (KJV)

These happened in scripture and would have destroyed a heliocentric model, but gel quite nicely to a flat earth:

12 Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. 13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. 14 And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the LORD hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the LORD fought for Israel.
Josh 10:12-14 (KJV)

7 And this shall be a sign unto thee from the LORD, that the LORD will do this thing that he hath spoken; 8 Behold, I will bring again the shadow of the degrees, which is gone down in the sun dial of Ahaz, ten degrees backward. So the sun returned ten degrees, by which degrees it was gone down.
Isaiah 38:7-8 (KJV)

I have been told I interpret these things in a personal manner. I ask you what the sum total means to you in an objective collective thought. Either you see what is to be seen or you find some other way to hold another opinion as valid. I can add more on the center of the pupil of God's eye but that shouldn't be necessary. Scientifically speaking the last "satellite" which measured and recorded the microwave energy in the universe points to the earth as the center of all things and folks are spitting coffee all over their board rooms around the plain of the earth. What say you?

Anonymous said...

Hi, Eric. Well done with the blog, the information and the arguments. All presented with the patience and confidence that only truth can give.

I googled for flat earth with an assumption that i might have no one in the world agreeing with my observation going by the positioning of stars and moon in two seperate countries over the past few nights and a previous observation that it is not possible for the sun to be the generator of heat given the shape, diameter of earth and the distance between the sun and the temperature changes on earth itself both during the day and overtime, including the nearly impossible logic of explanation for seasons in the presently taught shape system of earth. I remember questioning the same questions as a child about why things dont fall off, how birds fly etc but dont really remember being given any sensible answer or allowed a discussion...and the questions seem to have just faded away until hit again by evidence that I couldnt close my eyes and mind to anymore.

I am starting to think, just as the possibility that heat on earth is generated somewhere between the earth and the sun or even perhaps generated somewhere below the earth and cooled as required somewhere between the earth and the sun, that it is the atmospheric pressure or something akin that pushes things down. You see, birds, insects, planes etc dont have constant suckers reaching down the earhts surface to provide that seemingly increasingly necessary force to negate gravity, but simply do so by altering the pressure of air immediately around itself, that too with seeming ease.

However, after all the genius explantions and insight you provide, I find it difficult to comprehend your stand where you claim there is no 'aliens' (doesnt have to be aliens in a particular shape of form, but no other creation of god) and that the everything in the sky revolves around the earth...you then move on to the understanding that humans are the only special beings etc, although you start off to state otherwise. you do make up partially for it by stating earth as being the materialistic planet (I am not yet totally confident of the 'only' element of it), which I can understand as I can see through the quantum lives/planets/universe stuff with ease, together with the already existant vast and unbelievable variety of life and non life on earth itself. You also, after such wisdom, restrict yourself to a particular religion and the understanding that there is heaven/hell...which is possible in a way, but doesnt explain much if life itself is observed. I am failing to see a connection between flat earth, heaven, earth, everything (apart from sun, moon and a few stars perhaps)revolving around earth.

On the other hand it is clear that an 'alien invasion' is one of the many plans to take that final full control of the world and perhaps get rid of enough human beings too - as opposed to the already existant 'alien' 'invasion' which has already taken over earth and its occupants in ways and through means which will leave anyone 'awake' enough dumbfolded as to the possibility of how it has been allowed to happen.

why and how?

And as some have already asked, how does flat earth vs round earth argument provide the evil wannabe controllers of earth any extra leeway - the space programs, the 'alien' mind control plans (of which there seem to be many more than just the invasion side)seem to be no way hindered even if the earth were flat. ofcourse the round earth hoax aids form a truth layer which will keep the deceptions safe and the discovers of truth at bay by means of insanity certified by the truly insane and the likes! What a maze indeed. Soul wrenching when one considers the fate of both the insane and subtly by excruciatingly painfully mindcontrolled believers and those who have started to see through the maze of have seen through it amongst such dangerous insanity of the insane believers.

Anonymous said...

It might be silly but my first explanation a few days ago after I decided the earth to be flat and then proceeded to query the rising of the moon and its other alleged affects in particular together with occurence of seasons was that the flat disc earth was kind of oscillating - gently, with the sun and moon hovering above it - perhaps, if the earth is on a deep bed of water or something, then it explains the tides and can possibly also explain the 'motion' of the sun and moon, together with somehow creating the force to keep it all that way for seeming eternity. Now, having said this all, I have never been a fan of physics and know next to nothing about astronomy and such...almost all of my understandings come from observation, analysis of myself and things around me both relative to itself and myself...and I havent yet felt the truth yet strongly enough upon this aspect mentioned in this comment yet...just hypothesising.

Could it be possible though? I know you claim that the earth is totally fixed, might be too..but throwing my hypothesis into the mix too.

Joseph Carrilho said...

I have seen out sun as a three dimensional ball. I was on an off-shore tugboat in the Gulf of Mexico.
One day the water was what we referred to as "slick-calm" and it was the calm before the storm.
It was mid-afternoon and heavily overcast, I noticed that I could look directly at the sun without hurting
my eyes; I took a good, long look.

To my UTTER astonishment, I was able to "see" and sense the distance to the sun (triangulation?) - that about bowled me over. Then, suddenly I was seeing the sun as a 3-D ball - this about knocked me down. Now in a state of amusement, I could see it plainly as a very distant 3-D ball AND I was totally blown away at just how large it is. There isn't a descriptive word big enough to describe it's size.

I can not prove I witnessed this any more than anyone can prove it did NOT. How could I dream of making up a story like this, and more importantly, why would I lie? The only reason I'm posting this is because since I "saw" others MUST HAVE "seen" it also; not many, but some.

I feel that I was given a very special, and precious, gift and I am eternally grateful for that blessing.

I would love the opportunity to speak with others that have experienced this and would give out my
contact info. but I don't need the "static" from a horde of folks debasing me; claiming I'm a crackpot

If you have seen what I have, don't feel alone. If you have not, don't feel alone either. ~~~ Joe ~~~

Anonymous said...

Y'all check out b.o.b EARTH mixtape!

zzzz said...

Just circumnavigate from Cape Horn in a direct circle, if it takes way longer than expected then there is evidence of the Flat Earth Dinner Plate model because you would be traveling the larger outer portion around the rim of the plate. Easy test, now someone just needs to do it.

Anonymous said...

Love that 8:22 the "astronaut" do the sign of the devil or illuminati sign with his hand. How can people be so blind not to see they are mocking us all?

Brian Thomas said...

Great stuff- a high-impact presentation of the absurdity of the ball-Earth position. The manipulators who offer up this garbage are clearly attempting to take away the natural born and obvious authority of each person and replace with an external authority- i.e., themselves and their schemes.

There are so many important points to cover, but I want to focus on a speculative notion that I had the other day I work. I use a barcode scanner, and I was rotating it on a flat surface when I had a "Ah!" moment when I related the scanner to the sky above and the box to the Earth below. What if Polaris is the central point of a rotating projector that creates this flat Earth and universe that Polaris is the central point of? That the Sun and Moon are actually creations of Polaris, made real by the energy that we sometimes call Chi continually outpouring from a source of energy that Polaris is the center of?

Just questions about a sheer speculation, but interesting. Its consistent with the flat Earth evidence- Polar life is far more abundant on the North Pole than South. Its also consistent with the spiritual understanding that the sky/Sun acts as the masculine/yang activating force and the Earth acts as the feminine/yin receptive force. It also helps the notion that we are spirits, individuated manifestations of the same underlying energy experiencing itself, living a temporary life in a 3D and holographic universe.

Anonymous said...

How did meteors/ites hit the earth without leaving a hole in the dome? Or did the craters get there some other way?

Anonymous said...

I teach at a university, and one of my students gave a presentation on the sun and used the heliocentric model in his assumptions. I asked him, "how do you know that the sun is the center of the solar system?" His brain seemed to freeze for a moment and finally he said,"my teacher told me when I was young. It was in the textbook."

Wolf said...

Thank you Eric once again for your detailed and informative posts, I really enjoy reading them, and appreciate you writing them in such a way that can be easily understood by the layman/laywoman. You have more support than you probably realise. Peace

Anonymous said...

You think David icke lost credibility when he mentioned alien lizards you've just lost all credibility believing the earth to be flat.

cedric pliers said...

I have enjoyed this dialogue. I am certainly more flat than ball.
Initially, know what made me a sceptic?
This: Moon and Sun appearing same size owing to differing size and distance.
What? What is the likelihood, eh?
Always unhappy with Plank's Constant and what came BEFORE the Big Bang.
Keep on Truckin'
Mike

Dhananjay m naik said...

Hi


I am just confused earth is spinning like 600 miles per hour from millions of years. just the confusion is how can a round or Oblate Spheroid object stay in the same shape while the is a gravity of Sun while spinning at that speed.