Thursday, May 12, 2016

Earth is the Center of the Universe!

Ancient civilizations the world over believed Earth to be the flat, immovable center of the universe around which the heavens revolved daily cycles in perfect circles.  This stable geocentric universe, proven true by experience and experiments, which reigned undisputed for thousands of years adequately explaining all Earthly and celestial phenomena, was violently uprooted, spun around, and sent flying through infinite space by a cabal of Sun-worshipping theoretical astronomers.   Early Masonic magicians like Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and Newton, along with their modern Masonic astro-not counter-parts like Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins, hand-in-hand with NASA and world Freemasonry have pulled off the greatest hoax, propagated the most phenomenal lie, and perpetuated the most complete indoctrination in history.

Over the course of 500 years, using everything from books, magazines, and television to computer-generated imaging, a multi-generational conspiracy has succeeded, in the minds of the masses, to pick up the fixed Earth, shape it into a ball, spin it in circles, and throw it around the Sun!  In schools where every professor’s desk is adorned with a spinning Earth-globe, we are lectured on the “heliocentric” theory of the universe, shown images of ball-planets and videos of men suspended in space.  The illusion created, connivingly convincing, has entranced the world’s population into blindly believing a maleficent myth.  The greatest cover-up of all time, NASA and Freemasonry’s biggest secret, is that we are living on a plane, not a planet, that Earth is the flat, stationary center of the universe.

We are told that though the earth has the appearance of being a vast plane, with the sun moving high above and over the earth, that what we see is a deception; it is an optical illusion - for it is not the sun that moves, but the earth, with ‘ the sea and all that in them is,’ in the form of a globe, whizzing with terrific rapidity round the sun, located millions of miles away - its mean distance being assumed to be 91 millions of miles, and that the earth travels at the rate of 68,000 miles an hour, or 19 miles every second.”  -Lady Blunt, “Clarion’s Science Versus God’s Truth” (13)

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

If the Earth truly were a spinning ball orbiting the Sun, there are several tests and experiments which could be, and have been, conducted to prove or disprove the veracity of such a claim.  For example, Danish Astronomer Tycho Brahe famously argued against the heliocentric theory in his time, positing that if the Earth revolved in an orbit round the Sun, the change in relative position of the stars after 6 months of orbital motion could not fail to be seen.  He argued that the stars should seem to separate as we approach and come together as we recede.  In actual fact, however, after almost two hundred million miles of supposed orbit around the Sun, not a single inch of parallax can be detected in the stars! 

If the earth is at a given point in space on say January 1st, and according to present-day science, at a distance of 190,000,000 miles from that point six months afterwards, it follows that the relative position and directions of the stars will have greatly changed, however small the angle of parallax may be.  THAT THIS GREAT CHANGE IS NOWHERE APPARENT, AND HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED, incontestably proves that the earth is at rest - that it does not move in an orbit round the sun.”  -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (67)

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

When Tycho Brahe demonstrated that after 190,000,000 miles of supposed orbit around the Sun, not a single inch of parallax could be detected, desperate heliocentrists, instead of conceding, doubled-down claiming the stars were all actually trillions upon trillions of miles away from us, so distant that no appreciable parallax could ever be detected!  This convenient explanation, which heliocentrists have clung to for centuries, has proven satisfactory to silence the uninquisitive minds of the masses, but still fails to adequately address many observable phenomena such as our wildly implausible synchronization with Polaris and other improbabilities which will be addressed later.  

The idea that the Earth, if it were a globe, could possibly move in an orbit of hundreds of millions of miles with such exactitude that the cross-hairs in a telescope fixed on its surface would appear to glide gently over a star ‘millions of millions’ of miles away is simply monstrous; whereas, with a FIXED telescope, it matters not the distance of the stars, though we suppose them to be as far off as the astronomer supposes them to be; for, as Mr. Richard Proctor himself says, ‘the further away they are, the less they will seem to shift.’ Why, in the name of common sense, should observers have to fix their telescopes on solid stone bases so that they should not move a hair's-breadth, - if the Earth on which they fix them moves at the rate of nineteen miles in a second? Indeed, to believe that Mr. Proctor's mass of ‘six thousand million million million tons’ is ‘rolling, surging, flying, darting on through space for ever’ with a velocity compared with which a shot from a cannon is a ‘very slow coach,’ with such unerring accuracy that a telescope fixed on granite pillars in an observatory will not enable a lynx-eyed astronomer to detect a variation in its onward motion of the thousandth part of a hair's-breadth is to conceive a miracle compared with which all the miracles on record put together would sink into utter insignificance. Captain R. J. Morrison, the late compiler of ‘Zadkeil's Almanac’ says: ‘We declare that this motion is all mere bosh; and that the arguments which uphold it are, when examined with an eye that seeks for truth, mere nonsense, and childish absurdity.”  -William Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe” (98)

Another experiment repeatedly performed to disprove Earth’s supposed rotation under our feet is firing cannons vertically and horizontally in all cardinal directions.  If the Earth were truly spinning Eastwards underneath us as the heliocentric model suggests then vertically-fired cannonballs should fall significantly due West.  In actual fact, though, whenever this has been tested, vertically-fired cannonballs, perfectly aimed with a plumb line, lit with a slow match, shoot upwards an average of 14 seconds ascending, 14 seconds descending, and fall back to the ground no more than 2 feet away from the cannon, sometimes directly back into the muzzle!  If the Earth were actually spinning at the supposed rate of 600-700 mph at the mid-latitudes of England and America where the tests have been performed, the cannonballs should fall a full 8,400 feet, or over a mile and a half behind the cannon!

The following experiment has been tried many times, and the reasonable deductions from it are entirely against any theory of earth’s motion: A loaded cannon was set vertical by plumb-line and spirit-level and fired.  The average time the ball was in the air was 28 seconds.  On several occasions the ball returned to the mouth of the cannon, and never fell more than 2 feet from its base.  Now, let us see what the result would be if the earth were a rapidly rotating sphere.  The ball would partake of two motions, the one from the cannon vertical, and the other from the earth, from west to east.  While it had been ascending, the earth, with the cannon, would have moved significantly.  In descending it would have no impulse from the earth’s motion or from the cannon, and would fall in a straight line, but during the time it were falling, the earth, with the cannon, would have travelled on, and the ball would fall (allowing the world’s rotation to be 600 miles per hour in England) more than a mile and a half behind the cannon.”  -A.E. Skellam

Again, at this point, instead of conceding, desperate heliocentrists triple-down claiming the reason cannonballs fall straight back is because the magical properties of gravity allow Earth to somehow drag the entire lower-atmosphere in perfect synchronization with its axial spin rendering even such break-neck speeds completely unnoticeable to the observer and unmeasurable by experimentation!  This highly implausible, though clever and convenient explanation only holds for vertically-fired cannons, however.  If cannons are instead fired and measured in all cardinal directions, even the heliocentrists’ atmospheric-velcro trump-card becomes unplayable.  North/South-firing cannonballs establish a control, then the East-firing cannonballs should fall significantly farther than all others and West-firing cannonballs should fall significantly closer due to the supposed 19 mile per second Eastward rotation of the Earth.  In actual fact, however, regardless of which direction cannons are fired, North, South, East, or West, the distance covered is always the same.

“When sitting in a rapidly-moving railway carriage, let a spring-gun be fired forward, or in the direction in which the train is moving. Again, let the same gun be fired, but in the opposite direction; and it will be found that the ball or other projectile will always go farther in the first case than in the latter. If a person leaps backwards from a horse in full gallop, he cannot jump so great a distance as he can by jumping forward. Leaping from a moving sledge, coach, or other object, backwards or forwards, the same results are experienced. Many other practical cases could be cited to show that any body projected from another body in motion, does not exhibit the same behaviour as it does when projected from a body at rest. Nor are the results the same when projected in the same direction as that in which the body moves, as when projected in the opposite direction; because, in the former case, the projected body receives its momentum from the projectile force, plus that given to it by the moving body; and in the latter case, this momentum, minus that of the moving body. Hence it would be found that if the earth is moving rapidly from west to east, a cannon fired in a due easterly direction would send a ball to a greater distance than it would if fired in a due westerly direction. But the most experienced artillerymen - many of whom have had great practice, both at home and abroad, in almost every latitude - have declared that no difference whatever is observable. That in charging and pointing their guns, no difference in the working is ever required. Gunners in war ships have noticed a considerable difference in the results of their firing from guns at the bow, when sailing rapidly towards the object fired at, and when firing from guns placed at the stern while sailing away from the object: and in both cases the results are different to those observed when firing from a ship at perfect rest. These details of practical experience are utterly incompatible with the supposition of a revolving earth
." -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, "Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!” (73)

It is in evidence that, if a projectile be fired from a rapidly moving body in an opposite direction to that in which the body is going, it will fall short of the distance at which it would reach the ground if fired in the direction of motion. Now, since the Earth is said to move at the rate of nineteen miles in a second of time, ‘from west to east,’ it would make all the difference imaginable if the gun were fired in an opposite direction. But, as, in practice, there is not the slightest difference, whichever way the thing may be done, we have a forcible overthrow of all fancies relative to the motion of the Earth.”  -William Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe” (44)

During the Crimean War, the subject of artillery-fire in connection with the Earth’s rotation became a hotly discussed topic among military men, scientists, philosophers and statesmen.  Around this time, on December 20th, 1857, British Prime Minister Lord Palmerston wrote to the Secretary of War Lord Panmure, stating, “There is an investigation which it would be important and at the same time easy to make, and that is, whether the rotation of the earth on its axis has any effect on the curve of a cannon-ball in its flight. One should suppose that it has, and that while the cannon-ball is flying in the air, impelled by the gunpowder in a straight line from the cannon's mouth, the ball would not follow the rotation of the earth in the same manner which it would do if lying at rest on the earth's surface. If this be so, a ball fired in the meridional direction--that is to say, due south or due north--ought to deviate to the west of the object at which it was aimed, because during the time of flight, that object will have gone to the east somewhat faster than the cannon-ball will have done… The trial might be easily made in any place in which a free circle of a mile or more radius could be obtained; and a cannon placed in the centre of that circle, and fired alternately north, south, east, and west, with equal charges, would afford the means of ascertaining whether each shot flew the same distance or not.

Several such experiments have since been performed and shown that projectiles fired in various directions on Earth’s surface always cover comparable distances with no appreciable difference whatsoever.  These results are entirely against the theory of a rotating, revolving world and serve as direct empirical evidence for the stationary Earth. 

More evidence, similar to the cannonball experiment is found in helicopters and airplanes.  If the Earth were spinning several hundred miles per hour beneath our feet, helicopter pilots and hot-air balloonists should be able to simply ascend straight up, hover, and wait for their lateral destinations to reach them!  Since such a thing has never happened in the history of aeronautics, however, haughty heliocentrists must once again rely on Newton’s magical atmospheric-velcro, claiming the lower atmosphere (up to an undetermined height, somewhere above the reach of helicopters, hot-air balloons, and anything not built by NASA) is pulled perfectly along with the rotating Earth rendering such experiments moot. 

Granting heliocentrists their atmospheric-glue supposition helps them dismiss the results of vertically-fired cannonball experiments, but does not and cannot help them explain away the results of horizontal cardinally-fired cannonballs.  Similarly, granting them their magic-velcro helps dismiss the results of hovering helicopter and hot-air balloon experiments, but does not and cannot explain away the results of airplanes flying in cardinal directions.  For instance, if both the Earth and its lower atmosphere are supposedly rotating together Eastwards 1,038 miles per hour at the equator, then airplane pilots would need to make an extra 1,038 mph compensation acceleration when flying Westwards!  North and South-bound pilots would by necessity have to set diagonal courses to compensate!  Since no such compensations are ever necessary except in the imaginations of astronomers, it follows that the Earth does not move.

If flying had been invented at the time of Copernicus, there is no doubt that he would have soon realized that his contention regarding the rotation of the earth was wrong, on account of the relation existing between the speed of an aircraft and that of the earth’s rotation. The distance covered by an aircraft would be reduced or increased by the speed of the rotation according to whether such aircraft travelled in the same direction, or against it. Thus, if the earth rotates, as it is said, at 1,000 miles an hour, and a plane flies in the same direction at only 500 miles, it is obvious that its place of destination will be farther removed every minute. On the other hand, if flying took place in the direction opposite to that of the rotation, a distance of 1,500 miles would be covered in one hour, instead of 500, since the speed of the rotation is to be added to that of the plane. It could also be pointed out that such a flying speed of 1,000 miles an hour, which is supposed to be that of the earth’s rotation, has recently been achieved, so that an aircraft flying at this rate in the same direction as that of the rotation could not cover any ground at all. It would remain suspended in mid-air over the spot from which it took off, since both speeds are equal. There would, in addition, be no need to fly from one place to another situated on the same latitude. The aircraft could just rise and wait for the desired country to arrive in the ordinary course of the rotation, and then land.”  -Gabrielle Henriet, “Heaven and Earth” (10-11)

The heliocentric theory, literally “flying” in the face of direct observation, experimental evidence and common sense, maintains that the ball-Earth is spinning around its axis at 1,000 miles per hour, revolving around the Sun at 67,000 miles per hour, while the entire solar system rotates around the Milky Way galaxy at 500,000 miles per hour, and the Milky Way speeds through the expanding Universe at over 670,000,000 miles per hour, yet no one in history has ever felt a thing!  We can feel the slightest breeze on a summer’s day, but never one iota of air displacement from these incredible speeds!  Heliocentrists claim with a straight face that their ball-Earth spins at a constant velocity dragging the atmosphere in such a manner as to perfectly cancel all centrifugal, gravitational, and inertial forces so we do not feel the tiniest bit of motion, perturbation, wind or air resistance!  Such back-peddling, damage-control reverse-engineered explanations certainly stretch the limits of credibility and the imagination, leaving much to be desired by discerning minds.

Dear Reader, do you feel the motion? I trow not, for if you did, you would not so quietly be reading my book. I doubt not you have been, like myself, on a railway platform when an express train rushed wildly past at the rate of sixty-five miles per hour, when the concussion of the air almost knocked you down. But how much more terrible would be the shock of the Earth's calculated motion of sixty-five thousand miles per hour, one thousand times faster than the speed of the railway express?  -David Wardlaw Scott, “Terra Firma” (109)

Let ‘imagination’ picture to the mind what force air would have which was set in motion by a spherical body of 8,000 miles in diameter, which in one hour was spinning round 1,000 mph, rushing through space at 65,000 mph and gyrating across the heavens 20,000 mph?  Then let ‘conjecture’ endeavor to discover whether the inhabitants on such a globe could keep their hair on?  If the earth-globe rotates on its axis at the terrific rate of 1,000 miles an hour, such an immense mass would of necessity cause a tremendous rush of wind in the space it occupied.  The wind would go all one way, and anything like clouds which got ‘within the sphere of influence’ of the rotating sphere, would have to go the same way.  The fact that the earth is at rest is proved by kite flying.”  -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (68-69)

If the Earth and atmosphere are constantly revolving Eastwards at 1,000 mph, how is it that clouds, wind, and weather patterns casually and unpredictably go every which way, often travelling in opposing directions simultaneously?  Why can we feel the slightest Westward breeze but not the Earth’s incredible supposed 1,000 mph Eastward spin!?  And how is it that the magic velcro of gravity is strong enough to drag miles of Earth’s atmosphere along, but weak enough to allow little bugs, birds, clouds and planes to travel freely unabated in any direction?

What about the lark which, at early morn, soars aloft, trilling its lays of luscious melody? Why was it not swept away in the tumultuous atmosphere? But it still continues singing, in happy ignorance of any commotion in the heavens. Who has not noticed, on a calm Summer day, the thistle-down floating listlessly in the air, and the smoke ascending, straight as an arrow, from the peasant's cottage? Would not such light things as thistle-down and smoke have to obey the impulse and go with the Earth also? But they do not.”  -David Wardlaw Scott, “Terra Firma” (110)

"If the atmosphere rushes forward from west to east continually, we are again obliged to conclude that whatever floats or is suspended in it, at any altitude, must of necessity partake of its eastward motion. A piece of cork, or any other body floating in still water, will be motionless, but let the water be put in motion, in any direction whatever, and the floating bodies will move with it, in the same direction and with the same velocity. Let the experiment be tried in every possible way, and these results will invariable follow. Hence if the earth's atmosphere is in constant motion from west to east, all the different strata which are known to exist in it, and all the various kinds of clouds and vapours which float in it must of mechanical necessity move rapidly eastwards. But what is the fact? If we fix upon any star as a standard or datum outside the visible atmosphere, we may sometimes observe a stratum of clouds going for hours together in a direction the very opposite to that in which the earth is supposed to be moving. Not only may a stratum of clouds be seen moving rapidly from east to west, but at the same moment other strata may often be seen moving from north to south, and from south to north. It is a fact well known to aeronauts, that several strata of atmospheric air are often moving in as many different directions at the same time ... On almost any moonlight and cloudy night, different strata may be seen not only moving in different directions but, at the same time, moving with different velocities; some floating past the face of the moon rapidly and uniformly, and others passing gently along, sometimes becoming stationary, then starting fitfully into motion, and often standing still for minutes together." -Samuel Rowbotham, "Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!" (74)

In his book “South Sea Voyages,” Arctic and Antarctic explorer Sir James Clarke Ross, described his experience on the night of November 27th, 1839 and his conclusion that the Earth must be motionless: “The sky being very clear, the planet Venus was seen near the zenith, notwithstanding the brightness of the meridian sun. It enabled us to observe the higher stratum of clouds to be moving in an exactly opposite direction to that of the wind--a circumstance which is frequently recorded in our meteorological journal both in the north-east and south-east trades, and has also often been observed by former voyagers. Captain Basil Hall witnessed it from the summit of the Peak of Teneriffe; and Count Strzelechi, on ascending the volcanic mountain of Kiranea, in Owhyhee, reached at 4000 feet an elevation above that of the trade wind, and experienced the influence of an opposite current of air of a different hygrometric and thermometric condition … Count Strzelechi further informed me of the following seemingly anomalous circumstance--that at the height of 6000 feet he found the current of air blowing at right angles to both the lower strata, also of a different hygrometric and thermometric condition, but warmer than the inter-stratum. Such a state of the atmosphere is compatible only with the fact which other evidence has demonstrated, that the earth is at rest."

It is a well-known fact that clouds are continually seen moving in all manner of directions - yes, and frequently, in different directions at the same time - from west to east being as frequent a direction as any other.  Now, if the Earth were a globe, revolving through space from west to east at the rate of nineteen miles in a second, the clouds appearing to us to move towards the east would have to move quicker than nineteen miles in a second to be thus seen; whilst those which appear to be moving in the opposite direction would have no necessity to be moving at all, since the motion of the Earth would be more than sufficient to cause the appearance. But it only takes a little common sense to show us that it is the clouds that move just as they appear to do, and that, therefore, the Earth is motionless.”  -William Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe” (49)

Heliocentrists believe the world beneath their feet is spinning a mind-numbing 1,038 mph at the equator while perfectly pulling the entire atmosphere along for the ride.  Meanwhile at the mid-latitudes of USA and Europe, they believe the world / atmosphere spin around 900-700 mph decreasing gradually all the way down to 0 mph at the North and South poles, where the stagnant atmosphere apparently never moves completely escaping the grips of gravity’s magic velcro. This means at all latitudes, every inch of the way, the atmosphere manages to perfectly coincide with the supposed speed of the Earth compensating from 0 mph at the poles all the way up to 1,038 mph at the equator, and every speed in between. These are all lofty assumptions heliocentrists make without any experimental evidence to back them up.

"In short, the sun, moon, and stars are actually doing precisely what everyone throughout all history has seen them do. We do not believe what our eyes tell us because we have been taught a counterfeit system which demands that we believe what has never been confirmed by observation or experiment. That counterfeit system demands that the Earth rotate on an 'axis' every 24 hours at a speed of over 1000 MPH at the equator. No one has ever, ever, ever seen or felt such movement (nor seen or felt the 67,000MPH speed of the Earth's alleged orbit around the sun or its 500,000 MPH alleged speed around a galaxy or its retreat from an alleged 'Big Bang' at over 670,000,000 MPH!). Remember, no experiment has ever shown the earth to be moving. Add to that the fact that the alleged rotational speed we've all been taught as scientific fact MUST decrease every inch or mile one goes north or south of the equator, and it becomes readily apparent that such things as accurate aerial bombing in WWII (down a chimney from 25,000 feet with a plane going any direction at high speed) would have been impossible if calculated on an earth moving below at several hundred MPH and changing constantly with the latitude." -Marshall Hall, "A Small, Young Universe After All"

Before heliocentric indoctrination any child will look up to the sky and notice that the Sun, Moon, and stars all revolve around a stationary Earth. All evidence from our perspective clearly demonstrates that we are fixed and the heavenly bodies circle around us. We feel the Earth as motionless and observe the Sun, Moon, stars and planets to be moving entities.  To suspend this common-sense geocentric perspective and assume that it is actually the Earth rotating beneath us daily while revolving around the sun yearly is quite a theoretical leap to take without any empirical evidence to land on.

Ignorant folk think that such minority opinions as Geocentrism are the 'conspiracy theories.’ There is a real conspiracy for sure but the sad thing is it is mostly a conspiracy of willful and apathetic ignorance (for numerous reasons). The very people who would call Geocentrists 'quack conspiracy theorists' are either themselves completely ignorant of even modern cosmological axioms and principles of gravitation and mechanics or they are just 'playing stupid,' hoping that no one will notice or call their bluff … What’s even more hilarious is the fact that even folk like Steven Hawking and a few intellectually honest physicists and cosmologists who would read what we are saying and are capable of understanding it, know that what we have been saying is absolutely true.  Not only do they admit that but even 'snicker' about it to each other, but they won't dare to address that too openly with the dumb, ignorant masses... best not to confuse the common folk with unnecessary information and facts. Even more sad are all the others out there who don’t have a clue what I’m saying here and shake their heads thinking they know something about physics that tells them that the Earth moves. If only they studied the text books and peer-reviewed papers a little closer, they would realize just how absolutely ignorant with a capital 'I' that argument really is.” -Allen Daves

Support independent publishing: Buy this book on Lulu.

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


Anonymous said...

Hi Eric

Sorry some more questions here i'm just trying to gain the greatest clarity here.You said before that Planet X was "made up by NASA" this is not true as it was hypothsised for a century or two before NASA was on the scene.

You said polaris is fixed?this data says that is not so.

ATM i can clearly see the moon and sun are out of phase and rising late and out of position..this blog post outlines more data:

The Inuits have also noted this in a recent revealation..

This 'wobble' is also responsible for the current polar vortex..

Thanks again Eric i am on a quest here..i appreciate the tirelees work you do and greatly appreciate it.

Thanks Johnny

Eric Dubay said...

Hey Johnny, you're misquoting me about Planet X, I didn't say it was "made up by NASA," I had replied to you previously that:

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.

The stars revolve around the sky dome like in a planetarium, all the fixed stars maintain their relative positions and the constellations follow a 26,000 year procession. This is all movement of the stars, however, NOT a "wobble" from the "ball-Earth." The position of Polaris has been said to move very slightly over long periods of time, but it always remains right above the North Pole and all the other stars revolve around it as seen in star trail time lapses.

Just take a close look at the star trail photos shown in the article. For those to happen on a spinning ball-Earth, the Earth would have to be doing 360 degree loop-de-loops! If the ball-Earth is simply spinning on its axis, star trail photos should show all the stars moving fairly horizontally across the sky. For them to be filmed making perfect circles around Polaris at varying latitudes all over the Earth proves conclusively that it is the stars moving around the fixed Earth, and not the Earth spinning on an axis. Michelson-Morley, Michelson-Gale, Airy, Sagnac and Kantor's experiments also proved it is the stars moving relative to us and not the other way around. Their experiments are not debated or denied anywhere, simply suppressed and ignored. See the videos towards the end of the article. Peace

Oz10 said...

I am going to ask again because I haven't got a solid answer from you. (that I saw)
I get the Geocentric points and that has a large enough impact I can see why this would be hidden truth.

What is to gain by the status quo, if the public believes the earth is ROUND vs FLAT.

These are two different arguments and you are mixing your arguments so I still need a reason to believe 'WHY' they would lie about FLAT vs ROUND.

Not Geocentric vs Heliocentric

The Veritopian said...

Hi Eric,
This page says that parallax is observed and used to measure distances to some stars:

"The nearest star is proxima centauri, which exhibits a parallax of 0.762 arcsec, and therefore is 1.31 parsecs away."

"Some well-known examples of distance measurement by parallax are 61 Cygni at 1/3 of an arcsec, distance 3 parsecs, and Barnard's Star at 1.8 parsecs = 5.9 light years. Barnard's Star also exhibits a large proper motion.
The distance at which parallax can be reliably measured has now been greatly extended by space-based instruments like the Hipparcos satellite."

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the reply Eric..

i know we have shared a few messages,i didn't mean to misquote you there, but it was to that effect i assumed,maybe it was another message sorry.

I am not convinced atm,the vast body of literature and evidence provided by the site i put forth (20 years worth and predictions that are proven accurate)also flys in the face of what is taught in mainstream,i feel we have glossed over a dramatic body of evidence that to me far out weighs the 'flat earth theory'

Can you explain the question about the moon and sun at all? or the piri ries map etc?

I understand what you are saying about the polaris hypothesis..but the earth is indeed 'wobbling'i am an amateur astronomer and have indeed seen planet x in the morning sky,i have been campaigning tirelessly to warn people and have been up against government shills,who suppress this info,i am willing to go where the evidence takes me and the fact that people can see this object and it corroberates with SOHO cams tells me it is not a hologram or anything else.

We have plate movements and adjustments all playing out as per the sites predictions.The magnetic field is weakening and the pole is changing currently (early stages) this is there to be seen in the geologic records etc from the past.the work of Velikovsky also concludes this,btw mainstream shunned him because of his finds that would rewrite history.

Heres an interesting find:

In the July 15, 1999 paper published by the journal, Geophysical Research Letters, the Sahara desert's arid climate change occurred quickly and dramatically 4000 to 3600 years ago. A team of researchers headed by Martin Cluassen of Germany's Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact research analyzed computer models of climate over the past several thousand years.

They concluded that the change to today's desert climate in the Sahara was triggered by changes in the Earth's orbit and the tilt of Earth's axis. The switch in North Africa's climate and vegetation was abrupt. In the Sahara, "we find an abrupt decrease in vegetation from a green Sahara to a desert scrubland within a few hundred years" scientists reported.

No longer were grasses and other plants collecting water and releasing it back into the atmosphere; now sand baked in the stronger sun and rivers dried up. The scientists do not say what caused the change in the tilt of Earth's axis.

So this to me is confirming planet x, as we are in the same situation as we were then and it's orbit is 3600 years.

I do believe NASA are lying...but..that concerns the annunaki and their presence in the SS and also to discredit Planet X.

I do believe that the sun is not all it seems though,stargate etc.

May i ask? if you think we are an isolated plane,static in a void so to speak..then how did this creation come about? we are talking aabout a multi disciplinary approach to gain the truth here and i'm not convinced 'completely yet' by flat earth..yes the data in some areas may lead us to question the 'globe earth' but until we know for sure it is all speculation, of which i could possibly find theories to answer the inconsistencies your research has outlined.

Again i respect your approach Eric and quest for the truth.

All the best peace.

Anonymous said...

It seems to me, whether the Earth is Flat, Round or Square, that your the only one that cares. Why don't people care? I think you are beating a dead horse. Maybe you could use this as an agenda to get into politics. Elect me folks and I will put an end to this NASA/VATICAN/SATANIC lie once and for all. A vote for the truth, is a vote for a Flat Earth.

Eric Dubay said...

Oz10, the biggest lie possible is to deceive people about the very Earth under their feet, everything in the sky over their heads, and the entire cosmology / cosmogeny of creation. Once you have convinced people they are living on a spinning ball-Earth hurtling around the Sun through infinite space, and only your "expert" astro-nots get to confirm this, you have a deluded gullible public whom you can mold to your desire. Their desire is to convince us that we are only one of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets reeling through infinite space, that we were a Big Bang cosmic accident, life is meaningless, purposeless, and non-spiritual. They want you to believe extra-terrestrials exist and are your creators! The deception has been going on for 500 years now so it's much more advanced than just flat vs. round. Originally they chose a sphere instead of some other shape to lie about simply because it fits their fake model better than say a square or a triangle.

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.

Eric Dubay said...

Veritopian, the supposed distance to the Sun, Moon and stars as given by the heliocentric establishment has changed and continues to change more regularly than dirty underwear.

For instance, in his time Copernicus calculated the Sun’s distance from Earth to be 3,391,200 miles. The next century Johannes Kepler decided it was actually 12,376,800 miles away. Issac Newton once said, “It matters not whether we reckon it 28 or 54 million miles distant for either would do just as well!” How scientific!? Benjamin Martin calculated between 81 and 82 million miles, Thomas Dilworth claimed 93,726,900 miles, John Hind stated positively 95,298,260 miles, Benjamin Gould said more than 96 million miles, and Christian Mayer thought it was more than 104 million!

“As the sun, according to ‘science’ may be anything from 3 to 104 million miles away, there is plenty of ‘space’ to choose from. It is like the showman and the child. You pay your money - for various astronomical works - and you take your choice as to what distance you wish the sun to be. If you are a modest person, go in for a few millions; but if you wish to be ‘very scientific’ and to be ‘mathematically certain’ of your figures, then I advise you to make your choice somewhere about a hundred millions. You will at least have plenty of ‘space’ to retreat into, should the next calculation be against the figures of your choice. You can always add a few millions to ‘keep up with the times,’ or take off as many as may be required to adjust the distance to the ‘very latest’ accurate column of figures. Talk about ridicule, the whole of modern astronomy is like a farcical comedy - full of surprises. One never knows what monstrous or ludicrous absurdity may come forth next. You must not apply the ordinary rules of common-sense to astronomical guesswork. No, the thing would fall to pieces if you did.” -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (115)

Eric Dubay said...

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

Measuring with sextants and calculating with plane trigonometry both the Sun and Moon figure to be only about 32 miles in diameter and approximately 3,000 miles away. The stars are also only a few thousand miles away, not "trillions upon trillions" of miles away as they tell us. They tell us this because the stars MUST be that far away for their ridiculous theory not to be instantly disproven by our lack of parallax change after 190,000,000 miles of supposed orbit around the Sun.

Do you know how they "calculate" the distance to stars? The color of light coming from them. They have a little chart with a chromatic scale which matches a color with a distance. How scientific!? And since stars regularly change color (they twinkle, some change color as quickly as a disco ball) and since these "mathematics" also change on astronomer's whims, the alleged distance to stars is changing constantly.

Eric Dubay said...

Johnny, what is your question about the Moon and Sun? I answered your Piri Reis map question already on the last blog if you go back and check it. It has been scientifically confirmed by Michelson-Morley, Michelson-Gale, Airy, Sagnac and Kantor that it is the procession of the stars that is slowly "wobbling" and not the Earth. Creation came about due to being created by a creator. Earth is the only material world, clearly designed by an intelligent designer, and humans are clearly the intelligent designer's most intelligent design! We are the center of the universe and everything revolves around us because we are the most special thing in existence... everything that is was created for us, that is what this deception hides. It makes us feel metaphysically lost like chickens with their heads cut off, thinking we know something about a Godless Big Bang accident that inexplicably created everything. Peace

The Veritopian said...

Hi Eric, this is an interesting topic, and a good exercise in open-mindedness, and it's fun...

- "When Tycho Brahe demonstrated that after 190,000,000 miles of supposed orbit around the Sun, not a single inch of parallax could be detected"

The link I posted before says that this is incorrect, and parallax is in fact observed. Is Tycho out of date? Perhaps the scientists could be lying, like the guy said, how TF would I know... :) I wonder if there's any way to verify it...

- "Measuring with sextants and calculating with plane trigonometry both the Sun and Moon figure to be only about 32 miles in diameter and approximately 3,000 miles away..."

I'm intrigued by the description you gave of how to measure the size of the sun, but I can't visualise it... Is there a diagram, or anything that could explain it in simple terms? I'd really like to understand it...

- "Another experiment repeatedly performed to disprove Earth’s supposed rotation under our feet is firing cannons vertically and horizontally in all cardinal directions"

But this is just general relativity (i think), and it predicts what we observe: Imagine you're on a train. Whether it's still at the station, or moving at 200MPH (or 2million mph), if you throw a ball straight up, it'll always return to your hand. It's because the ball has the same horizontal velocity as the train at all times.

- "heliocentrists must once again rely on Newton’s magical atmospheric-velcro"

There's no friction on the atmosphere from empty space - so it would follow the rotation of the earth - whats to stop it? In fact the atmosphere would 'experience' the earth as we do - ie. not moving.

Put another way - how would the atmosphere 'know' the earth was spinning (or not)? No magical velcro is required...

Your posts (& the sagnac expt) have caused me to wonder if light really goes in straight lines, or whether it actually curves... If it curves, then a flat earth might look spherical anyway... :)

Perhaps the best evidence for a flat earth is that most things considered 'common knowledge' are the opposite of the truth... But it's hard to verify it personally either way...

Eric Dubay said...

Hey Veritopian, you can see for yourself with two fixed telescopes the stars have not moved an inch over 6 months, 190,000,000 miles of supposed orbit around the Sun. This is not "out of date," it is just as pertinent now as ever. The link you gave claims to measure "stellar parallax" of stars that can only be "reliably measured due to space-based instruments like the Hipparcos satellite." As I showed in the NASA Fail Compilation, satellites are a hoax, they do not exist, and so all data supposedly retrieved by them is merely heresay. Relativity can only be invoked to explain vertically-fired cannonballs, the horizontally-fired cannonballs in all cardinal directions must take into account either the Earth's supposed constant Eastward rotation and/or the atmosphere's supposed motion into the results. Simply invoking Einstein's "relativity" universal-trump-card in this instance is not sufficient. Also, if the atmosphere is somehow magically rotating along with the Earth, it must be rotating faster and faster the higher up into the "troposphere" you go, increasing in perfect, unnoticeable increments. Then the "stratosphere" would have to be rotating ever faster to keep up because it is that much further away from the center of rotating, right!? Then the "mesosphere" air would be going ridiculously fast, and the "thermosphere" wildly whipping around at tens or hundreds of thousands of miles per hour... and then somehow NASA rockets, satellites and space shuttles are able to calculate and manage all these tumultuous motions and at some arbitrary point they claim this whirlwind ceases and their shuttles emerge from thousands of mile per hour atmosphere and into the empty vacuum of Zero G outer-space! Ye all have more faith in NASA than I. Peace

Eric Dubay said...

Star trail time-lapse photography is absolute proof that Earth is the stationary center of the universe around which everything in the sky revolves. If the Earth's supposed motion was what caused the star trail effect, Earth would have to be performing daily 360 loop-de-loops, inverting upside down, coming back around, and NOT rotating on an axis, otherwise the same stars would not remain visible in the sky for well over 12 hours (as they do), and would all move across the sky horizontally! The fact that we can see the same stars all night long revolving perfect circles around Polaris proves it is the stars moving relative to a fixed Earth and not the Earth doing roller-coaster loops around Polaris! Also, the stars are all said to be at varying incredible distances from one another so their relative positions to each other should be shifting constantly. In actual fact, however, all the stars maintain their positions relative to one another day after day, year after year. This is only possible if we are fixed and the universe is a fixed sphere moving around us, like a planetarium dome.

Please watch the following!
Star Trails Prove Earth is the Center of the Universe

Anonymous said...

Eric, i've seen you posting about this a lot lately and my first reaction is, who gives a fuck if its flat or not, i mean whats that really change. To be honest it was hard to even read on about this topic cause it seems meaningless and sounded like bologna.

BUT OMFG when i saw the illuminati card game cards... THAT is the most significant and telling detail of all this! OOOOOHHH MMMYYYY GAAAWWWDD!!!

Anonymous said...

Hi Eric..the question regarding the moon and sun, is that they are well out of position (not every day but frequently) zenith,rising/setting in the wrong places,and the moon is showing a tilt which has been known to 'right itself' during a period of observation,there should be info on this in the blog i posted?

Props for the responses Eric much appreciated..stay well! Johnny

The Veritopian said...

- "all the stars maintain their positions relative to one another day after day, year after year"

This disagrees:

The pole star does change:

If you imagine a spinning ball in space, then it doesn't matter if there are multiple external axes of rotation around which the ball spins, only the ball's axial spin would affect the view from the surface. A ball can only have one axis of spin, so it will always have 2 poles.

The 'star trails' are 'horizontal' to the pole, and circular. I really don't get what you're saying in the vid. Isn't it impossible to tell visually if one or the other is moving? I.e. it would look the same to us either way...?

They look exactly like what you might expect being on a spinning globe, or with a rotating 'heavens' - there's no way to tell...

BTW I don't have 'faith' in NASA, but NASA don't have a monopoly on heliocentrism, or spherical earth theory.

- "Relativity can only be invoked to explain vertically-fired cannonballs..."

I'm pretty sure it works in all directions. Imagine playing a game of catch on a moving train. You wouldn't be able to tell you were moving from the motion of the ball. It's the same in each direction.

- " Then the "stratosphere" would have to be rotating ever faster to keep up because it is that much further away from the center of rotating, right!?"

No, you're definitely wrong about this... Think - what is the earth rotating *relative to*...? There's nothing, just empty space. How can the atmosphere *know* the earth is spinning? It can't keep an eye on the sun to get some idea of it's position... To it - earth looks like it's stationary.

What could it be dragging against to make it *notice* the earth's spin? There's nothing...

Also, you have to think in terms of *angular* velocity, not linear. The top of the atmosphere is rotating at the same *angular* velocity as everything else.

Eric Dubay said...

Hey Johnny, you're saying the Sun and Moon are "well out of place" and "setting in the wrong position," I don't know anything about this, nor have I seen any documentation referring to it. You'll have to give me something more specific/detailed to comment on.

Veritopian, your two wikipedia articles haven't convinced me. The wiki claims Thuban used to be the Pole Star 5000 years ago, and Vega was 14,000 years ago, without a source to boot. These stars are right next to Polaris in the sky anyway, and if there is a slight movement through the 26,000 year procession, that still doesn't explain how Polaris, Thuban, Vega and all the other stars remain so fixed when the Earth is supposedly annually orbiting 190,000,000 miles around the Sun, annually spiraling 4,380,000,000 miles around the Milky Way, and annually shooting 5,869,200,000,000 through the infinite universe! Could you please explain to me or give me another wikipedia article that says how Polaris and the other stars manage to maintain their relative positions to each other and the Earth if all this motion is happening every year?

I don't know how much clearer the star trails video could be. It is not "impossible to tell visually if one or the other is moving," and would not "look the same either way," as I showed with the animation, for the circular star-trail effect to be caused by the motion of the Earth, the Earth would have to be doing loop-de-loops! These time-lapse photos would not be possible merely by a ball-Earth rotating on its axis, the stars would be passing by horizontally and your point of view would change before being able to see an entire revolution around Polaris.

Eric Dubay said...

As for your moving train example, that was covered in the article, there absolutely would be a difference:

“When sitting in a rapidly-moving railway carriage, let a spring-gun be fired forward, or in the direction in which the train is moving. Again, let the same gun be fired, but in the opposite direction; and it will be found that the ball or other projectile will always go farther in the first case than in the latter. If a person leaps backwards from a horse in full gallop, he cannot jump so great a distance as he can by jumping forward. Leaping from a moving sledge, coach, or other object, backwards or forwards, the same results are experienced. Many other practical cases could be cited to show that any body projected from another body in motion, does not exhibit the same behaviour as it does when projected from a body at rest. Nor are the results the same when projected in the same direction as that in which the body moves, as when projected in the opposite direction; because, in the former case, the projected body receives its momentum from the projectile force, plus that given to it by the moving body; and in the latter case, this momentum, minus that of the moving body. Hence it would be found that if the earth is moving rapidly from west to east, a cannon fired in a due easterly direction would send a ball to a greater distance than it would if fired in a due westerly direction. But the most experienced artillerymen - many of whom have had great practice, both at home and abroad, in almost every latitude - have declared that no difference whatever is observable. That in charging and pointing their guns, no difference in the working is ever required. Gunners in war ships have noticed a considerable difference in the results of their firing from guns at the bow, when sailing rapidly towards the object fired at, and when firing from guns placed at the stern while sailing away from the object: and in both cases the results are different to those observed when firing from a ship at perfect rest. These details of practical experience are utterly incompatible with the supposition of a revolving earth." -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, "Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!” (73)

And you're totally missing the point on the various layered heights of atmosphere having to rotate faster due to being further away from the center of rotation. If "gravity" is pulling the atmosphere along for the ride as heliocentrists claim, then every mile further away, the faster the atmosphere would have to be rotating to keep pace with the Earth and lower layers of atmosphere. Not only this, but from the equator where Earth is supposedly spinning 1,038mph down to the poles where it is spinning 0mph, every mile along the way the Earth and atmosphere above it must compensate for this as well! It's absolutely ludicrous and impossible. I recommend meditating under a tree until people are cured of the delusion they are spinning, revolving, spiraling, wobbling and shooting through space at break-neck speeds. Peace

Oz10 said...

Eric, I would like to separate these two theories to discuss each individually since they are not piggy backed, the way you keep explaining them.

The Veritopian said...

Hi Eric, it's your job to do the convincing... ;)

- "that still doesn't explain how Polaris, Thuban, Vega and all the other stars remain so fixed when the Earth is supposedly annually orbiting 190,000,000 miles around the Sun, annually spiraling 4,380,000,000 miles around the Milky Way, and annually shooting 5,869,200,000,000 through the infinite universe!"

I think conventional science would say that Polaris, like 99.9% of visible stars is *in* the milky way, rotating around the galactic core with the same angular velocity as earth. The galaxy rotates like a plate, not like a whirlpool, so the stars we see retain their relative positions, more or less, over thousands of years.

As it's *in* our galaxy, the figures for earth's movement around the galaxy & through the universe are not relevant.

Does that answer your question?

Other galaxies, visible with telescopes, may well move over time - but because the distances are literally *astronomical* - it still takes a really long time to see any change.

That's my understanding of the science, and it's credible, but I'm open-minded, the 'rising horizon' phenomenon is fascinating as is the sagnac expt... :)

Anonymous said...

How is it that people in Australia cannot see polaris Eric? thanks..

Anonymous said...

hi Eric,
This subject is fascinating! One thing that bothers me, though, is that many of the sources that you cite are really old (eg, Rowbotham). Are there no modern scientists asking these questions?
Thanks, Barry
(PS: the book is a great read, and very nicely produced!)

Anonymous said...

Hi Eric the first comment at the top of this page has the link refering to the sun and the moon..there is 20 years worth of info there that,will tell you all you need to know..



Eric Dubay said...

Hey thanks Barry, I know what you mean, I'm the first person to write a flat-Earth book since S. G. Fowler in 1972 if I'm not mistaken, so no there really aren't many modern sources to go by! Back when the Michelson-Morley, Michelson-Gale, Airy, Sagnac and Kantor conclusive geocentric experiments were being conducted in the late 1800s this was a big issue of debate. Einstein admitted Michelson-Morley's results were the reason he came up with Special Relativity, to save the dying heliocentric theory from the scrap heap. He never proved anything new or performed any counter-experiments, just said "everything's relative" stuck his tongue out for a picture, and everyone since has believed him :P

Anonymous, the law of perspective is what causes Polaris to descend in the sky the further South you go and by the time your each Australia it has completely disappeared beyond the horizon vanishing line from your perspective. The Law of Perspective dictates that the angle and height at which an object is seen diminishes the farther one recedes from the object, until at a certain point the line of sight and the seemingly uprising surface of the Earth converges to a vanishing point (i.e. the horizon line) beyond which the object is invisible.

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

Eric Dubay said...

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

Code-E said...

This is an amazing post really helps open up the mind to more of the truths we can simply see and feel with our own complete bodies, which make complete sense, as opposed to the half truths we are fed and fear to question. Which leads me to my first question:) So how does the whole hollow earth and the torus fit into this? And is the earth then a multi dimensional plane that shifts according to the consciousness perceiving it, or does it hold a constant shape wether flat or something else?????

Eric Dubay said...

Hey Code-E, the Earth is certainly hollow in some places, deep sink holes, huge caverns and underground D.U.M.B.s certainly exist, and the torus shape and its properties still remain as they are regardless of the shape of the Earth. As for "multidimensional plane shifting according to consciousness," I have no idea about that, people already call me crazy, so I'm just going to stick with things I can prove :) Peace

Olive Farmer said...

This is a chance for all of humanity
Simply read and pass it on

The Transparent Unicorn said...


I've also noted previously that Eric Dubay consistently mixes up two arguments: geocentrism versus heliocentrism (I have no problem with geocentrism and I said so), and flat earth versus round earth.

In fact, Mr. Dubay has started to block some of my comments (previously published as "Anonymous") that showed quite convincingly that his flat Earth theory did not make sense, especially concerning the position of the South Pole.

I find it regrettable that Mr. Dubay insists on mixing both arguments. He (and others) have made a solid case for geocentrism, but I am beginning to think that Mr. Dubay is purposefully leading us astray with his Flat Earth theory. I have no idea why - maybe simply to sell his book.

Eric Dubay said...

I haven't "blocked" yours or anyone's comments, thank you. Nor am I "confused" between Geo/Helio and Flat/Round. The Universe IS Geocentric AND the Earth is Flat. They are both true proven by experiments and experience. I'm glad you've been able to figure out the truth of Geocentricism, but that's not the end of the rabbit-hole. Please do yourself and humanity a favor by watching this documentary I've just finished today:

The Flat Earth Conspiracy Documentary

Nobody has "showed quite convincingly that his flat Earth theory did not make sense, especially concerning the position of the South Pole." Feel free to post whatever it is you claim to have posted that didn't get through. And as for your, "I am beginning to think that Mr. Dubay is purposefully leading us astray with his Flat Earth theory. I have no idea why - maybe simply to sell his book." You people never cease to amaze. NASA, the mainstream media and your government schools have "purposefully led you astray." I'm one of the few people in this world with enough brains, balls, and compassion to tirelessly crusade against the global conspiracy, facing death threats and endless ridicule from the unappreciative masses, just to try and awaken the few sheeple who aren't completely brain-dead, and I constantly have to hear how I'm just doing it for the money, as I sit here in my tiny studio apartment, still too poor to afford our wedding or move upcountry as we've been planning for years. Watch the free documentary I just put together and linked to above, then come back and tell me you honestly think I'm "leading you astray" and "doing it for the money."

Eric Dubay said...

BTW, if my purpose in being a writer was simply to make money, I would NOT write about the absolute most ridiculed and fringe topics ever such as the flat-Earth! There is literally NO existing target audience for such a thing. If I was doing this for the money, I promise you I would be writing novels about love-sick emo vampire teenagers with daddy-issues, and not the flat Earth.

Rinoni said...

Eric, have you thought, given the earth flat, why the difference in seasons between New Zealand and Europe, for the same time-point?

What is the explanation?

Eric Dubay said...

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

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

In the Flat-Earth model of the cosmos, these Arctic/Antarctic phenomena are easily accounted for and exactly what would be expected. If the Sun circles over and around the Earth every 24 hours, steadily travelling from Tropic to Tropic every 6 months, it follows that the Northern, central region would annually receive far more heat and sunlight than the Southern circumferential region. Since the Sun must sweep over the larger Southern region in the same 24 hours it has to pass over the smaller Northern region, its passage must necessarily be proportionally faster as well. This is why the Antarctic morning dawn and evening twilight are very abrupt, whereas in the extreme North twilight continues for hours after sunset and many midsummer nights the Sun does not set at all!.

Eric Dubay said...

“If the sun is fixed, and the earth revolves underneath it, the same phenomena would exist at the same distance on each side of the equator; but such is not the case! What can operate to cause the twilight in New Zealand to be so much more sudden, or the nights so much colder than in England? The southern ‘hemisphere’ cannot revolve more rapidly than the northern! The latitudes are about the same, and the distance round a globe would be the same at 50° south as at 50° north, and as the whole would revolve once in twenty-four hours, the surface at the two places would pass underneath the sun with the same velocity, and the light would approach in the morning, and recede in the evening in exactly the same manner, yet the very contrary is the fact! … The constant sunlight of the north develops, with the utmost rapidity, numerous forms of vegetable life, and furnishes subsistence for millions of living creatures. But in the south, where the sunlight never dwells, or lingers about a central region, but rapidly sweeps over sea and land, to complete in twenty-four hours the great circle of the southern circumference, it has not time to excite and stimulate the surface; and, therefore, even in comparatively low southern latitudes, everything wears an aspect of desolation. These differences in the north and south could not exist if the earth were a globe, turning upon axes underneath a non-moving sun. The two hemispheres would at the same latitudes have the same degree of light and heat, and the same general phenomena, both in kind and degree. The peculiarities which are found in the south as compared with the north, are only such as could exist upon a stationary plane, having a northern centre, concentric with which is the path of the moving sun.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!” (116-121)

“Every year the Sun is as long south of the equator as he is north; and if the Earth were not ‘stretched out’ as it is, in fact, but turned under, as the Newtonian theory suggests it would certainly get as intensive a share of the Sun's rays south as north; but the Southern region being, in consequence of the fact stated, - far more extensive than the region North, the Sun, having to complete his journey round every twenty-four hours, travels quicker as he goes further south, from September to December, and his influence has less time in which to accumulate at any given point. Since, then the facts could not be as they are if the Earth were a globe, it is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.” -William Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe” (53)

The Veritopian said...

Hi Eric.
It would be a vast improvement, if instead of quoting other people's hard-to-follow prose, you were to put this information in your own words, preferably with diagrams to clarify the points.

For example: "the Sun, having to complete his journey round every twenty-four hours, travels quicker as he goes further south"

What? So the sun has variable velocity? That seems most unlikely...

Some of the points you have raised are worthy of more investigation, and so I would expect you to pick on those, do your own sums & research, and present the info in a new and rigorous way. To simply quote other people's books just isn't good enough.

You seem to treat this subject as self-evident, but it isn't.

For example - the comparison between NZ & UK is meaningless to most - given the 10deg difference(?) - I have NO IDEA how that might affect the results. So if you could *independently*, with your own research, find 2 spots with the SAME latitude and compare those - we might have something to work with.

I'm sorry to say that your whole approach to this subject seems slapdash & lazy. As such it's quite unconvincing, and you are merely damaging your own credibility.

Get your head out of those old books, and make the case *yourself* using modern data & references.

Eric Dubay said...

Yes, the Sun's velocity changes, quickening until the winter solstice and then slowing until summer. Sorry you don't like quotes from old flat-Earth books, no one has written one for over 40 years, so what do you expect? And if it's not in quotes, they are "my own words" thank you. My "approach to the subject seems slapdash and lazy!?" Where is your 252 page flat-Earth book? Have you compiled 15+ flat-Earth videos in the past couple months as I have? Have you been exposing this all over social media and live radio? My book, articles, interviews and videos are anything but "slapdash and lazy." I've always been nothing but cordial to you, complimented your blog, answered all your questions, and you come at me with this?

The Veritopian said...

Eric, I'm only trying to help...

The most important thing to know as a truth-seeker, is how to accept you're wrong with grace. You only EVER learn by realising your previous knowledge (or approach) was incorrect.

If you're defensive towards your current ideas, that prevents learning, and you are being extremely defensive:

" Where is your 252 page flat-Earth book? "

This is a very childish & defensive response. That's not intended as an insult, it's just true. It's the sort of response I would be disappointed with my 13yr old son if he gave it. It's more fitting to the primary-school playground, and to hear it coming from a fully-grown man is cringe-worthy.

I don't have such a book, nor am I planning to write one. This is YOUR choice of subject matter, and is interesting, but so far you have failed to make a compelling case for it.

"no one has written one for over 40 years, so what do you expect?"

What I expect if for you to deal with the subject in a rigorous and scientific manner, using your own words and research. Fewer assertions, and more facts.

As I said - pick the more promising lines of research and follow them up. I even gave an example of what I expected in the last post, but you ignored it.

I posted a link showing that parallax is (reportedly) observed in some stars - and you ignored that. Cherry-picking the bits that suit your argument, and ignoring anything contradictory, is what politicians do! I hold you in high regard, and expected more than this.

If you do not follow the evidence with your own research, then all you're doing is regurgitating other peoples work, and that is lazy.

Note: You live in a Buddhist country. Buddha taught the dissolution of the ego - because ego is our worst enemy. You have displayed more ego than rationality on this topic, and it will be only damaging to you. Stop being defensive, and be rational instead.

You said that things in your life aren't going to plan, and I'm sorry to hear that. Have you considered it may be your ego which is preventing your progress?

Note 2: Showing that NASA lies is no proof of anything other than they're liars. You cannot extrapolate that as evidence for a flat-earth. This sort of negative-logic doesn't help your argument - it must be taken further with facts that give *positive* evidence for your argument.

Eric Dubay said...

They have a saying here in Thai that goes something like, "assholes slap you in the face then rub your back." Keep that in mind looking at your quotes:

I hold you in high regard, and expected more than this.

Eric, I'm only trying to help... This is a very childish response.

That's not intended as an insult, it's just true.

You are being extremely defensive.

Yes, obviously I'm being extremely defensive, because you are being extremely offensive! Stop treating me like a moron if you "want to help" and "hold me in high regard." You compare me to a disappointing 13 year-old, call me "lazy" twice, "childish," and "cringe-worthy," accuse me of "regurgitating other people's work" because I use quotes from old flat-Earth books to substantiate my research, throw all this at me then blame my "ego" for reacting negatively to your negativity? Then you say, "you're just trying to help," like you're some great guy. You're not going to win me over with that shit, maybe you should reconsider your "approach."

You only EVER learn by realising your previous knowledge (or approach) was incorrect.

I'm the one teaching YOU about this notion. You still think the bullshit they taught you in school about a spinning ball-Earth is true. Take your own advice, "you only ever learn by realizing your previous knowledge was incorrect." I'm sorry you don't like my style and find it "unconvincing, slapdash and lazy." So again, you try exposing the most ridiculed and long-standing conspiracy in history, write your own flat-Earth book, make your own flat-Earth videos, and tell me how the general public receives them. Then I'll come over to your blog to give you a little "friendly advice" about how you're unconvincing approach to the material is lazy and more disappointing than your son.

The Veritopian said...

Eric. If I didn't hold you in high regard, I wouldn't bother making any comments. I only ever comment in order to help, but you're free to believe what you want about me. I can accept that I've failed this time, and I'll try to do better.

You have made some good points which I've discussed with many people, such as the 'rising horizon' phenomenon, and the Bedford levels experiments, and I appreciate that. It's not enough to make a convincing case though.

The bottom line is, it makes no difference to you or me if the world's flat, round, square or a hyperdimensional 4D turtle. It's not what we're here for. You've written enough books on spiritual matters to know that we're here to learn about ourselves. That's the real challenge.

I can strongly recommend a course in Vipassana meditation. You may enjoy it, and it may give you the perspective to realise that your ego is not you - so you can stop identifying yourself with it - and so there's really no point in getting offended if it does.

Yes, I do 'blame your "ego" for reacting negatively'. The only thing in this world that reacts negatively to truth is ego, so I could hardly blame anything else, and as I said your ego is not you, so I'm not blaming you. You are the experiencer, not the experience. What *is* your fault is listening to your ego, and believing it's you when it isn't. The ego is (basically) a mind-virus.

We have saying in English: 'You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink'... So, I've led you to what you need. It's always your choice whether to drink or not.

I wish you well.

Eric Dubay said...

Exactly Veritopian. I am leading you to the truth of the flat-Earth and instead of drinking, you spit the water out in my face. Instead of thanking me for articles and videos you decided to call me lazy, childish, cringe-worthy, and continue to pander on about my "ego" since I didn't immediately roll-over and thank you for your insults.

I teach meditation, Vipassana among others, and practice daily. I'm well-aware of the reality of ego and ego identification, I've written articles and made videos about it, but thanks for once again assuming I need you to lecture me about it. If you really "wish me well" then stop "trying to help" and consider that you may actually be the one who is brainwashed and needs to "learn by realizing your previous knowledge was incorrect."

The Veritopian said...

I am quite prepared to accept that my knowledge is wrong. Which knowledge are you referring to? As far as the shape of the Earth goes, I have no beliefs on that subject either way. I don't know. I have insufficient information on that topic which would allow me to form a conclusion.

The Veritopian said...

Hi Eric, I had a long think about our exchange yesterday, and I feel I can't let it go with good conscience.
If you'd like to conduct this privately, you have my email.

You are clearly running your blog as a business in order to promote your books, and hoping to make at least some money from their sales, and I have no objection to that. In business, however, there's a 'rule of thumb' that says for every complaint/suggestion you receive, there are (at least) 10 potential customers who didn't bother to say anything, and just went elsewhere. So such complaints should be treated like gold.

"The customer is always right" - is another saying. Everyone reading your blog is a potential customer to you, but you're not treating us as such. Any business which refuses to listen to it's customers is doomed to failure.

Only a customer who *believes in* the business will bother to write & suggest/complain, the other ten don't. So you should treat those people with the respect they have afforded you, at least...

I wrote to you because I believe in you, and want to help you improve your business. To reject any criticism is illogical and unprofessional, and it can only harm you, and your future.

I have no vested interest whatsoever in your activities, and I'm only writing to help you, with no possible gain for myself beyond seeing you happy and successful. The only reward I seek is to improve the lot of my brother, which you are. Note that I have *nothing* to gain from this, except perhaps wasting my time & making a new enemy. That alone should you alert you to the fact of my genuine concern & regard for you. To question it & insult me is totally counterproductive.

A book on the flat earth theory *must be* a book of science. Therefore it must be approached in a scientific way. Science cannot be done with high emotion, as that blinds one to contradictory facts.

It is absolutely obvious, as plain as the nose on your face, that you are acting out of ego. None of us can hide ourselves from scrutiny. You have displayed high-emotion and ego-driven defensiveness, instead of professional humility, and that's not helping you one bit.

You say you know all about identifying ego, meditation etc, and have taken great offense that I should have the temerity to suggest these things to you. But your vitriolic responses demonstrate, without a shadow of a doubt, that you are not practising what you preach. You obviously still identify with your ego, and you still act on its command. It seems your intellectual knowledge is not translated into action. This shows a lack of integrity, in other words hypocrisy.

I'm quite used to having my intentions misunderstood and being insulted for telling the truth. I was married to a psychopath, so, if you can imagine what that's like, you'll know there's really nothing you can say about me that will bother me. Also, I gave up defending my ego in my early teens - I don't do it at all - because I realised it only makes people look foolish. I practise what I preach.

I hope you can overcome your ego enough to hear what I'm saying and learn from it, and yes, you do have this to learn, there is no doubt. If you reject the truth of what I have said, then you will bear the consequences, not me.

I still wish you well, and always will.

Eric Dubay said...

I run my blog like a blog, not like a business. And the customer certainly isn't always right regardless of common cliche. I'm not going to "treat your complaints (and insults) as gold," because they are not gold. I don't need you telling me to be "more scientific," my book has plenty of scientific proofs of the flat-Earth. I don't need you calling me "lazy," I'm very diligent. I don't need you telling me I "lack integrity," I have plenty. And I don't need you telling me to meditate, I teach meditation and practice daily.

It is absolutely obvious, as plain as the nose on your face, that you are acting out of ego.

You are attacking me and my work and I'm defending myself and my work. You keep harping on about me being lazy, childish, unscientific, and egoistic. What did I do to you? Have I not been clear? I don't want or need your kind of passive-aggressive "help." Acting like you're so spiritual and superior, insulting me and my work then insisting "whoa, whoa, don't react to my bullshit, that's your ego man." Now that's childish, transparent, passive-aggressive tripe and I'm not going to just say "Oh yes, thanks so much for that." Here's a list of the shit you've come out of nowhere and called me:

Illogical, unprofessional, hypocrite, childish, slapdash, lazy (twice), compared me as being inferior to a 13 year-old, said I lacked integrity, as well as the following choice quotes:

This is a very childish & defensive response.

You have displayed more ego than rationality on this topic.

You have displayed high-emotion and ego-driven defensiveness, instead of professional humility, and that's not helping you one bit.

Stop being defensive, and be rational instead.

Your vitriolic responses demonstrate, without a shadow of a doubt, that you are not practising what you preach.

All you're doing is regurgitating other peoples work, and that is lazy.

You obviously still identify with your ego, and you still act on its command. It seems your intellectual knowledge is not translated into action. This shows a lack of integrity, in other words hypocrisy.

I hope you can overcome your ego enough to hear what I'm saying and learn from it, and yes, you do have this to learn.

Damn, do you just stroke yourself in the mirror at night telling yourself how superior you are to everyone? Mirror mirror on the wall, tell me Veritopian is the most spiritual of them all. Stuff like that?

My suggestion for you is to re-consider your approach to "helping" people. Insulting me over and over isn't going to ingratiate you into my good graces. Being offensive then blaming my "ego" for being defensive is like when your big brother takes your hand and punches you with it saying, "stop hitting yourself, stop hitting yourself." I'm not, you're hitting me, now you stop it. Yes, this is my ego speaking. My ego is here to protect me from wolves in sheep's clothing like yourself who insist on saying you're a friend but then insulting me to no end, blaming me for reacting, then preaching from your pedestal about how you're so spiritual and ego-less.

The Veritopian said...

"I run my blog like a blog, not like a business"

You promote your books on the blog, you have moaned about your lack of sales, and exhorted people to buy them. Your intent is, at least in part, to sell books, therefore it is a business whether you consider it to be one or not. Perhaps you prefer to regard it as a non-business because if you took it seriously you'd have to listen to your readers/customers opinions?

Insult: speak to or treat with disrespect or scornful abuse
Scorn: a feeling and expression of contempt or disdain for someone or something.
Contempt: the feeling that a person or a thing is worthless or beneath consideration.

I have not once insulted you. Telling someone the truth is an act of respect, and I stand by all of the criticisms I have made of your behaviour because they're true. A criticism is only an insult if it's untrue. Note - not criticisms of *you* - criticisms of your behaviour, there is a difference.

"You keep harping on about me being lazy, childish, unscientific, and egoistic."

Actually it's you who is 'harping on', you have repeated the perceived slights FOUR times now, where any repetition I have made has been to expand on my previous criticisms. For example I used the word 'lazy' twice, to explain why I said it the first time. And as I said the first time, your approach to this topic *does* seem slapdash & lazy.

"Damn, do you just stroke yourself in the mirror at night telling yourself how superior you are to everyone? Mirror mirror on the wall, tell me Veritopian is the most spiritual of them all. Stuff like that?"

A childish insult.

But the final nail in the coffin is this: "My ego is here to protect me"

With that statement you demonstrate that you have no genuine understanding of ego at all. Ego protects only itself, and it destroys you in the process. The *only* thing your ego can do is make a fool of you.

You claim to know all about the ego, so much so that you can teach others, while showing that you don't even have the beginnings of any real understanding of it's true nature. If you believe your ego protects you then you are truly deluded.

Delusion: to believe something that is not true. An idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder.

I don't suppose there's any point in continuing this conversation, so I wish you good luck, if you continue to nurture your ego, instead of your spirit, then you will need all the luck you can get.

Eric Dubay said...

Ego: "A person's sense of self-esteem responsible for reality testing and a sense of personal identity."

The final nail in the coffin is this ... Ego protects only itself

Oh no, the final nail in the coffin! I'll grant you that egos protect themselves, not our true selves, but regardless, it's doing so because you are treating me like a child and even calling me childish several times now. From where did you adopt this spiritual superiority? Why do you assume that not automatically rolling over on command and thanking you for your passive-aggressive INSULTING criticisms is some ego malfunction? Does your frienemy sheep costume usually fool people better than this? I have real friends who treat me and each other with the utmost respect, especially when being critical, so I see through people like you easily Veritopian. I can see why you married a psychopath. You seem to love this drama you're creating. You can stop at any time now. I'd appreciate that. Thanks.

Eric Dubay said...

And right back at you:

You claim to know all about the ego, so much so that you can teach others, while showing that you don't even have the beginnings of any real understanding of it's true nature.

Rinoni said...

Hey Eric, thank you for your genuine answer. You may want to check the Natural Time Measurement here:

Just bought your book btw.


Eric Dubay said...

Thanks so much for the support Rinon, be sure to give me a quick review when you finish to let me know what you think! Your work on natural time and the Gregorian calendar is excellent, keep it up. I totally agree about Moon time and how these Sun worshipers have taken us off natural time with their unnatural calendars, check these out if you haven't already:

Calendrical & Time Manipulation 1

Calendrical & Time Manipulation 2

Calendrical & Time Manipulation 3

Rinoni said...

Here's a pre-review ;)

Eric Dubay said...

Hey Rinon, thanks for sharing, have you found any quotes in the Quran that point towards Geocentricity / Flat Earth? There are several quotes from the Christian Bible that do.

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.”

Eric Dubay said...

“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.

Rinoni said...

In the link I sent - the free-minds forum, I began the thread with the very theme: Sun, Moon and Stars prove the Earth flat.

If you can, check that from the beginning where I cited all the verses from Koran supporting the flat and still Earth.

Here's the link again, I appear as R.H-Ustahi.

To me, all Holy Scriptures are chapters of the Same Book.


Eric Dubay said...

Oh, my bad, thanks. I didn't realize the text after the numbers was from the Quran! Peace

Rinoni said...

Eric, just been watching the sun set.

If it would stay parallel to the earth, by going towards west it would have to turn from disc/circle to ellipse.

But it stays perfectly circular. Thus, sun as a sphere is the only option it would stay that way.


Rinoni said...

One explanation is that the sun and moon do not float parallel to the land but parallel to the lower heaven they are positioned in.

Here are the verses from Koran:

24:35 God is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The example of
His light is like a niche within which there is a lamp, the lamp
is encased in a glass, the glass is like a radiant planet, which is
lit from a blessed olive tree that is neither of the east nor of the
west, its oil nearly gives off light even if not touched by fire. Light
upon light, God guides to His light whom He pleases. And God sets forth examples for the people, and God is aware of all things.

25:61 Blessed is the One Who made towers in the heaven and He made
in it a lamp and an illuminating moon.

41:12 Thus, He then made them into seven heavens in two days, and
He inspired to every heaven its affair. And We adorned the lowest
heaven with lamps, and for protection. Such is the design of the
Noble, the Knowledgeable.

67:5 And We have adorned the lower heaven with lamps, and We made
it with projectiles against the devils; and We prepared for them
the retribution of the blazing Fire.

71:15 “Did you not see how God created seven heavens in layers?”

71:16 “And He made the moon to illuminate in them, and He made the
sun to be a lamp?”

78:6 Did We not make the earth a resting ground?

78:7 And the mountains as pegs?

78:12 And We constructed above you seven mighty ones?

78:13 And We made a blazing lamp?

So, Considering the heavenly cup, the circular view we see from the earth is caused by the form of the heaven.


Rinoni said...

Here is how I see it till now:

The God-o-Centric System:


Eric Dubay said...

Great little article and thanks so much for those quotes. I'm working on a video now compiling various "Ancient Flat Earth Beliefs" which will have a small section from the Koran. Peace

Rinoni said...

You're welcome. Keep up your work. Bright and young people is what this plane-t needs. Not old and stupid.

Peace be upon you.


Rinoni said...

Here are some samples from and for those who know:

Rinoni said...

55:33 O tribes of Jinn and humans, if you can penetrate the outer limits of the heavens and the Earth, then go ahead and penetrate. You will not penetrate without absolute power.

This is the key verse to cite!

Rinoni said...

55:35 He sends against both of you projectiles of fire, and of copper; so
you will not succeed.

Rinoni said...

Some quotes from the past, which turn out to be actual now:


Imagination is Limitation. Sorry Einstein. Human ”knowledge” is Zero compared to God’s infinity of Inspirations.

Knowledge is Inspiration. The rest are lies.

The first step of Education is to screw all models that have hole in it.

When you’re mind-f***ed, any f*** is good.

School is a place of intellectual pollution.

This Universe is not to be penetrated with material things.

The body is the vehicle of the soul, and the soul has the capability to fly.

Praise be to God. The Lord of the worlds.


Rinoni said...

People have reported that the sky looks much nearer in New Zealand than in Europe.

Here are such photos:

Certainly, the sky doesn't look like this in Europe.

The reason is the Heavenly cup which ends in Antarctica, thus in New Zealand, the stars, moon and the sky do not look nearer, but ARE nearer.


Rinoni said...

2:22 Worship God who has rendered the earth as a floor for you and the sky as a dome for you and has sent water down from the sky to produce fruits for your sustenance. Do not knowingly set up anything as an equal to God.
~ Sarwar Translation.

Dome is the upper part of half'n'sphere, typical for mosques, churches and other religions temples.


Rinoni said...

21:32 and We set up the heaven as [b]a roof well-protected[/b]; yet still from Our signs they are turning away.
~ Arberry translation.

22:65 Did you not see that God commits to you what is on the earth?
And the ships sail in the sea with His permission. And He holds
the sky so that it would not collapse upon the earth, except by His
permission. Indeed, God is Kind towards the people, Merciful.
~ Free-Minds translation.

22:65 Dost thou not see that God hath subjected whatever is in the earth to your service, and also the ships which sail in the sea, by his command? And He with-holdeth the heaven that it fall not on the earth, unless by his permission: For God is gracious unto mankind, and merciful.

~ George_Sale translation.

Only a solid structure has to be withheld in order not to fall, such as the sky-dome above us.

Rinoni said...

81:15 So I do swear by the planets that move away.

81:16 Running in their orbits.

~ FM translation.

Planets move, we don't. Still earth. Peaceful.

Rinoni said...

70:40 So I do swear by the Lord of the east and the west, that We are able.

There is nowhere mentioned in Koran - North and South.

Only East and West, the circular orbits around which move the sun and the moon.

No circular movement is possible South-North.

Rinoni said...

The connection between school and reality is as the sewerage and drinkable water.

But hey, that can happen too!

If you want to be afraid, learn to see.

If you want to see, learn not to be afraid.

Praise be to God. Alone, He's enough who guides all affairs from the throne.


Rinoni said...

Eric, here's one more scripture that explains detailly the luminaries:


Rinoni said...

Eric, answer me a question:

How come there are no satellites yet one has precise coordinates for turning the receiving antenna towards, to get the signal?

How do you explain this?

Thank you.


Eric Dubay said...

Hey Rinon, thanks again for all the quotes. For Dish TV etc. you have to point your dish towards the nearest ground-based tower. This is why dishes are rarely inclined more than 45 degrees. If they were really receiving signal from 100 miles up in space, all dishes would be more or less pointing straight up (or at least many would be) but in actual fact, no dishes work pointing straight up. It's explained towards the end of my video here:

Satellite Hoax - Satellites Do Not Exist!

Rinoni said...

Thanks, ...and here is the latest story:


Rinoni said...

Eric and whoever is interested:

The Newest Publication: The Scriptural Heaven and Earth:


Rinoni said...


Let’s go for the moment to the page 15 and see the water-drop picture again. What else do you notice except the perfect concentric circles?!

- Go see that page and come back here again.

The answer is, the dome each drop makes while resting upon water. This is another clue for the form of the heaven we live beneath.

See? - A drop of water can teach you more than a multitude of nations.

Rinoni said...

Eric, do you have any precise representation of the movements of the sun and moon upon the flat earth during the year?


Prez P said...

How do you explain the fact that there is a North Celestial pole and a South Celestial Pole on a flat earth? As you get to the southern latitudes its a fact that theres a rotation of the stars around the southern celestial pole ( or illusion of rotation of stars with a spherical spinning earth model) just as in the northern hemisphere theres rotation around the north celestial pole ( 1 degree off of the star Polaris ). So the problem arises that in the southern hemisphere on the flat earth you should theoretically not have a southern celestial pole, right? or what do you postulate? At all southern latitudes the stars appear to rotate around the south celestial pole. This doesn't make sense yet. On a flat earth you would have the north celestial pole (the center) and all the stars going around it but at the edge of the southern latitudes you should just see stars rotating off into oblivion with accordance to the north celestial pole, still rotating around it. Instead you get another southern rotation, seemingly indicating that the earth is spinning, that there is an axis of rotation, indefinitely extended, intersecting the celestial sphere there by making the imaginary North and South Celestial poles. How can australia and south america be pointing in different directions on the flat earth and yet be seeing the same south celestial pole? 

Anonymous said...

Hi Eric,

Do you know about the phenomenon of omega sun? and what causes it? There is a link to winter omega sun in Japan. Could you share your view on this?


Steve Nieman said...


I appreciate your courage. Inspires me and my searching for the truth!

Unknown said...

Hi ,

I'm really curious & intrigued on how do you add colors to the star trails. They look lovely with such colors. plz do share your processing technique.


Lian said...

Hi i'm new to this theory and I've nearly accepted it. I have Just a few more questions about some unclear stuff.

1. If the earth is flat, why does the sun seems larger at sunset instead of smaller like all the other objects that are getting farther?
2. If the earth is flat, than we should still see the sun after sunset with a telescope but it's not the case. why?
3. Same about the moon

Thank you.

Anonymous said...

Fascinating stuff, it reminds me of the film "The Truman Show" with Jim Carrey, except the whole world has been fooled instead of just one man, and the dome is a lot bigger than that portrayed in the film. Could we really all be in a massive petrie dish, blissfully unaware that we are all part of some elaborate experiment? Andy

Netlace said...

I love the Beautiful FLAT EARTH. Everything makes sense. And every eye will see him! Love your site Eric!

Anonymous said...

Eric, thank you for putting yourself out there and working hard on this topic, I've just recently woke up from the ball earth dream. I have been researching conspiracy for a couple years now, so it wasn't hard for me to believe that they would try/succeed in pulling this off.

I also wanted to share my thoughts on your attacks from veritopian (I think that was his name). This guy could be a Jesuit agitator, sent in to attack and try to disrupt on a grass roots level. If this is true, the fact that he was attacking shows me that you're doing good work and on their radar. The flat earth (as you know) was never disproved so many years ago but was sidelined, suppressed and ignored by the power of controlling public information. The Flat Earth Truth is a well kept and well guarded secret that they will kill to protect! so be careful!

Keep up the good work, I want to get your book and Samuel Rowenbotham's as well (Zetetic Astronomy) also I've been reading some old newsletters from Charles Johnson from Flat Earth News. I'm amazed at how people's responses to my attempts at waking them up to Flat Earth Truth, are almost like trying to wake someone up from R.E.M. state.

Thanks again for all the great info, books, videos. so far I've only been able to reach my kids about the flat earth. Family and co-workers are just not interested in pursuing the truth on the matter and are completely convinced of the ball earth. The conspirators have done their jobs well. Take care and may God continue to Bless you and your work!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Eric, pay no attention to that Veritopian guy, I think he may just be a Jesuit "agitator" sent in to mess with you. If that's true then you are on their radar so be careful! Flat Earth Truth is a well guarded secret. flat earth was never disproved (as you know) it was only sidelined, marginalized, and ignored by the power of controlling public information. (Nassholes, dept. of education, Vatican, media, government (Govern = guide....ment = mind) please keep up the excellent work and thank you for what you've done so far!

I want to get your book and Zetetic Astronomy also...take care and God Bless!!!!!

New Hampshire said...

Eric, could these following phenomena be evidence of the Dome/Firmament: 1) Thunder seems to reverberate as if off the dome; 2) The Rainbow appears to be showing in it's appearance, the very shape of the Dome; and 3) could the optical illusion that we call the natural law of perspective (birds approaching, appearing to ascend, then descend, same with planes, same with the "rising/setting" of the sun/moon, actually be evidence of the presence of the Dome causing this effect?...and then you have your Hollywood movie "Beyond Thunder dome" (no doubt this is where they would like to get)

Thanks again and keep up the good work (God's work)

Mary Martha said...

Hey Eric,
Mary Martha here. It has been quite awhile since I adopted the mantra "Once you go flat you never go back!" It has also been awhile since i have visited your blog. I display proudly your coffee table book. It makes boring holidays with the "Rellies" much more exciting! I sometimes think I am going to have to do CPR on some of them after they thumb through your book as their eyes roll back in their heads! I have read much your other works and blog posts. I must say when I check back here at your blog I find you patiently grinding away..answering questions....providing information...trying to help people "see" for themselves with out shoving or spoon feeding. You put up with rudeness and indignant types and countless questions that if they had actually read your work they would know the answer. You are really sweet to those asking important intelligent questions. I am completely fine in confessing much of it goes above my head as far as the technical aspects of what makes heliocentric a lie and flat the truth. But I am also using something else of great value to help me "understand." I am using my INTUITION!!!! I don't need to necessarily know all the scientific and technical ins and out because my "gut" tells me it is so. I use my eyes and my common sense and my intuition backs it up. Some people have said to me, "So what is the big deal flat or round?" It is as you say. It takes a Creator out of the equation. It insults my very being and makes me small and insignificant. This makes me under the thumb of those who want to sell me lies, control me and consume me and keep me busy with what they want me to know all the while they steal my humanity. The world is a mess because we have lost our understanding that we are all THE ONE...It has been stolen from us but I say NO MORE! Knowing I have been lied to on such a grand scale helps me understand and see this reality with open eyes. It helps me navigate this realm I find myself in. It helps me to trust myself and remember who I am. It is time to question everything that I have been "taught". As they say when the student is ready the teacher appears...Thank you for being my teacher.

Eric Dubay said...

Thanks for the comment Mary Martha I really appreciate that.

Unknown said...

So I'm knew to this concept and all of the proof seems legitimate I do have one question if someone can give me a good answer. If the earth is truly flat then why does the sun stay up so long in Alaska they have months of sunshine there where the sun doesn't go down if it were flat the sun would set every day just like every where else right?

c thompson said...

Neil Armstrong interview BBC 1970.At 4:4o point- - noted on their final approach Hills in the order of 100 feet tall yet when landed and standing 1200 FEET AWAY could not see them(due to the curve of the MOONS SURFACE)-I would ask is it possible to calculate the RADIUS or CIRCUMFERENCE of the Moon on MR Armstrong's eyewitness account.100 feet high not visible 1200 FEET away - -NOW GRANTING that they were on the MOON THESE HEIGHT and DISTANCE measurements would suggest the Moon to be much MUCH SMALLER than the accepted circumference of 6,800 miles or 1,100 mile Radius --Love to hear from a numbers man.

Chris Thompson said...

Dear Eric more on Neil Armstrong's statement that when coming in to land on the moon they observed hills in the order of 100 feet high yet when landed and standing some 1200 feet could not see them.I did a rough experiment using my circular kitchen table scaling it all down to 64th of an inch to 1 yard (30 YARDS HIGH 1200 YARDS AWAY)-IT clearly shows the curve of the MOON they were on was much greater than the curve you would see on a moon with a circumference of 6800 miles.Therefore the moon is many many times smaller then they would have us believe -Mr Armstrong is one of A few eye witnesses and if he is telling us the truth - then the moon is small the distance from Earth is much much less -it follows the SUN is smaller and much closer to Earth.This leads one to believe all the issues you have raised with the BALL Earth are SUPPORTED by MR Armstrong's observations.Makes on look at the photos of the horizon and lunar surface of their Moon with new interest.Once again I would love to see a calculation for Curvature of the Moon-using the accepted measurements ,and then MR Armstrong's OBSERVED Distances.If it proves the Moon to be much smaller an more in line with what we can see-the rest of what We're Taught will start SPINNING out of Control -Tanks very much for your time and Effort Eric.

Unknown said...

In regards to the days and nights not being 12 hours each if the earth spins evenly once per 24 hours...It makes sense to me but doesn't the equinox and tilting of earth on its axis explain this?