Sunday, June 12, 2016

The Always Horizontal Horizon Proves Earth Flat

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

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

Amateurs have sent balloons to heights of over 121,000 feet and you can watch video online of the horizon rising with the camera-level and remaining perfectly flat 360 degrees around.  NASA videos and other “official” sources, however, such as the recent Red Bull skydive at 128,000 feet have been caught adding fake curvature to the Earth via wide-angle lenses and post-production work.  Panoramic photos atop Mount Everest also often claim to be displaying Earth’s curvature, but this is simply the result of distortions and limitations inherent in wide-angle lenses.  I have exposed the full extent of NASA’s camera trickery and doctored CGI sphere Earth pictures/videos here, here and here.

The camera distorted horizons have always been a misleading factor with those who have not freed their minds from the ‘planet’ or ‘globe earth indoctrination.’  Three or four years ago, the U.S.I.S. booklet ‘Science Horizons,’ carried a note to the effect that the Americans hoped to produce a lens which would NOT distort level horizons.  So far I am not aware that such aid to truer photography has yet been made available.  Flat Earthists however can prove that due to the known laws of perspective, the horizon, optically rises and remains level with the observer’s, or the camera’s eye, no matter what height is achieved.  In fact the earth immediately beneath balloon, airplane, rocket or capsule, presents a dish-shaped or concave appearance.  The point of earth immediately below the vehicle is the lowest.  It is NOT the highest point of your ‘globe’ earth with the dip or curvature of the ‘ball’ sweeping away downwards to a horizon far away below the eye level.  -Samuel Shenton, “The Plane Truth”

If the Earth were actually a big ball 25,000 miles in circumference, the horizon would be noticeably curved (even at sea-level), and everything on or approaching the horizon would appear to tilt backwards slightly from your perspective.  Distant buildings along the horizon would all look like leaning towers of Piza falling away from the observer.  A  hot-air balloon taking off then drifting steadily away from you, on a ball-Earth would slowly and constantly appear to lean back more and more the farther away it flew, the bottom of the basket coming gradually into view as the top of the balloon disappears from sight.  In reality, however, buildings, balloons, trees, people, anything and everything at right angles to the ground/horizon remains so regardless the distance of the observer.

The marine horizon, from whatever position it is viewed, always appears to be, and is, in fact, a perfectly level line, and since this appearance is the same in all parts of the world, its surface must be level; and therefore the Earth is a Plane.  This may be proved to be the case, by erecting at a suitable elevation on the sea shore, a duly-levelled board, or a string - at right angles to a plumb-line - tightly stretched between two vertical poles.  On looking towards the sea, the horizontal line for a distance of 20 miles may be easily observed, and throughout its entire length it will be found to coincide with the straight-edge, or string: but if the earth were a globe, the horizontal line would form an arc of twenty miles in length, curveting both ways from the center, at the rate of eight inches, multiplied by the square of the distance.  Hence the horizontal line at either end of the distance ought to be depressed some 66 feet below the horizon in the center.  But as no such appearance is ever presented, it necessarily follows that the earth cannot be a globe, or other than a plane.”  -B. Chas. Brough, “The Zetetic” Volume 1 Number 1, July 1872

Anyone can prove the sea-horizon perfectly straight and the entire Earth perfectly flat using nothing more than a level, tripods and a wooden plank.  At any altitude above sea-level, simply fix a 6-12 foot long, smooth, leveled board edgewise upon tripods and observe the skyline from eye-level behind it.   The distant horizon will always align perfectly parallel with the upper edge of the board.  Furthermore, if you move in a half-circle from one end of the board to the other whilst observing the skyline over the upper edge, you will be able to trace a clear, flat 10-20 miles depending on your altitude.  This would be impossible if the Earth were a globe and the surface of water convex!  If the Earth were actually a globe 25,000 miles in circumference, the horizon would align over the center of the board but then gradually, noticeably decline towards the extremities.  Just ten miles on each side would necessitate an easily visible curvature of 66.6 feet from each end to the center.

It is known that the horizon at sea, whatever distance it may extend to the right and left of the observer on land, always appears as a straight line.  The following experiment has been tried in various parts of the country.  At Brighton, on a rising ground near the race course, two poles were fixed in the earth six yards apart, and directly opposite the sea.  Between these poles a line was tightly stretched parallel to the horizon.  From the center of the line the view embraced not less than 20 miles on each side making a distance of 40 miles.  A vessel was observed sailing directly westwards; the line cut the rigging a little above the bulwarks, which it did for several hours or until the vessel had sailed the whole distance of 40 miles.  The ship coming into view from the east would have to ascend an inclined plane for 20 miles until it arrived at the center of the arc, whence it would have to descend for the same distance.  The square of 20 miles multiplied by 8 inches gives 266 feet as the amount the vessel would be below the line at the beginning and at the end of the 40 miles.  -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!” (20)

From the highland near Portsmouth Harbor in Hampshire, England looking across Spithead to the Isle of Wight, the entire base of the island, where water and land come together composes a perfectly straight line 22 statute miles long.  According to the ball-Earth theory, the Isle of Wight should decline 80 feet from the center on each side to account for the necessary curvature.  The cross-hairs of a good theodolite directed there, however, have repeatedly shown the land and water line to be perfectly level.

On a clear day from the highland near Douglas Harbor on the Isle of Man, the whole length of the coast of North Wales is often plainly visible to the naked eye.  From the Point of Ayr at the mouth of the River Dee to Holyhead comprises a 50 mile stretch which has also been repeatedly found to be perfectly horizontal.  If the Earth actually had curvature of 8 inches per mile squared, as NASA and modern astronomy claim, the 50 mile length of Welsh coast seen along the horizon in Liverpool Bay would have to decline from the center-point an easily detectable 416 feet on each side!

But as such declination, or downward curvation, cannot be detected, the conclusion is logically inevitable that it has no existence. Let the reader seriously ask whether any and what reason exists in Nature to prevent the fall of more than 400 feet being visible to the eye, or incapable of detection by any optical or mathematical means whatever. This question is especially important when it is considered that at the same distance, and on the upper outline of the same land, changes of level of only a few yards extent are quickly and unmistakably perceptible.  If a man is guided by evidence and reason, and influenced by a love of truth and consistency, he cannot longer maintain that the earth is a globe. He must feel that to do so is to war with the evidence of his senses, to deny that any importance attaches to fact and experiment, to ignore entirely the value of logical process, and to cease to rely upon practical induction.”  -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!” (28)

Support independent publishing: Buy this book on Lulu.

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


Anonymous said...


But how do you explain footage of the Earth from Space clearly showing it to be spherical?

You seem to have a good against argument, but this could unravel it to the point of ridicule.

PLUS, do you really think that this is being done by the Gov. in order to keep people down. I say this because i see plenty of proof that Science is being used to empower the human freedom of mind. Examples include Science now finding positive used for Psychadelic drugs, and confirming that the war on drugs was more of a politival thing than harm thing.

I am looking forwards to your reply Eric, because no one has anything to gain about lying about the shape of the Earth, IMO.

That could be seen to be a conspiracy theorist overstepping the mark in terms of reasonable explanation. Science knows and accepts that it simply cannot explain the true origins of consciousness, etc. We therefore know that Science isn't the do all and end all. Therefore a flat Earth theory cannot be used to devalue our Spiritual selves.

Eric Dubay said...

Hello, the following video I made completely explains and debunks all footage/photos of "Earth from space clearly showing it to be spherical":

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

NASA is the biggest black budget black hole in existence sucking in over 30 billion dollars taxpayer money for the fake moon landings alone. But it is about much more than just money. You claim "a flat Earth theory cannot be used to devalue our spiritual sevles," yet this is exactly what has happened.

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.

Anonymous said...

If the earth were flat, you would see the European coast from the American coast. In fact you can't even see the continental coast from the British coast. So explain that, if you dare!!!

Eric Dubay said...

What makes you think you could see that far even with the best telescope? The air, especially in the lowest levels of the atmosphere, is dense and not transparent. Think of the blurry haze over roads on hot, humid days, beyond which you cannot clearly see. Even the best telescopes on the clearest day looking across at ground level cannot see an unlimited distance. They blur out long before reaching that far, try it yourself. Telescopes do however allow us to see MUCH more of the flat-Earth than would be possible on a ball 25,000 miles of circumference. See here:

The Natural Physics of Water Proves Earth Flat

Anonymous said...

Hi Eric I just came across the flat earth theory, and I'm open to the possiblity and since the condensation trails from airplanes are always straight lines it actually makes sense too. Yet If the sun is like a spotlight, it would only be seen as a perfect circle on midday, but when the sun sets its shape should become more and more elliptical. Or what am I missing? Thank you, Maria

Anonymous said...

I could accept the possibility of this considering how everything we ever have been taught was a lie however what exists outside this flat earth? Do other planets/planes exist? or...

Umbra said...

For everyone who asks why would 'they' cover up the fact the earth is flat. I have considered the possiblity that maybe there are other lands beyond the ice wall. Picture the earth plane like swiss xheese, the cheese represents an ice surface whilst the holes are habital pockets of land like our earth.
The antarctic wall could stretch vast distances before another pocket of 'circular ' arranged land masses would exist. These other lands could be the fabled Shambala, atlantis, lemuria etc... And what the nazi's were searching for. Admiral byrd apparently flew past antartica and saw another land, he assumed he must of went inside the earth.
if the other planets are actually just other lands on our plane that the elites are aware of and even are in contact with then this would be the perfect reason for such an elaborate hoax, this theory can even extend to explaining where UFO's derive from

Anonymous said...

Hmmmm. The sun, the moon, all observable planets ( including moons of Jupiter and Saturn) are all round as seen through my telescope with my own eyes.Yes. Telescopes can see millions to billions of miles out in space. So you saying telescopes are not strong enough to see 25, 000 miles is totally false.. Also planes travel around the earth, and people have actually flown around the earth. My uncle traveled to china from germany. Then on to Japan, Hawaii, and to the U.S. visited us awhile, and left NY back to germany. Around the world he went. The earth is round just like most of the objects in the solar system. I can not believe there are people that believe this flat earth theory. Its such an iron age fairy tale.

Anonymous said...

If the earth is flat, why haven't you been to the edge of it or why havent you explain that in your article? Also if the earth is flat, why haven't people fallen off the edge of it?????

Anonymous said...

This has to be the biggest piece of garbage I have ever read in my life. Earth is flat? If the planet was flat there was be an observable edge in which things would fall into the infinite void of space. Do you even know what science is? Have you ever taken a science class or talked to a scientist? Please please PLEASE go read a book that was written by a PhD and bring yourself up to speed with the rest of the species. Saying the earth is flat is just as bad as religious fanatics saying that the earth is only 5000 years old. Stop spreading ignorace.

Anonymous said...

I'm waiting for the answer. Maybe he finally went to the edge and fell off.

Anonymous said...

Eric I'm digging the new articles... Wow! I agree that the earth is flat however while talking to a fellow about it he finds this
Flat Earth DEBUNKED??? All Videos (6000 Views) RE…:
What do you think? I didn't have a rebuttle for the one point and I wondered what yours would have been.

Eric Dubay said...

Thanks for the comments everyone. Maria, I'm not sure why you assume the Sun would change into an ellipse as it nears the horizon? In some ways it does change shape and become magnified especially on clear, humid days because of refraction you can see the lower part of the Sun setting or rising on the horizon magnifying and blurring outwards. The reason being that when light of any kind shines through a dense medium it appears larger, or rather gives a greater glare, at a given distance than when it is seen through a lighter medium. This is more remarkable when the medium holds aqueous particles or vapor in solution, as in a damp or foggy atmosphere. You can see this by standing within a few yards of a street lamp, and noticing the size of the light; on going away to many times the distance, the light upon the atmosphere will appear considerably larger. This phenomenon may be noticed, to a greater or less degree, at all times; but when the air is moist and vapory it is more intense. It is evident that at sunrise, and at sunset, the sun's light must shine through a greater length of atmospheric air than at mid-day; besides which, the air near the earth is both more dense, and holds more watery particles in solution, than the higher strata through which the sun shines at noonday; and hence the light must be dilated or magnified, as well as modified in color.

Umbra, I have often thought and pondered the same idea you mentioned of an infinite plane with other flat disc-Earth systems like a swiss cheese. Someone needs to let Matt Boylan do his Antarctica challenge, going South from any point with is team, rope and spikes, wait for him with camera crews on the "other side" and see if he circumnavigates the ball-Earth or proves it flat and answers the big mystery of whether there is an edge, a barrier or an infinite plane. Inquiring minds want to know! 2015 and no one has still ever completed a North / South circumnavigation. Any brave pilots with a UStream account out there? :)

Eric Dubay said...

Anonymous, they are round yes, but not spherical. Telescopes do not "see millions and billions of miles" to the stars! The stars are only 3,000 miles away from the surface of the Earth as measured by sextants and plane trigonometry. This has been known and calculated repeatedly for thousands of years, but suppressed and you're given a false cosmology instead. The stars are not "light-years" away and they are not "suns in other solar systems." Stars are stars, not suns, and our Sun is the only Sun. Earth is a plane, not a "planet." And "planets" were known throughout the ages as "wandering stars" because they differ from the fixed stars in their relative motions only. Seen through a telescope all the planets are merely round dots of light, not spherical terra firma capable of landing on as in NASA's CGI "photos."

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

Eric Dubay said...

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

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

Eric Dubay said...

No independent exploration of Antarctica is allowed by the 47 UN treaty nations which guard it, so it's still a mystery whether Earth has an edge, a barrier or is an infinite plane.

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

The "Flat Earth Debunked" video is a strawman saying "Flat Earth map says it should be 14,000 miles." First of all, what flat-Earth map? He doesn't show or say. And furthermore, no it shouldn't; there is nothing in the flat-Earth model claiming that there must be 7,000 or 14,000 miles or any such distance between any two points. The distance is what it is and has no bearing whatsoever on the shape of the land beneath. Peace

Anonymous said...

If the earth if flat, then how do you explain a "sunset" if you're on the east coast, and watching day turn to darkness, while someone in the Midwest or West Coast is still in bright sunshine? A perfectly level plane necessitates that the sun, if at some fixed point above the plane, would be visible from any point on the plane using simple line-of-sight.

Even if the sun were like a flashlight pointed straight down, some narrow portion of it would be visible from every point on the plane unless the downward projecting light was at altitude 0, or level with the plane. We certainly shouldn't experience a typical round sunset, which could then become a "sunrise" a few minutes later by boarding an airplane and gaining altitude.

Furthermore, I have witnessed the underside of high altitude cirrostratus clouds (overhead and to the west) being illuminated by direct sunlight 20 or 30 minutes after the sun has already disappeared below the horizon at the surface. The bottom of these flat plane clouds are clearly on a horizontal trajectory that places the source of illumination well below the straight line that extends along the cloud base. I could call my friend who lives half way across the state, where the sun is still shining, and he could see the exact same illuminated clouds I'm looking at off to his distant east.

Finally, during a total lunar eclipse, you can discern a curve to the earth's edge shadow that moves across the face of the moon. You are likely only seeing a very small portion of the earth's surface casting that shadow. The earth is so large that even from 20 miles up it would be difficult to discern much curvature (20 miles is 0.0025 of earth's diameter). In terms of a basketball, that's less than 2 millimeters above its surface. Your eye and pupil diameter is too big to get that close to the ball - if it could shrink accordingly, your ball horizon would appear almost flat at 2 millimeters altitude.

Umbra said...

How come everytime 'flat earth' theory is mentioned people question why we dont fall off the edge? Even if there was no ice wall at the edge it does not mean there wouldn't be some kind of atmosphere or ether that the earth would be enclosed in. In our current model rockets must reach 25,000 miles per hour to breach our atmosphere, so if you accept this reasoning it can work two ways.

The great year of the zodiac is roughly 25,000 years.
Earth's circumference is roughly 25,000 miles.
Escape velocity is 25,000 miles per hour.
You hear the masons are heavily into numerology I wonder if there is anything to these figures.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for your answer. I mean if the sun is not a sphere either but a "spotlight disk", then it would be seen as a perfect circle only from exactly underneath it, and the further it goes from you, because of perspective, the circle would turn into an ellipse. Therefore the sun at the horizon would be seen not as a perfect circle but as an ellipse that is wider than high. Yet the sun is always seen as a perfect circle. Do you know what I mean? Maria

Eric Dubay said...

The Sun never sets or rises, it stays the same distance over the Earth throughout it's daily/annual journeys around. The appearance of rising and setting is all based on the law of perspective on plane surfaces. The Sun and Moon spotlights are perpetually hovering over and parallel to the surface of the Earth. From our vantage point, due to the Law of Perspective, the day/night luminaries appear to rise up the Eastern horizon, curve peaking high overhead, and then sink below the Western horizon. They do not escape to the underside of the Flat-Earth as one might imagine, but rather rotate concentric clockwise circles around the circumference from tropic to tropic.

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

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

Eric Dubay said...

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

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

As early as the time of Pliny, there are records of lunar eclipses happening while both the Sun and Moon are visible in the sky. The Greenwich Royal Observatory recorded that “during the lunar eclipses of July 17th, 1590, November 3rd, 1648, June 16th, 1666, and May 26th, 1668 the moon rose eclipsed whilst the sun was still above the horizon.” McCulluch’s Geography recorded that “on September 20th, 1717 and April 20th, 1837 the moon appeared to rise eclipsed before the sun had set.” Sir Henry Holland also noted in his “Recollections of Past Life” the April 20th, 1837 phenomena where “the moon rose eclipsed before the sun set.” The Daily Telegraph recorded it happening again on January 17th, 1870, then again in July of the same year, and it continues to happen during lunar eclipses to this day. Therefore the eclipsor of the Moon cannot be the Earth/Earth's shadow and another explanation must be sought.

Eric Dubay said...

I see what you're saying Maria, at the edge of the horizon during Sunrises/sets the Sun certainly does change shape blurring with the lower part expanding outwards due to the density / magnification effect I explained, but it never looks "elliptical" as you mentioned. Perhaps since the Sun is such a perfect circle of the brightest celestial light, the elliptical change in shape you're expecting simply does not apply in this case?

Anonymous said...

This is something else that bothers me:
For example, the distance between Rio de Janeiro and Cape Town is 3775 miles, and the distance from New York to London is 3470 miles. If the flat earth theory was correct, it would be something like 4x as far between the southern hemisphere cities, since you'd have to traverse the two points further from the center of the earth.
What is your take on that?
Much appreaciated, Maria

Jamie Lee said...

HI Eric,
I have found your work to be truly inspiring for those of us with open minds and hearts.

Every pt. you have made makes logical sense regarding flat earth.

The only big huge problem I am having and cannot resolve is the question of distance travel, as related in the flat earth debunked video

The time travel from Sydney to South America would be even much further distance on a flat surface than Sydney to Johannesburg, as calculated in this video.

This is such a critial question to re-solve, yet i cannot find an answer that makes sense to me or other respondents on the video.

Thank you

Eric Dubay said...

Maria, If New York is at 40 degrees North, 74 West and London 51 North, 0 West, then you are covering 11 degrees of latitude and 74 degrees of longitude in a space of 3470 miles at those inner "higher" degrees. Rio is 43 degrees South, 23 West and Cape Town 40 South, 18 East making a difference of only 3 degrees latitude and 41 degrees of longitude in a space of 3775 miles at those outer-laying areas. This seems consistent with the flat Earth model and not the globe Earth does it not?

Thanks Jamie, looking up the flight distances and times for Sydney to Chile is 7063 miles taking 14 hours 38 minutes, while Sydney to Johannesburg is 6900 miles taking 14 hours and 20 minutes. What exactly about those flight times/distances do you consider a "big huge problem?"

Anonymous said...

The earth might have another shape but not flat, how long does it takes from Alaska to Japan? It says that it takes seven hours a flight to get there, so how does this explains it.

thank you

Eric Dubay said...

I don't understand why people are confused by these flight times? So it takes 7 hours from Alaska to Japan, okay, and that means the Earth isn't flat how? What am I missing about these objections?

Anonymous said...

Eric, your coordinates for Rio and Capetown are not right, they are 43 West and 23 South for Rio, and Capetown is 34 South and 18 East. So if we calculate the distance from the coordinates we get more or less the same distance (ca. 3600 miles) This distance works for the earth as a globe, but if the earth were a disc, the distance on the "south hemisphere" (Rio-Capetown) would have to be much larger (than Newyork-London). Wouldn't it?

Eric Dubay said...

Thanks for the correction. So it's a difference of 11 degrees latitude and 61 degrees longitude between Rio and Cape Town. And NY to London has the same 11 degrees of latitude change with 74 degrees longitude change. So 74 degrees of "Northern" longitude in this example translates to 3470 miles while only 61 degrees of "Southern" longitude translates to 3775. 13 degrees less, yet 300 miles more. Sounds consistent with the flat Earth model doesn't it?

Anonymous said...

Hm, I don't 100 % get this now...

I use the following coordinates:
NY (41/-74), LDN (51/0)
RIO (-23/-43), CATOWN (-34/18)

These coordinates translate into the following distances between the cities:
NY-LDN 3466 miles
RIO-CATOWN 3728 miles

These are the actual distances, but: the distance between the cities on the "southern hemisphere" should be bigger if the earth were flat.

I don't see how you can arguee with these 12 degrees that are even more (!) between the cities on the "northern (!) hemisphere"...

Please help. Maria.

Anonymous said...

Eric Dubay said...

Using your coordinates it is the same, the Southern Rio/Cape Town flight covers 13 degrees less longitude in 262 more miles which is perfectly consistent with the flat Earth model. The lines of longitude get steadily further apart the further South you go, whereas on a globe they would re-converge. Peace

Anonymous said...

OK Eric , let's say you're right for a moment, but there's still other puzzling stuff, and maybe your measures are flawed?

I remember Concorde pilots and passengers reporting that from the higher flying levels they could see the curvature of the earth.

Your measuring guides are probably too small,or lacking elevation to see the small curvature of our massive Earth enough. It is after all a pretty Massive planet!

Anonymous said...

Furthermore, Eric....

Science has explained everything that exists as nothing more than existing of atoms and molecules.

Yet if that is the case it doesn't provoke man to worship consumerism. No, it just makes man think 'well if that's the case, then nothings worth taking too seriously'.

Of course you may be right, and mans search for meaning would have to destroy such a concept because man instinctly believes he is more important than a bunch of atoms and molecules.

You raise some very good points. I personally agree that man is being denied his divinity as materialism and consumerism becomes the new distraction. I don't necessarily believe that the world is called round to disempower the world populations.

Might be, might not be. Ahh, the power of belief.....

Jamie Lee said...

On another subject, Thomas Friedman,writer for the NY Times and Bilderberger member, in 2005 wrote the NY Times bestseller, "The World is Flat, A brief history of the 21st century".

this tied in with Eric's observation about the UN emblem being of flat earth with no Antartica on the map and the 33 degrees inside the laurel leaves.

are they telling us what they have known and we all are beginning to figure out?

Just asking?

Eric Dubay said...

Hey Jamie, they're "telling" us in the nudge-nudge wink-wink way symbolic way of the Masonic/esoteric mystery religions, but they're certainly not actually telling us anything. Mine is the first pro-flat Earth book published in over 40 years... there's almost no one in the mainstream championing this issue. It's like they're just trying to innocuously steal these key words and use them for something else. Like the term "Zetetic" which used to be used for flat Earth cosmology, but if you google search nowadays, you'll just get some domain name business and clothing fashion line which apparently chose that name for no good reason, much like Friedman's book. Also for Maria, the glass on airplane windows is curved to remain flush with the fuselage and this distorts level horizons. The Concord's peak altitude was 60,000 feet. Watch the following amateur balloon footage which rises to 110,000 feet, almost twice as high as the Concord, and shows NO curvature whatsoever:

No Curvature on the Flat Earth

Anonymous said...

Ok Earth is flat. What does this mean then? That our world was planned, we are centre of universe, and more powerful than we have been led to believe than a bunch of daft consumers consuming the latest fashion fad? Blaaaa??

You may be right, but this kind of speak is the core basic type rant that conspiracy theory is more or less based on.

Personally i have always thought this way, so it never entered my mind wether the world was flat of round. Believing the world was/is round, i still se no reason to believe that er are special and here for a purpose.

So, Eric, it's this basic reason of WHY?, that i disagree on. Who cares if Earth is Flat or round? It doesn't necessarily mean we are here by accident. Wea can choose to ignore most scientific beliefs as to our purpose here.

This brings me to the CORE QUESTION i have for you Eric. Probably the most important question for you to really answer...

Ok Eric, here it is... Why are we here, who are we, and what is our purpose on earth?


Eric Dubay said...

Hey Anon, great question, my answer is laid out completely in the following article and video interview:

God, Brahma, Tao, Void, Oneness, Infinite Consciousness

God, Consciousness, Intelligent Design, Duality, Satan and the Ego

Anonymous said...

One question, why wouldn't the waters of the oceans fall over the edge of a flat earth? I know it sounds like a stupid question. But I'd like to hear your answer, thank you in advance.

Oz10 said...

I will ask again since I never go a straight answer, just some canned response.
What shape does water take when it isn't in a container or on a surface? (i even posted a droplet video) I don't think it is a flat disk.

Anonymous said...

Yo Eric. You're header on the site still reads 'Exposing the GLOBAL conspiracy'. Thought you might want to change that. Also, as important as this is, I think you should do a follow-up to your podcast of 'Solutions to the System'. People have to start learning to value what is actually valuable. Maybe you could talk about foraging and common plants that are edible in urban areas. Markus Rothkranz has a lot of information on that. People need to see how that is important in overcoming tyranny, being less dependent on money and physically/mentally healthier. People need to boycott corporations. Also remind people that acting overly angry about these things rarely helps the argument. We really could have utopia on this planet when people get over their emotional issues and stress, and regain the passion for life that has been drained from them. You could talk about how the illusion of scarcity fuels all war. In a utopian society, the only job anyone would have is what they are passionate about, and everyone would be an artist of some sort or another. Since the most powerful food grows out of the ground by itself without the need of human help, we would not need agriculture, and with the current ignorance trumped, people would not want animal products. It really does come down to fear and love and we need to start promoting what we love more than ripping on everything that is wrong. Keep exposing the dark things as well, but remind people that we are still in control, we just have to stop giving in to the vampirism. We just need to show love and remind people how great it is to be alive. The only thing holding us back is ourselves. These organizations would be nothing without their fearful ignorant sheep, and all we need to do is empower those sheep, with knowledge.

Jamie Lee said...

I just finished Christine Garwood's book, "Flat Earth" and Zetetic Astronomy by Parallux.

The one question i keep trying to reconcile in my mind is how the North Star cannot be seen from the Southern Hemisphere, yet should be if the Earth is flat and the Polaris is at the center.

What am I missing?

Eric Dubay said...

For Anonymous, Antarctica is not the tiny “ice-continent” found confined to the underside antipode of astronomer’s globes. Quite the contrary, Antarctica literally surrounds us 360 degrees, encircles every continent, and acts as a barrier holding in the oceans. The most commonly asked questions, and the greatest mysteries yet to be solved are: how far does the Antarctic ice extend outwards? Is there a limit? What lies beyond, or is it just snow and ice forever? Thanks to U.N. treaties and constant military surveillance, the North Pole and Antarctica remain cloaked in government secrecy, both purported “no-fly/no-sail” zones, with several reports of civilian pilots and captains being shooed away and escorted back under threat of violence.

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

And Oz10, you're just a troll and I'm done feeding you. Earth is flat and the longer it takes you to figure it out just means you're dumber and more brainwashed than everyone else. Congratulations.

Eric Dubay said...

Second Anonymous, the "Global Conspiracy" is exactly what it is I'm exposing, so I'm certainly not changing that. I'm a big fan of Markus' work as well and have posted it here more than once. You are quite eloquent with a good energy, are you engaging in any kinds of activism / solutions yourself?

Jamie, viewed from a ball-Earth, Polaris, situated almost straight over the North Pole, should not be visible anywhere in the Southern Hemisphere. For Polaris to be seen from the Southern Hemisphere of a globular Earth, the observer would have to be somehow looking “through the globe,” and miles of land and sea would have to be transparent. Polaris can be seen, however, up to approximately 23.5 degrees South latitude.

“If the Earth is a sphere and the pole star hangs over the northern axis, it would be impossible to see it for a single degree beyond the equator, or 90 degrees from the pole. The line-of-sight would become a tangent to the sphere, and consequently several thousand miles out of and divergent from the direction of the pole star. Many cases, however, are on record of the north polar star being visible far beyond the equator, as far even as the tropic of Capricorn.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Earth Not a Globe, 2nd Edition” (41)

“The astronomers' theory of a globular Earth necessitates the conclusion that, if we travel south of the equator, to see the North Star is an impossibility. Yet it is well known this star has been seen by navigators when they have been more than 20 degrees south of the equator. This fact, like hundreds of other facts, puts the theory to shame, and gives us a proof that the Earth is not a globe.” -William Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe” (71)

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

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

Eric Dubay said...

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

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

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)

Anonymous said...

Hi Eric,

Wow, such fascinating info!

I have a question, have you heard of the 'Hollow Earth Theory?'

Is it possible that Agartha may be inside it, with giants residing there? Is there any truth here, or is it disinfo?

I have read, that at death it is possible that Heaven is on the inside of the Earth, rather than above us!

What do you make of all this?

Appreciate your time!


Anonymous said...

Utter tripe, Eric!

Since dawn began man has set forth to explore every corner of the earth. He has crossed the South pole, so this 'flat earth' analogy, doesn't fit.

You're sources of proof are probably just as ropey and questionable as you seem to question nasa and concordes 'curved glass' effect.

Given such tiny u tube screen perspectives its no wonder no curves are seen as the 'proof' you offer.

the earth is large, and needs large perspectives to see horizon change. simple as that!

i may agree with some of your stuff, (which has already been said decades ago by many other wise men), but on this topic you are coming off as rather nutty.

post this if u dare!

Anonymous said...

Long time reader. I believe in exploring all possibilities. The one thing that pops into my head is circumnavigating Antarctica in a ship, which i have read has been done. Wouldn't the time to circumnavigate around the continent be a big disparity in ret vs fet? Other then that most everything else makes sense.

Jamie Lee said...

Thanx Eric,

keep educating us with your in depth research and critical thinking...


Researching the anomaly called our Moon...

....that pulls our oceans up and down everyday, yet has 1/6th the gravitational pull of earth.

...yet gravity dissipates as one gets farther away from the object

...which is why NASA says we escape Earth's gravity pull at some 138 miles up..

"The thin atmosphere offers little thermal insulation, so temperatures can drop quickly at night, and rise quickly due to the sun's radiation during the day." ..with temps varying from - 225 to + 243 every single day and night".."The thin atmosphere offers little thermal insulation, so temperatures can drop quickly at night, and rise quickly due to the sun's radiation during the day. Powerful radiation from sunlight on one side of an object, and shadow on the other will create a large temperature gradient. A "thermal shock" can follow, where different parts of an object thermally expand by different amounts, leading to large potentially failure-inducing strains. The effect of thermal shock is more pronounced in brittle materials such as glass, ceramics or metals below the glass transition temperature (ductile-brittle transition temperature for metals)".(The Lunar Sourcebook (Heiken, Vaniman, & French, 1991)

Yet the Astro-nots endured such un-Earthly temps in their mobile, flexible, mm thin space suits, driving their Lunar craft around perfectly,(though gravity is only 1/6th of earth meaning they had to carry weight to keep it grounded!?!) and all cameras, and live support devices worked near perfectly on every single mission?

...yet we being on Earth are only 238,000 miles from the Moon, yet the Sun being 93 million miles away causes such massive temp gradients on the moon but a goldilocks for us on Earth..

....And NASA says that the moon rotates about every 28 days, making its turnspeed at 36 mph,while the EArth spins at 1,000 mph...

...yet we always see the same face of the light side of the moon...

...but it rotates, so for 14 days we would see the "Dark side of the Moon" (cue Pink Floyd music)


Just more evidence of the massive fraud perp'd on all us sheeple.

I keep going back to the fact that Nazi Scientists came to the U.S. thru Operation Paperclip and Werner Van Braun ran NASA's Saturn rocket for 25 years.

Every single picture we have from space, moon,etc. comes from NASA

NASA Never A Straight Answer

...and the Vatican built the first modern observatories in 1582...and own more telescopes than all.


....And an anagram for Earth is Heart:)

Anonymous said...

To the last commenter, they mean the moon is rotating around the earth, facing the same direction. 28 days is about a month, and that's only one rotation. So you would only see the one side of the moon. Not that I believe them, but it would make sense in that context.

Anonymous said...

Ok, so if we live on a flat plane, then describe it.

You say it is surrounded by Ice. What happens if you fly an aeroplane over the edge of the world?

Have people attempted yet to prove this flat eart theory by doing just that, rather than 'at home laptop proof'?

I need a drawing of this flat Earth, with placement of the countries, and how it is currently navigated.

Eric Dubay said...

Hey Joey, the Earth is full of deep sink holes, huge caverns and military D.U.M.B.s so it must be hollow is some ways, but there is no south pole and Earth is not a globe, so the traditional hollow Earth model with a second Sun inside the hollow globe Earth must be disinfo. There is however a cover-up of giant human beings led mostly by the Smithsonian, with hundreds of skeletons found all over the world for thousands of years gone missing. This may or may not have something to do with the heavy military-enforced civilian restrictions for traveling to the North Pole or Antarctica, as I speculated in my most recent video here:

Ancient Flat Earth Beliefs

For Anonymous, your comment is "utter tripe" and when you figure out the Earth is flat and motionless just as it appears, laugh a little bit at how brainwashed you were and leave me a comment about how you were the "nutty" one for completely believing something totally contrary to your eyes, experience, experiments, and common sense.

Eric Dubay said...

For the second Anonymous:

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

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

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

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

These accounts are incompatible with the globe Earth model in which Antarctica is only about 12,000 miles around.

Eric Dubay said...

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

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

Eric Dubay said...

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

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

Eric Dubay said...

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

And for the third Anonymous, no one has attempted a complete North / South circumnavigation of Earth, though I would love to see some brave independent aviator do a Ustream live attempt for everyone to see, or have the UN accept Matt Boylan's challenge and let him cross from any entry point across Antarctica with his team using ropes and spikes, waiting for him on the supposed "opposite" side. They won't allow any such thing, a bunch of hollow Earth believers led by Rodney Cluff have chartered voyages to the North Pole and been turned around by Russian military vessels under threat of blowing them out of the water. The same has happened repeatedly to Jarle Andhoy.

Anonymous said...

Eric, why don't you do something to offer physical proof for us. Anyone can offer sweet words of proof, but who can walk the talk?

I'm asking for you to leave your Bangkok comfort zone. Leave you easy life of pointless distractions by teaching martial movements.

Do something real about your beliefs. We need more proof than mere words.

Can you honestly trust your sources, be seen to be legit, if you dont actually prove for REAL to us that the Earth is Flat? ;-0

-anon 345.jr

Eric Dubay said...

You're so jelly, anonymous troll. I do walk my talk. America was my comfort zone, I live far out of it. Martial arts are not pointless distractions. And if you still haven't figured out the Earth is flat, you don't need me to babysit you, go "do something real" about it and find out yourself.

Anonymous said...

Eric, i've been to Thailand many times, but had to leave to travel to Cambodia, etc. Found Thailand far too boring, too westernised, too easy. I suppose teaching martial arts might help you to empower yourself, but don't let those same beliefs cross over to a false sense of self righteousness, whilst you live 'right', in Bangkok where it's estimated that 100,000 tonnes of lead is in the air..

Not wanting to choke back on my words, cough cough, but the basis offered by you as explanation of 'control of the species', is about as loopy as the 'big dipper'


-anon of the highest/

Anonymous said...

Just realized Asgard/Agartha is the north pole! The 'center' of the FLAT Earth, not the core. Even the Santa story, Santa represents Odin, who lives at Asgard, and his reindeer represent the staggs of Yggdrasil. There is even an icy region surrounding Asgard on drawings of Yggdrasil. We aren't allowed to go to there because there is more land their with the so-called Gods living their who are possibly giants! Even Plato's decription of Atlantis fits into this idea of the world. I wonder where the other worlds shown on the Tree of Life diagrams are? outside the ice wall? or were these only existing before the flood and the races of humanoids and creatures extinct now?

Jamie Lee said...

Hey all Anon's;

Please stop the Ad Hominen attacks (attack the presenter instead of the theory, evidence and thoughts)

IMHO, Eric is doing a great service to Mankind.

I successfully worked on Wall Street for over 20 years and met many brilliant men and women, who only cared about there paychecks.

Eric has done some very heavy lifting for the greater good of all. His analysis is empirical and plain, look for yourself, common sense.

If you cannot contribute to the community education process and must attack the presenter, maybe you should just keep it to yourself.

I for one have learned a great deal from his deep research and independent inquiry. And from other comments so are many other inquiring minds.

so if you cannot say anything nice...STFU!

Eric Dubay said...

Hey Anon, I assume you watched my video! All those realization began popping into my head as I was making / compiling it as well. There are certainly secrets held at the North Pole and that's why they don't want us exploring it. And Jamie, thanks so much for standing up for me. I was hoping someone might chime in with a dose of sanity like that. Cheers! Peace

Anonymous said...

Hi Eric,

Thankyou for the response, I certainly do appreciate that!

Plz do not be surprised, when you get shills, trolls & agents who are trying to attack you! It is obvious that they don't like this to get out!

If everyone knew that we are here by design & divine purpose, think what a different world this will be! No more man made dividing religion etc.

Hope you won't mind, as I do have some other questions.

If satellites are not there, what about weather pictures, how are they able to take a picture of a cyclone for example, if there are no satellite at the above?

What about melting of ice at the North & South of the earth, is there a threat of the sea level rising, coz of it melting, due to global warming?

I appreciate it, plz take care & stay safe!


Eric Dubay said...

Absolutely Joey. Starting at about 18:00 here there is an explanation about "satellite" weather pictures and data:

Satellite Hoax - Satellites Do Not Exist!

And everything I've seen about man-made global warming points towards an excuse for the first world-wide UN carbon tax they're trying to impose on everyone. Pole shifts, asteroids, global warming, global cooling, terrorists, Kony, North Korea, WWIII, everything these people throw at us is to divide and conquer through fear and propaganda:

Global Warming

Anonymous said...

'Plz do not be surprised, when you get shills, trolls & agents who are trying to attack you! It is obvious that they don't like this to get out!'

Actually i was joking with Eric more than anything. It's a pity he didn't post my 'they eat insects' reply, or why he left America, lol!

Seriously, i have a wicked sense of humour, and i have the utmost
of respect for Eric because he is a man who is doing great stuff whilst being master at all these martial arts.

'jello', sure!...just a wee bit, but i'm also on my own spiritual path. The Flat Earth is more or less groundbreaking, but it's sure to attract some serious nay sayers, compared to my 'jesting'.


Anon of the greatest anons.

Eric Dubay said...

Thanks greatest anon, I checked my spam filter and don't see your "eating insects" comment you mentioned though. Peace

Anonymous said...

Hello, I don't know if someone asked a similar question, but why do flights from Dubai to Los Angeles always go over Europe and Canada instead of going straight over the Atlantic? I would like to here your take on it. This question was already answered on Quora by a graduate student in physics. It's said that it's a shorter distance through Europe and Canada because of the curvature of the earth here's the link

Eric Dubay said...

Hey Anon, it's more of a straight line path (on a ball or a flat Earth) to cut straight across lines of latitude like that rather than just flying the great circle route of a given latitude. This is not "because of the curvature of the Earth," but because a straight(er) line path is always quicker regardless of (and has no bearing on) the shape of the Earth over which you're flying.

Anonymous said...

Umm...if the Earth was flat we would not have changing seasons...nor day and night? Stupid conspiracy theories like these are the reason people don't believe any at all. Plz stop

Eric Dubay said...

The Sun and Moon luminaries revolve around the Earth once every 24 hours illuminating like spotlights the areas over which they pass. The Sun’s annual journey from tropic to tropic, solstice to solstice, is what determines the length and character of days, nights and seasons. This is why equatorial regions experience almost year-round summer and heat while higher latitudes North and especially South experience more distinct seasons with harsh winters.

The heliocentric model claims seasons change based on the ball-Earth’s alleged “axial tilt” and “elliptical orbit” around the Sun. Their flawed current model even places us closest to the Sun (91,400,000 miles) in January when its actually winter, and farthest from the Sun (94,500,000 miles) in July when its actually summer throughout much of the Earth. They say due to the ball-Earth’s tilt, different places receive different amounts of direct sunlight and that is what produces the seasonal and temperature changes. This makes little sense, however, because if the Sun’s heat travels over ninety million miles to reach the ball-Earth, how could a slight tilt, a mere few thousand miles maximum, negate the Sun’s ninety million mile journey, giving us simultaneous tropical summers and Antarctic winters?

“The earth is a stretched-out structure, which diverges from the central north in all directions towards the south. The equator, being midway between the north center and the southern circumference, divides the course of the sun into north and south declination. The longest circle round the world which the sun makes, is when it has reached its greatest southern declination. Gradually going northwards the circle is contracted. In about three months after the southern extremity of its path has been reached, the sun makes a circle round the equator. Still pursuing a northerly course as it goes round and above the world, in another three months the greatest northern declination is reached, when the sun again begins to go towards the south. In north latitudes, when the sun is going north, it rises earlier each day, is higher at noon and sets later; while in southern latitudes at the same time, the sun as a matter of course rises later, reaches a lesser altitude at noon and sets earlier. In northern latitudes during the southern summer, say from September to December, the sun rises later each day, is lower at noon and sets earlier; while in the south he rises earlier, reaches a higher altitude at noon, and sets later each day. This movement round the earth daily is the cause of the alternations of day and night; while his northerly and southerly courses produce the seasons. When the sun is south of the equator it is summer in the south and winter in the north; and vice versa. The fact of the alternation of the seasons flatly contradicts the Newtonian delusion that the earth revolves in an orbit round the sun. It is said that summer is caused by the earth being nearest the sun, and winter by its being farthest from the sun. But if the reader will follow the argument in any text book he will see that according to the theory, when the earth is nearest the sun there must be summer in both northern and southern latitudes; and in like manner when it is farthest from the sun, it must be winter all over the earth at the same time, because the whole of the globe-earth would then be farthest from the sun!!! In short, it is impossible to account for the recurrence of the seasons on the assumption that the earth is globular and that it revolves in an orbit around the sun.” -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (124-125)

Eric Dubay said...

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

Anonymous said...

Ok, so our planet is a flat disc. How thick is it, any idea?

Rinoni said...

Eric, check the 1st Annex out:

Human Eye is the Best Example of the Flat Earth!


Eric Dubay said...

Wow, that's cool! Like we're all a glimmer in God's eye. Thanks Rinon.

gopika said...
This video nicely explains the real distances and the flights on the south 'globe' and shows how the reality matches the flat earth model.

Rick said...

Above, "Maria" and Eric discussed distances from New York to London vs. Rio to Capetown--- similar latitudes north and south. I don't believe the comparison was resolved.

ERic wrote quote
Eric Dubay said...
Using your coordinates it is the same, the Southern Rio/Cape Town flight covers 13 degrees less longitude in 262 more miles which is perfectly consistent with the flat Earth model. The lines of longitude get steadily further apart the further South you go, whereas on a globe they would re-converge. Peace

I'm not sure that's enough of a difference given the latitudes are not exactly the same. This needs more work.

aidders said...

On a clear day, it is possible to see the opposite coastline of England from France and vice versa, with the most famous and obvious sight being the white cliffs of Dover over 20 miles from the French coastline and shoreline buildings on both coastlines with the naked eye, as well as lights on either coastline at night, as in Matthew Arnold's poem "Dover Beach".

Unknown said...


Unknown said...

Hmmm,I myself have been in search of answers for a very long time now, trying to understand and pondering about our existence. When I grew up the world was nothing like I expected it to be, in one word, it was a disappointment. I saw people for what they truly were and are. We are nothing like our younger generation think we are. We are filled with hate and selfish motives. We go to bed every night feeling a sense of accomplishment, where instead we are a source of fear to human kind. If you truly want to see what a man is like, let him go hungry and if you want to see what he is capable of, watch him stare into the eyes of death. I realized our problem, why we are as we are, we fear death. This is because we know our own existence in this reality as all there is to it. We grow up and forget to be children, we forget to hope and dream that there is a light that shines so bright no amount of darkness can separate us from it. We forget to pray and we stop believing in what is that makes us human. The world is filled with evil, people seek power believing this is the only life there is. How can we not know that if God was able to create the world as we know it, that he could create so much more... why do we hate God so much when He wasnt the one hurting us but the people around us? We ask questions but not the right ones... Instead of asking why, rather ask if there is a God, how could I even comprehend the knowledge and wisdom of such a being? The problem lies with thinking that we understand the way the world works, thinking we can control it, thinking it is ok to sacrifice someone's being for our own. But the truth is we were put on this earth as beings of love, this was not the way it was meant to be, we were suppose to live in the garden of eden(heaven) as beings of consciousness an love. But something went wrong and it only went downhill from there. We are close to the end. Things are coming, not because I said so, but because it is needed to remove the evil from this world. So instead of wondering about if the earth is flat or not, or what you are going to do at work tomorrow, start wondering why it is that you cant sleep.....

Anonymous said...

It takes about 7-8 hours to fly from New York to Londo, while it takes about 11-12 to fly from Johannesburg to Sao Paolo, yet the distance is supposedly similar.

Big Col said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Big Col said...

Eric you are being trolled.Anonymouth is a troll.The fight was over in the first round.Peace

Anonymous said...

So if the earth is flat can't you just head West from california follow a longtudinal line and just stay in course till you reach the edge? Because hypothetically looking at the map of you leave in a straight line and don't turn you won't hit the Asia. Please reply back I am curious to hear a response from a person who can answer me.

Anonymous said...

The always horizontal horizon proves a video game where the scenery is always filling in for you as you need (look) at it. The Earth is a shapeless simulation decoded in your head.

Anonymous said...

What countries are closest to the edges?

mythra81 said... though this page talks about the sun from a globalist perspective i have been observing the sun's path has widened beyond the so called tropics of cancer and capricorn which many people around the world are observing ....... i think you need to look into this seriously and verify this for yourself

Bo said...

Eric... you are on the right way

Anonymous said...

Man this is great stuff! Please keep up the good work. We need to fly a plane to the edge! NASA wont let us do that will they? They will do anything to keep the truth from coming out! We need someone brave enough like you to go to the edge for the truth. It's a shame nobody os brave enough to fly to the edge and get proof. Imagine how rich they would be!! They would be so famous!! Probably everyone who ever tried it has been assassinated. You should write a book about this.

Anonymous said...

Eric, how do you explain that the Moon from the Earth perspective a circular shape? If it is flat like our planet it would have to be perpendicular to our plane. Same fenomen should apply to Sun.