Wednesday, February 11, 2015

The Measurable Non-Curvature of the Flat Earth

NASA and modern astronomers claim we are living on an oblate spheroid 25,000 statute miles in equatorial circumference with a curvature of 7.935 inches to the mile, varying inversely as the square of the distance, meaning in 3 miles there is a declination of nearly 6 feet, in 30 miles 600 feet, in 300 miles 60,000 feet and so on.  Therefore, if we wish to prove or disprove the validity of their convexity claim, it is a fairly simple, straight-forward matter of measurements and calculations.

For example, the distance across the Irish Sea from the Isle of Man’s Douglas Harbor to Great Orm’s Head in North Wales is 60 miles.  If the Earth was a globe then the surface of the water between them would form a 60 mile arc, the center towering 1944 feet higher than the coastlines at either end!  It is well-known and easily verifiable, however, that on a clear day, from a modest altitude of 100 feet, the Great Orm’s Head is visible from Douglas Harbor.  This would be completely impossible on a globe of 25,000 miles.  Assuming the 100 foot altitude causes the horizon to appear approximately 13 miles off, the 47 miles remaining means the Welsh coastline should still fall an impossible 1472 feet below the line of sight!

In the Times newspaper of Monday, Oct. 16, 1854, in an account of her Majesty’s visit to Great Grimsby from Hull, the following paragraph occurs: ‘Their attention was first naturally directed to a gigantic tower which rises from the center pier to the height of 300 feet, and can be seen 60 miles out at sea.’  The 60 miles if nautical, and this is always understood when referring to distances at sea, would make 70 statute miles, to which the fall of 8 inches belongs, and as all observations at sea are considered to be made at an elevation of 10 feet above the water, for which four miles must be deducted from the whole distance, 66 statute miles will remain, the square of which multiplied by 8 inches, gives a declination towards the tower of 2,904 feet; deducting from this the altitude of the tower, 300 feet, we obtain the startling conclusion that the tower should be at the distance at which it is visible, more than 2,600 feet below the horizon!  -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Earth Not a Globe, 2nd Edition” (174)

Indoctrinated naysayers will often retort that light refraction off the water’s surface could account for such phenomena.  To begin with, the idea that we cannot differentiate between the refracted light of something and the thing itself is preposterous, but even assuming we couldn’t, surveyors’ general allowance for refraction is only 1/12th the altitude of the object observed, making it a completely implausible explanation.  Using the previous example of 2,600 feet divided by 12 gives 206, which subtracted from 2,600 leaves 2,384 feet that the tower should have remained below the horizon.
                                      
In September, 1898, I received a letter from Australia in which the writer says: ‘In the year 1872 I was on board the ship ‘Thomas Wood,’ Capt. Gibson from China to London.  Owing to making a long passage, we ran short of provisions, and so short after rounding the Cape that the Captain spoke of putting into St. Helena for a supply.  It was then my hobby to get the first glimpse of land, make a survey, just as the sun would be rising.  The island was clearly in view, well on the starboard bow.  I reported this to Capt. Gibson.  He disbelieved me, saying it was impossible as we were 75 miles distant.  He, however, offered me paper and pencil to sketch the land I saw.  This I did.  He then said, ‘you are right,’ and shaped his course accordingly.  I had never seen the Island before and could not have described the shape of it had I not seen it.  St. Helena is a high volcanic island, and if my informant had seen the top only, there would have to be an allowance made for the height of the land, but as he sketched the island he must have seen the whole of it, which should have been 3,650 feet below the line of sight, if the world be a globe.”  -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (21)

In Chambers’ Journal, February 1895, a sailor near Mauritius in the Indian Ocean reported having seen a vessel which turned out to be an incredible 200 miles away!  The incident caused much heated debate in nautical circles at the time, gaining further confirmation in Aden, Yemen where another witness reported seeing a missing Bombay steamer from 200 miles away.  He correctly stated the precise appearance, location and direction of the steamer all later corroborated and confirmed correct by those onboard.  Such sightings are absolutely inexplicable if the Earth were actually a ball 25,000 miles around, as ships 200 miles distant would have to be well over 4 miles below the line of sight!

Astronomers are in the habit of considering two points on the Earth's surface, without, it seems, any limit as to the distance that lies between them, as being on a level, and the intervening section, even though it be an ocean, as a vast ‘hill’ - of water!  The Atlantic ocean, in taking this view of the matter, would form a ‘hill of water’ more than a hundred miles high! The idea is simply monstrous, and could only be entertained by scientists whose whole business is made up of materials of the same description: and it certainly requires no argument to deduce, from such ‘science’ as this, a satisfactory proof that the Earth is not a globe.  Every man in full command of his senses knows that a level surface is a flat or horizontal one; but astronomers tell us that the true level is the curved surface of a globe! They know that man requires a level surface on which to live, so they give him one in name which is not one in fact! This is the best that astronomers, with their theoretical science, can do for their fellow creatures - deceive them.  -William Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe” (18, 28)


Vast areas exhibit a perfectly dead level, scarcely a rise existing through 1,500 miles from the Carpathians to the Urals.  South of the Baltic the country is so flat that a prevailing north wind will drive the waters of the Stattiner Haf into the mouth of the Oder, and give the river a backward flow 30 or 40 miles.  The plains of Venezuela and New Granada, in South America chiefly on the left of the Orinoco, are termed Ilanos, or level fields.  Often in the space of 270 square miles the surface does not vary a single foot.  The Amazon only falls 12 feet in the last 700 miles of its course; the La Plata has only a descent of one thirty-third of an inch a mile.”  -Rev. T. Milner, “Atlas of Physical Geography”

These extracts clearly prove that the surface of the earth is level, and that therefore the world is not a globe.  And when we come to consider the surface of the world under the sea, we shall find the same uniformity of evidence against the popular view.  In ‘Nature and Man,’ by Professor W.B. Carpenter, article ‘The Deep Sea and its Contents,’ the writer says:  ‘If the bottom of the mid-ocean were laid dry, an observer standing on any spot of it would find himself surrounded BY A PLAIN, only comparable to that of the North American prairies or the South American pampas … The form of the depressed area which lodges the water of the deep ocean is rather, indeed, to be likened to that of a FLAT WAITER or TEA TRAY, surrounded by an elevated and deeply sloping rim, than to that of the basin with which it is commonly compared.’  This remarkable writer tells of thousands of miles, in the Atlantic, the Pacific, and the great Southern Ocean beds being a plane surface, and from his remarks it is clear that A FLAT SURFACE IS THE GENERAL CONTOUR OF THE BED OF THE GREAT OCEANS FOR TENS OF THOUSANDS OF SQUARE MILES.”  -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (23)



Support independent publishing: Buy this book on Lulu.




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

68 comments:

Anonymous said...

I can't get my head round why more people have not questioned this. I know I have myself then promptly dismissed the questions. I now wonder why I have dismissed the questions. I guess the subject was just to enormous to doubt the rest of the world.

Michael Nicholson said...

I am sure that you Eric Dubay are really smart, but why would you make your books cost anything? I mean if it is your only source of income, then I guess it is alright, but I would like to read them, but I just can't spend money on it. If there is anyway I can read one of them, without having to pay for it, I will do it. Honestly, I hate reading books, but this really interests me. Keep up the good work!

Eric Dubay said...

Hey Anon and Michael, thanks for the comments! How many authors do you know that sell their books for free Michael? What do you do for work? How would you respond to someone showing up at your job saying "I'm sure you're really smart Michael, but why must I pay you for your work? I just can't spend money on it."

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

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

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

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

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

Anonymous said...

Eric i applaud you. You stand up for your beliefs and express them best as you can. I also agree with a lot of what you say. Notice i say 'a lot'-that doesn't mean everything!

As for your flat earth theory, and no sattelites in space, well if you were to print books on that subject and get them printed for a few cents, i would gladly buy them all off you to use for burning as 'briquettes', to help keep me warm through the winter months.


ROTFLMAO!

moloch said...

But whats about the horizon? If earth was infinite, there wont be any horizon?

Anonymous said...

How is it that numerous people over many hundreds of years have been able to sail completely around the world?

Anonymous said...

Interesting. I'm chewing on all of this.

You answered one of my other questions, and I thank you for that. Two more questions that perhaps you have already answered, and I apologize for the repeat if someone already asked them. My questions are:

1) How does a flat circular earth account for the seasons?

2) Where is the rotation of the sun? In other words, is the sun going around the flat earth perpendicular-like, or is the sun going in a circle above the flat earth, parallel-like? And, how would this again account for the seasons?

Thank you, Eric, for your diligence in study and sharing with the world.

Anonymous said...

I like the briquettes idea!

moloch said...

And how boring would it be if earth was flat? How tiny is our universe realy? No light years distance? How far is the edge of our cosmos? Whats behind it? I never believed in finity realy. There must be a bigger place than what we know, right?

I also found an user ID in youtube named "Stars are Souls". Search for it.

I am rather uncomfortable with the idea how tiny our universe might be. Sorry for yammering. But can we then dig a hole on earth? Would we then fall through? Why do we fall down then, if gravity was a lie?

I also found a theory of infinite 5D earth on the site http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/

If earth was horizontaly infinite, why could it not also be verticaly infinite? I know this is a bunch of questions. And probably you havnt got all the answer yet, alone is it possible to know all this?

Eric Dubay said...

Thanks for the comments everyone, well, not everyone. Please do read The Flat Earth Conspiracy before using it for fire briquettes, you might learn something about the difference between science-fact and science-fiction. Moloch, the horizon line is the vanishing line of sight from your perspective. This is why rising in altitude or zooming in with binoculars/telescope results in the horizon moving back further and further. If the horizon was the beginning of the curvature of the ball-Earth as they tell us, zooming in on it should result in seeing straight off into "outer space." Whether the Earth infinite or finite there would still be a horizon.

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

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

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

Eric Dubay said...

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

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

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

Eric Dubay said...

Good questions Moloch, as for why we fall down without gravity, it is just because of density/weight. Objects denser than the medium surrounding them sink while objects less dense than the medium surrounding them rise. This natural property of physics was well known and understood long before knighted Freemason "Sir" Isaac Newton came along and piggy-backed his idea of gravity on.

If you fill a balloon with helium, a substance lighter than the nitrogen, oxygen and other elements which compose the air around it, the balloon will immediately fly upwards. If you fill a balloon with hydrogen, a substance even lighter than helium, the balloon will fly upwards even faster. If you blow a dandelion seed out of your hands, a substance just barely heavier than the air, it will float away and slowly but eventually fall to the ground. And if you drop an anvil from your hands, something much heavier than the air, it will quickly and directly fall straight to the ground. Now, this has absolutely nothing to do with “gravity.” The fact that light things rise up and heavy things fall down is simply a natural property of weight. That is very different from “gravity.” Gravity is a hypothetical magnetic-like force possessed by large masses which Isaac Newton needed to help explain the heliocentric theory of the universe.

“Most people in England have either read, or heard, that Sir Isaac Newton’s theory of gravitation was originated by his seeing an apple fall to the earth from a tree in his garden. Persons gifted with ordinary common-sense would say that the apple fell down to the earth because, bulk for bulk, it was heavier than the surrounding air; but if, instead of the apple, a fluffy feather had been detached from the tree, a breeze would probably have sent the feather floating away, and the feather would not reach the earth until the surrounding air became so still that, by virtue of its own density, the feather would fall to the ground.” -Lady Blount, “Clarion’s Science Versus God’s Truth” (40)

Eric Dubay said...

“Any object which is heavier than the air, and which is unsupported, has a natural tendency to fall by its own weight. Newton's famous apple at Woolsthorpe, or any other apple when ripe, loses hold of its stalk, and, being heavier than the air, drops as a matter of necessity, to the ground, totally irrespective of any attraction of the Earth. For, if such attraction existed, why does not the Earth attract the rising smoke which is not nearly so heavy as the apple? The answer is simple - because the smoke is lighter than the air, and, therefore, does not fall but ascends. Gravitation is only a subterfuge, employed by Newton in his attempt to prove that the Earth revolves round the Sun, and the quicker it is relegated to the tomb of all the Capulets, the better will it be for all classes of society.” -David Wardlaw Scott, “Terra Firma” (8)

“The ‘law of gravitation’ is said by the advocates of the Newtonian system of astronomy, to be the greatest discovery of science, and the foundation of the whole of modern astronomy. If, therefore, it can be shown that gravitation is a pure assumption, and an imagination of the mind only, that it has no existence outside of the brains of its expounders and advocates, the whole of the hypotheses of this modern so-called science fall to the ground as flat as the surface of the ocean, and this ‘most exact of all sciences,’ this wonderful ‘feat of the intellect’ becomes at once the most ridiculous superstition and the most gigantic imposture to which ignorance and credulity could ever be exposed.” -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (36)

Anonymous said...

Eric, thank you for answering my seasons and sun questions. I can't believe I'm saying this, but I'm now a believer in flat earth. Between you and a youtuber named jhenningkelloggia, I'm won over.

Eric Dubay said...

Glad to hear that, welcome back to reality! Peace

Anonymous said...

Hi Eric, What a great book, I could not stop reading it, let me plug it for you; to everyone reading these comments, BUY ERIC'S BOOK--it's worth every penny. Very compelling material, and it's evident you worked hard on it, and it's greatly appreciated.

Rahsaan Motley said...

I have to say once again Eric, your videos of flat earth are correct. There is no curve to any oceans around the world. Everthing from land to the sea is flat and horizontal. Everything science says to us about earth is rotating around the universe is decieving. I always knew since highschool science didnt really make since when the universe was always discussed. There is no gravity but just the force of a object depending on the weight, if there was a gravity law, planes or air balloons wouldn't fly up. This topics like flat earth just gets more interesting. This is why I dont listen to most new age sites or movements anymore without questioning everything. Science is just another religion twisting the ancients teachings of life for there own personal agendas.To be honest I used to believe space travel was real and there were other habital planets to visit. Your site has influenced my perpective on everything and I keep questioning everything until I actually have the truth. Im actually learning more than when I was in highschool, education was always left brain thinking without being open minded really. Keep up the good work on solving conspiracies.

Anonymous said...

thanks eric for ruining my reality now im miserable as hell:(

telena helotova said...

ok there is only one question I need to have an answer for, sailing a ship from new york to to new york usa sail east to suez down into indian ocean across the pacific and through panama and back to new york, how can this be done on a flat earth?

Anonymous said...

Excuse my ignorance but what about Einstein's Relativity Theory, doesn't that mean we see light that is partially behind a black hole, therefore proving gravity 'bent' the light?

Anonymous said...

Keep doing what you're doing, Eric. The flat earth is a fact. I'm convinced of it.

Of course, the "open-minded" doubters will verbally shred anyone that doesn't fit the Groupthink of the "science" world. But don't let that bother you.

moloch said...

Its just so bizzare, i kept thinking about it.

As like you are, i am also very sure they try to keep us deluded. Through the educational institution, TV, film and music industry. They just put to much effort on it, which makes you think and question. Is everything real or orchestrated? Who did all of this? Why do they want to convince you how the nature of the world is, while keeping everyone busy.

Its a big fraud, a big scam! I knew it, i can feel it!

But flat earth is also still confusing. You know, if the sun was moving as you suggest, it wont be setting or rising. But it would have vanished in a little dot. CMIIW.

I cant stop thinking about it. What makes the sun manuever like the way you say it does? What law does it follow? Or probably the sun is remote controled?

Who created it? Is it eternal? Who is this god?

But now im convinced that light doesnt work the way like they tought us in school. I always had this question: what makes colour appear different to us? Do they reflect differet wave lengt perceived by our eyes? It just dont make sense. I think you answered this question.

Eric Dubay said...

Thanks so much first Anonymous and Rahsaan! Second Anonymous, why would realizing the flat Earth truth make you "miserable as hell?" Telena, please re-read the comments section as your question has already been answered. Third Anonymous, relativity does not exist and neither do black holes, I have a chapter covering this in the book. Thanks fourth Anonymous, will do! And for Moloch, when light shines through a dense medium it appears larger at a given distance than when it is seen through a lighter medium. This is more significant when the medium holds aqueous particles or vapor in solution, as in a damp or foggy atmosphere. Anyone can verify this by standing within a few yards of a street lamp, going away to many times the distance, and watching the light upon the atmosphere appear considerably larger. So at sunrise and 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 noon; and hence the light must be dilated or magnified, as well as modified in color. Peace

TheToxicologist said...

No offense but you people are idiots for having this debate. The Earth is neither flat NOR round. It, without atmosphere, is a busted ass rock. Take any rock that's not a perfect sphere and compare it. It's the atmosphere which gives it the "round" appearance, or rather, prevents us from walking off the edge and allows us to go around it in a circle. You can't see it because your stupid ape-like perceptions aren't advanced enough. It's a moot point - so no duh NASA makes fake images of the Earth but who cares? Your problems are the fact that you can't differentiate from fact and fiction to begin with and apply simple concepts. The fact that people even debate this is astonishing. What's next I guess - that we don't revolve around the Sun and rotate on an axis? Get real. Also, your "conspiracy figureheads" are just that - pawns put forth to divulge just enough spew to the so-called "free-thinkers" who in reality know next to nothing about how the world actually works or how it's run by the elitists, so as to make anyone who speaks out on the issues look like a crank and a weirdo with nothing but theories. Fact is, everything you think you know WAS and STILL IS an UNPROVEN THEORY; e.g. "germ theory of disease", lipid hypothesis, cholesterol theory of heart disease, no known source for life on Earth, "germs" in the air, etc. Your point should be the fact that we are LIED to under the guise of EDUCATION motivated by CORPORATISM and reinforced by INSTITUTIONS that GOVERN these practices and anyone thinking outside of the box (real free thinkers like Reich, Rife, Bechamp, Price, Tilden, Shelton) get buried for their contributions to the planet and it's inhabitants.
Now please STFU and go read a book people.

Anonymous said...

Having read your book I am a convert, however my family all think I've taken leave or my senses lol. No matter, I'm not prepared to take a on a crowd of jeering disbelievers. I now say, yes that is my belief, now go and do the research.! Google it!

Anonymous said...

I like this short video of an Astronauts view of Earth. It does show satellite footage of Earth. I know you will say it's CGI or something, but I think it's amazing. the video has nothing to do with the Flat Earth Theory, it's more about us and what we are doing to Earth.

Anonymous said...

Sorry same person here's the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YOz9Pxnzho

Eric Dubay said...

Yes, it's clearly CGI, but people want to believe cartoons are real and their government never lies about such things.

Anonymous said...

I believe in the flat earth now. :)

One dumb question.... these "dogcams" and other balloon cams that they send up there to 100,000 feet and whatnot.... how do they get the video/cameras back? They float along far away from the launch site, then the balloon pops, and the camera comes careening to earth. How do they get the videos or cameras?

Steve V said...

Eric, I too applaud you, you have some thought-provoking topics, and I must say, very interesting to read. That NO REAL NUKES stuff has me scratching my head though. It almost made a burst out laughing, i have a Japanese friend, I will ask her about her comments, about the radiation afterwards...no better source than the people from the said country. Please keep the posts coming.....sincerely, Steve

Eric Dubay said...

Hey Anonymous, amateur balloonists attach a GPS and insulate the cameras very well so they don't break when hitting the ground. Steve, Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Tokyo were all fire-bombed and the pictures share characteristics of fire-bombing and not one centralized explosion. There is a slight radiation increase from any explosion that can be measured, but nuclear radiation is supposed to be deadly, cause mutations, and linger for hundreds or thousands of years. The victims were clearly burned, not radiated, flowers began growing within a month. As for your assertion that "there is no better source than the people from said country," I'd have to disagree. That's like saying "there is no better source than the average American, to ask about American history." The average American has no idea about the true history of their "country," and there are much better sources than asking Joe Schmo that you know what he thinks. Peace

io said...

Hi Eric,

I am new to learning about the "flat earth theory", and I do not rule it out as a possibility. I have found something that may support the theory, but I am not very good at numbers, nor am I scientifically or mathematically inclined so I would need your opinion or input to know whether or not this information is of any value to the theory.

Basically, the fact that the sun and moon appear to be the same size from earth is apparently something that baffles scientists. One source states:

"The sun’s diameter is 400 times that of the moon, but, due to the moon’s close proximity, both orbs appear the same size in the sky. This is exceedingly unlikely, and astronomers of all ages have marveled at this strikingly odd coincidence."

- See more at: http://www.richardcassaro.com/alien-message-detected-proof-were-not-alone-hidden-in-the-sun-moon-pt-1-of-2#sthash.i8ePz91n.gkUX2EZT.dpuf

My question is, would a flat earth being flat explains why this phenomenon exists? Or does this go against a flat earth in any way?

I look forward to your reply!

-io

Barzini said...

I was looking at a beautiful sunset yesterday and I realized that the clouds on the horizon looked far lower than the ones above my head.....

Look out to the horizon on a cloudy day, the clouds seem to be touching the ground or hovering closely above it....

Obviously this is an optical illusion, the clouds are actually very high in the sky....

This is a good way of trying to understand what the sun does at sun set.....in reality the sun is still very high in the sky, but it looks like it is going down and touching the horizon because it is moving away from us.....

Eric Dubay said...

Hey IO, When you look up at the Sun and Moon you see two equally-sized equidistant circles tracing similar paths at similar speeds around a flat, stationary Earth. The “experts” at NASA, however, claim your common sense every day experience is false on all counts! To begin with, they say the Earth is not flat but a big ball; not stationary but spinning around 19 miles per second; they say the Sun does not revolve around the Earth as it appears, but Earth revolves around the Sun; the Moon, on the other hand, does revolve around the Earth, though not East to West as it appears, rather West to East; and the Sun is actually 400 times larger than the Moon and 400 times farther away! That’s right, you can clearly see they are the same size and distance, you can see the Earth is flat, you can feel the Earth is stationary, but according to the gospel of modern astronomy, you are wrong and a simpleton worthy of endless ridicule if you dare to believe your own eyes and experience!

With haughty arrogance the nearest hypnotized heliocentrist will then inform you that the Sun is 865,374 miles in diameter and 92,955,807 miles from the Earth, the Moon is 2,159 miles in diameter and 238,900 miles from Earth, and those just happen to be the EXACT diameters and distances necessary for a viewer from Earth to falsely perceive them as being the same size! So, you see, silly Flat-Earther, it is all an illusion and the apparent equanimity of our day and night luminaries in the sky results from mere coincidental parallax perspective! The Sun does not revolve around the Earth as it appears; rather the Earth spins 1,038 mph under your feet and revolves 67,108 mph around the Sun! The Moon does indeed revolve around the Earth, but not as it appears! Though it seems to move East to West just like the Sun and everything else in the heavens, the Moon actually spins West to East at 10.3 mph while orbiting Earth at 2,288 mph, which combined with the Earth’s 1,038mph spin and 67,108 mph orbit around the Sun coincidentally results in all motions perfectly cancelling out making the Moon seem to move across the heavens with similar path and similar speed as the Sun while always only showing us one side of its surface, and perpetually hiding its “dark side.” You see, they've got an excuse for everything with "precise" mathematics all prepared to silence your pesky inquisitive mind.

Eric Dubay said...

Heliocentrists’ astronomical figures always sound perfectly precise, but they have historically been notorious for regularly and drastically changing them to suit their various models. 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)

“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)

Gregory Pecker said...

Thanks Eric Dubay! Just bought the e-book (the Australian buyer). Looking forward to reading the entire thesis (do like your writing style).

Although I haven't a firm opinion yet on the subject, let me say, nothing would surprise me!

Anonymous said...

I'm a believer in conspiracies in general, and the flat earth theory seems very plausible except that I can't find evidence for the corollary that the Tropic of Capricorn should be quite a bit longer that the Tropic of Cancer. Road distances across Australia seem to be what the powers that be say they are, for example, and direct flight times from Auckland to Santiago correspond to the distances you would expect a 777 to fly at its normal cruising speed of Mach 0.83. Please give evidence that distances south of the equator are longer than conventionally claimed. Also, Antarctica should have longer nights but no days lasting 24 hours or longer. Please provide evidence of this also. Thank you.

Eric Dubay said...

Thanks so much Gregory, be sure to let me know what you think when you finish! And for Anonymous, I don't know why you think flights from Australia/NZ to South America are consistent with the globe Earth!? Look again...

Flat Earth Long Hauls

Eric Dubay said...

And Antarctica does NOT have days lasting longer than 24 hours. You can find dozens of time-lapse videos without cut-scenes showing days of the Arctic Midnight Sun never setting. You will only find one clearly fake video full of cuts claiming to be the Antarctic Midnight Sun, however, because it doesn't exist. The Sun is traveling too fast at the outer circumference for 24 hour daylight. This is simply a lie they cover up by not allowing anyone but people aware of the conspiracy into Antarctica during those winter weeks.

Rinon Hoxha said...

NEW Video Release: Comparing Perimeters of the North and South Poles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=va5EMPqh5o0&feature=youtu.be

Peace,
R.

Anonymous said...

I hope you don't mind if I linked your blog post to LOP, although there are many payed agents there, hahaha. The earth is very flat.. The reptilian demons have deceived us greatly.

Eric Dubay said...

Thanks Rinon, and good job on the post Anon, thanks for sharing! Peace

franklin watson said...

Eric I will share something with you, you can call me crazy, many do, and yet I explain things so well, many do not. For those who don't believe, well, one day they will, only by then it will be too late. I have always asked for knowledge, wisdom and understanding, not once but a thousand times, and was rewarded. My situation in life changed six months ago and I became much more receptive to knowledge, but I never believed in a flat earth. A dream woke me from my bed and I was compelled to look at a flat earth at 0300. I was as if flood gates opened and now I realize the final truth I was missing. I tell everyone I can, despite ridicule as I think people need to wake up and cast away the wisdom of the world and see things with new understanding, not taking any preconceived ideas with them. Many months ago I had a dream of being above the earth and seeing a dysons sphere, I now understand it is the ceiling of the earth and the highest heavens, the portals are there and the earth is flat, the straw men need to be exposed, people need to know this so they can draw a conclusion that is their own and not of this wicked world that lies in the power of liars and the wicked one. Keep up the good work.

franklin watson said...

by the way Eric, a worker is worthy of his wages. If someone wants the truth, a few useless dollars should not stand in their way. It is commendable that you have offered something for free but, someone serious will pay a bit of useless paper for gold.

Eric Dubay said...

Thanks Franklin! I see you're trying to talk some sense into Lord Con of the Caves on your G+ page. Good luck with that, he's already bought and paid for controlled opposition ;) Peace

Anonymous said...

Eric, I addressed some of your questions regarding gravity from February 13, 2015 as reply to this article: http://aplanetruth.info/2015/04/02/25-is-sir-isaac-newtons-law-of-gravity-just-one-great-big-lie

I hope that helps. Cheers, Julien

Anonymous said...

Eric, some thoughts about Rowbotham's representation of the flat Earth:

- If the Sun was like a light bulb hanging over the surface of the Earth and moving on a parallel plane, then by the same Law of perspective it would appear lower and smaller in the evening than at noon. It would never completely set though, because a light bulb projects its light to every point of a plane at every moment, no matter its position. There would be no nights, unless the Sun's light gets blocked by mountains at the horizon. Sunsets over the sea would be impossible: we would always see a small bright object over the sea.

- If instead the Sun was like a spotlight, projecting a cone of light on the surface of the Earth and effectively lightening only a part of this surface, then by the same Law of perspective not only would it appear smaller in the evening, it would also have a different shape. We would only see it as a disc of light when it's perfectly above our head. Most of the time it would appear as an ellipsis instead of a disc. And at sunsets, instead of seeing a disc of light slowly disappear over the horizon, we would see an ellipsis of light becoming smaller and flatter.

Neither of these two options seems convincing to me, and I don't see another possible option. What do you think?

Cheers, Julien

Rolf Stålhandske said...

To see an object 200 miles away is biologically impossible. Maybe he saw it in his third eye?
Or it is just a tall tale or direct lie to fit some interests ? For sure not a credible story .

Corwin Amber said...

I have to say after dealing with repression in certain industries and the falsities of the american courtroom - nothing surprises me. Eric I appreciate your work - perhaps you have answered these questions before but here it goes: 1) To what end does it serve the powers that be to deceive the population regarding the the truth of the flat earth? 2) If the earth is Flat then what are we actually living on (eg- artificial alien construct, natural cosmic structure)? 3) What shape do you suspect the earth is (eg-pancake like or square or an asteroid)? 4) What do your studies lead you to speculate is beyond the chartered territories north and south - if anything - given planes do not seem to go that route... 5) Is earth normal? - meaning as one looks out a telescope one sees rotating moons of Jupiter and what seems to be spherical planets and moons - do you suspect earth is unique or the astrological observations are some false projection?

Deception Detection said...

Eric how many miles around is the ice wall surrounding the plane. Will you please explain

Todd said...

What about the subject of hours of daylight? I've always operated under the assumption that cities with identical latitudes, north and south, have identical hours of daylight at 'opposite' times of year. For instance, according to timeanddate.com, Ushuaia Argentina (54,48 S) has 17:19.53 of daylight on December 21. Flensburg Germany (54,47 N) has 17:19.25 hours of daylight on June 21. This fits in perfectly with the globe model, and seems to debunk the flat earth model. I've been considering the flat earth model, but I can't get fully onboard until I can reconcile this glaring inconsistency. What am I missing? I'm surprised, in all the discussion on this theory, that this hasn't been brought up. It appears that southern locales can never have this much sunlight, even on their longest day of the year. However, there are many accounts of 24 hour sunlight in Antarctica. Please don't tell me that everyone who has ever taken a cruise to Antarctica is part of the conspiracy?! Looking forward to a well reasoned answer. Thank you.

dutchcx7 said...

Well, i feel exactly as Moloch February 13, 2015 at 8:35 PM, its so bizarre but i am open to it... Suppose the firmament above a FE is true, what we see there stars, planets are they real, i mean with a telescope you can see saturn.., few years ago i could see a red dot (mars). so what are they ? and how about comets slamming into earth (like the one in russia) ?.
i just read about all this yesterday, saw Eric's explanation on YT, an i am confused already for 24hrs. I am a technician, and so far almost everything is so logic. gee even the yin-yang symbol. I cannot share this possibility of a FE with family and friends as the public delusion works perfect, they will think i am crazy... LOL
Keep up the investigations!

Richard said...

I have a few questions:
If this is the flat earth map: http://i.huffpost.com/gen/837629/images/o-FLAT-EARTH-facebook.jpg
Then it must be much quicker to fly around the world, USA to USA, than Argentina to Argentina.

How do you explain that?

The other odd thing is, if you google distances between places, you get the following:
Chicago-Dublin = 3657 miles
Buenos Aires-Cape Town = 4265 miles
However, if you look at the google map and physically measure it, the distance between Chicago-Dublin is 10% more.

mythra81 said...

dear eric i want you to look for a copy of the english translation of surya siddhanta which talks about the planets as well as the earth itself ..... in the early part of the book it mentions several important details ..... [1] the diameter of the earth is 1600 yojanas [i have checked that the most accurate measure of yojana is around 14.64 kilometres but there are other estimates as well] [2] it mentions how to calculate the circumference of the earth by multiplying the square of the diameter with 10 and finding the square root which is equivalent to multiplying with pi [3] a very important detail is it mentions that the cities of kurukshetra, rohitaka in india are the midpoint between the north pole and lanka [note here that lanka at the time the surya siddhanta was written is not the island of sri lanka today because sri lanka was attached to the indian mainland in the pre flood era and i suspect lanka must have been at the boundary of the earth circumference] which means the modern equator is not the real equator but the real equator is somewhere close to the middle of india north thailand arabia and sudan as well as mexico and the reason is the kurukshetra where mahabharata war took place is not the same as the modern kurukshetra and was also situated in the pre flood west coast of india ......... anyways i recommend you research this ancient text and see if there are any clues you can find

Fish said...

Eric, first I want to thank you for putting such hard work into this. I intend to buy one or two of your books in the next couple weeks. I have never believed much of what is told to us. I have asked almost every one of my science teachers and professors who are explaining the make-up of the Earth how we know what the inside is made of if we've never drilled through the crust. I have never believed that in 1969 they had the technology to go to the moon, take like 5 pictures and come back with everything going smoothly. As soon as NASA gives us photos taken far into space, I've always questioned how that information was sent back to us across the entire solar system, through the asteroid belt and the Van Allen Belt and to us and yet a brick wall will block my wifi.

That said, I have also been skeptical of conspiracy theories and other happenings. I know the governments lie and care not for us as long as they maintain their authority and drain our income, keeping us at the bottom, and the idea of secret societies makes sense, I would see it as more various groups of societies working against one another instead of one big one. Also, I know there are spirits and happenings which can not be explained by science. I have experienced many things which can not be easily explained, and there is NO doubt in my mind that they are real, yet every time I hear or experience something odd, my first thought is to find a rational explanation. I am critical towards EVERYTHING!

When I first heard my mother tell me she saw a documentary on a potential flat Earth, I laughed at her and made all kinds of claims on why we know it is a sphere. I thought it was the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Then I watched some videos, and it threw my whole world-view out the window. I've always been an astronomy nerd and I love physical science, and yet I never even questioned the globe. Now I am a Flat-Earther or at least the model makes more sense to me than the globe ever did, even though it was really hard for me to let go of my love for space and studying the solar system. There are some FE people who are crazy though, claiming volcanoes are foundries under the Earth and quoting the Bible to reach their claims. That is all well and good if that is what you want to believe, and sure, some of the passages do hint at a flat Earth, but the Bible is NOT evidence! That is why I like your videos and arguments the most, even if I don't agree with all of your political and moral views as I understand them. When you are faced with a question where you don't know the answer and it can't be shown or proven, you say, "That is one possibility". Perfect answer!

I also want to thank you for the comments I've seen from you in regards to entheogens, in particular ayahuasca. A few years ago I was given a chance to take some, so I went off alone into the wilderness and my experience was nothing short of magical. I won't get into specifics here because it might turn off some people from other ideas presented here, but I have no doubt that there are spirits that exist outside our perception as you've suggested.

I will continue to study this theory and try to find the truth one way or the other, though I feel that the only way to reach the absolute truth is to face the dragon at the gate, which we all know is a near impossible feat and with my young children's safety to consider, I would never dream of following through with. Still, someone must, because that is in our nature, and the light of truth continues to shine regardless of belief.

starfleet1 said...

I would like to thank Fish for his/her insightful comments and the degree to which he is investigating his own belief systems. I also want to thank Eric for his bravery and tenacity in presenting this information in light of some very severe criticism which I am sure he has received. Eric, I will buy your book and read it, although I am new to the Flat Earth theory and remain at present a believer in the traditional theory of the cosmos.

I just stumbled onto this recently and have only begun researching this today. I watched a couple of videos presenting their case for a flat earth in which they used lasers across a distance of water to ascertain the degree of curvature in the surface of the water and they reported they could detect none. I can't tell you how my brain works because I don't know but it is telling me that these types of experiments are fundamentally flawed. A more accurate result would be gained through measuring the horizontal positioning of the observed laser beam rather than its vertical positioning.

If we assume that light travels in a straight line we can test - if we have a powerful enough laser - the flat earth by shooting a beam straight out from the coast of North America exactly perpendicular to true north. If the earth is flat, the beam will be observed in Antarctica. If the world is a globe, the beam will be observed somewhere above Japan or China.

A similar test can be constructed using aircraft. Using inertial navigation, a plane could fly due west from Los Angeles. If the earth is flat, the aircraft will make landfall in Antarctica. If the world is a sphere, landfall will occur in China.

Similarly, an aircraft leaving JFK and flying to London would fly along a great circle route on a globe which would pass several hundred miles south of Iceland, fly over Ireland and enter the UK over Wales. On a flat earth, the aircraft would never fly over Ireland but rather would enter the UK from the north, i.e. Scotland and fly virtually due south to London.

I am skeptical of a flat earth, but I will keep my mind - and my options - open. Good luck in your endeavors.

Anonymous said...

ummmmm,
hi Eric, on your david icke debunking page there are problems. I agree he is controlled p but the links you gave to prove it - specifically the first one, is full of "I believe in the bible as the literal word of god" crap. why did you link to that shiite ?
Regards,
>David<

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the information, why's the circumference of the flat earth? Had there been expeditions or experiments that have ever measured the flat earth?

bob cobb said...

i keep telling people we should'nt see the same stars alnight long if earth is going 1000mph the rest of the stars are not going the same speed we do. but if a jet does go the opposit dirrection of the 1000 mph it should take longer to get there. but when i flew to california to missouri it took the same amount of time-why ?.

Geoffrey Howells said...

Bob Cobb
I by no means an advocate for 'Flat-Earthers'.
You might enjoy this video: https://youtu.be/mGx1zs0k4qw
We live in a period of indoctrination and zombies with smartphones. Technology can fake anything imaginable. Curiosity is healthy regardless of it being 100% accurate or not. I watch SCI/FI because I enjoy the mind journey.

Unknown said...

Having myself been involved with Missiles, computers, and the massive corporate involvement in technology, and as well years of study in Biblical understanding, I see the conflict of not only what is obvious, but also the complexity of massive fraud. On one hand we have very limited observation, and on the other so called invariables of science. Both, I am thinking are adumbration and not open to a greater possibility. We know (we think) that all things are spectrum and waveform, and combinations of same. Some in the string quantum camp postulate a world that is a hologram, but I think it is more than that, and like the multiverse, we may be in something that is beyond our current understanding. I would suppose that like in the days of Galileo, or perhaps early Tesla, prejudice, greed, and ignorance is as well the flavor of things. So I put forth that perhaps there is a third answer, or many answers that may vanquish current knowledge. We the most vain creatures on earth having trouble getting past ourselves to see what is beyond, or for that matter what is over the horizon! erleclaire

Anonymous said...

Thanks for this great blog. I have a question and I hope you have the correct answer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zc-WlTaG7WY
This video shows a time lapse of the 24 hour sun in Antarctica, which is impossible on a flat Earth. ( they said )
Is it really impossible ? if not ..please explain in details.

Andy said...

Hi Eric. When you mentioned Copernicus in one of your posts above I remembered reading the idea that he was more than likely a mythical figure:That the work attributed to this one person was probably an occult group of people. The fact that Open Circus is an anagram of Copernicus is just these guys having a good laugh and hiding things in 'plane' sight.
Thanks for all your hard work. A.

Tristan said...

I have a question Eric and I think your findings are rather Interesting and Important and everyone should take into Consideration that its based on factual evidence and people don't want to believe the truth. My question is what keeps the Clouds in the sky and what causes Earthquakes? And Thanks, Your like the sunglasses in the movie (They Live)

C.S. Smith said...

I'm 71 yrs on this earth (I won't say planet) and have seen first hand just how dishonest the powers that be perform their duty to the people that pay their salary. Through your wonderful work and the great work of many others, only one possible response makes sense: THE EARTH IS FLAT!

Anonymous said...

I don't understand how so many people can ask so many dumb questions. Apparently the don't have time to look at the evidence all over the internet, especially youtube.

Austin said...

Like many others, I consider the possibility of a flat Earth. What wins me over is that a lot of the scientific information about a globe is what I feel to be based on circumstance, assumptions, and information not easily gathered by the public. However I am not totally convinced it is flat and I do have some curiosities.

One curiosity is the day night cycle. I understand that it circles perpendicular overhead, but that would mean the sun would need to speed up as it reached the outer tropic and to slow down on the inside tropic to maintain a consistant length of day throughout the world. I have never traveled though and therefore cannot say it is the same in every part of the world. I would also like the flat Earth map explained better. If Earth is flat then the map would reflect that in a sense that there would be no distortion. The distortion comes from making a flat map out of a sphere, and propaganda to place significance on certain nations, but Australia specifically still seems distorted in the FE maps. Again, I have never traveled so I cannot verify for myself.

But all in all, my lesson learned is that we know next to nothing if we discount what we are told from authority figures. We are mice in a cage told how big the world actually is, left to speculate from behind our cage of reference.

Thank you.