Thursday, April 2, 2015

Flat Earth Enlightenment From Lighthouses


A copy of the book “The Lighthouses of the World” and a calculator are enough to prove that the Earth is not a globe, but an extended flat plane.  The distance from which various lighthouse lights around the world are visible at sea far exceeds what could be found on a globe Earth 25,000 miles in circumference.  For example, the Dunkerque Light in southern France at an altitude of 194 feet is visible from 28 miles away.  Spherical trigonometry dictates that if the Earth was a globe with the given curvature of 8 inches per mile squared, this light should be hidden 190 feet below the horizon! 

The Port Nicholson Light in New Zealand is 420 feet above sea-level and visible from 35 miles away which means it should be 220 feet below the horizon.  The Egerö Light in Norway is 154 feet above high-water and visible from 28 statute miles where it should be 230 feet below the horizon.  The Light at Madras, on the Esplanade, is 132 feet high and visible from 28 miles away, where it should be 250 feet below the line of sight.  The Cordonan Light on the west coast of France is 207 feet high and visible from 31 miles away, putting it 280 feet below the line of sight.  The light at Cape Bonavista, Newfoundland is 150 feet above sea-level and visible at 35 miles, where it should be 491 feet below the horizon.  And the lighthouse steeple of St. Botolph’s Parish Church in Boston is 290 feet tall and visible from over 40 miles away, where it should be hidden a full 800 feet below the horizon!

The distance across St. George's Channel, between Holyhead and Kingstown Harbour, near Dublin, is at least 60 statute miles. It is not an uncommon thing for passengers to notice, when in, and for a considerable distance beyond the centre of the Channel, the Light on Holyhead Pier, and the Poolbeg Light in Dublin Bay.  The Lighthouse on Holyhead Pier shows a red light at an elevation of 44 feet above high water; and the Poolbeg Lighthouse exhibits two bright lights at an altitude of 68 feet; so that a vessel in the middle of the Channel would be 30 miles from each light; and allowing the observer to be on deck, and 24 feet above the water, the horizon on a globe would be 6 miles away. Deducting 6 miles from 30, the distance from the horizon to Holyhead, on the one hand, and to Dublin Bay on the other, would be 24 miles. The square of 24, multiplied by 8 inches, shows a declination of 384 feet. The altitude of the lights in Poolbeg Lighthouse is 68 feet; and of the red light on Holyhead Pier, 44 feet. Hence, if the earth were a globe, the former would always be 316 feet and the latter 340 feet below the horizon!”  -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!” (59)

The lights which are exhibited in lighthouses are seen by navigators at distances at which, according to the scale of the supposed ‘curvature’ given by astronomers, they ought to be many hundreds of feet, in some cases, down below the line of sight! For instance: the light at Cape Hatteras is seen at such a distance (40 miles) that, according to theory, it ought to be nine-hundred feet higher above the level of the sea than it absolutely is, in order to be visible! This is a conclusive proof that there is no ‘curvature,’ on the surface of the sea - ‘the level of the sea,’- ridiculous though it is to be under the necessity of proving it at all: but it is, nevertheless, a conclusive proof that the Earth is not a globe.”  -William Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe” (5)

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

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

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

In the account of the trigonometrical operations in France, by M. M. Biot and Arago, it is stated that the light of a powerful lamp, with good reflectors, was placed on a rocky summit, in Spain, called Desierto las Palmas, and was distinctly seen from Camprey, on the Island of Iviza. The elevation of the two points was nearly the same, and the distance between them nearly 100 miles. If the earth is a globe, the light on the rock in Spain would have been more than 6600 feet, or nearly one mile and a quarter, below the line of sight.”  -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!” (59)

A man named Lietenant-Colonel Portlock used oxy-hydrogen Drummond’s Lights and heliostats for reflecting the sun’s rays across stations set up on Precelly, a mountain in South Wales and Kippure, a mountain 10 miles south-west of Dublin.  The instruments were placed at the same altitude above sea-level and shined across 108 miles of St. George’s Channel.  Technical problems plagued Portlock’s experiment for weeks, until finally one successful morning he wrote: “For five weeks I watched in vain; when, to my joy, the heliostat blazed out in the early beams of the rising sun, and continued visible as a bright star the whole day.  If the world were a globe, Portlock’s light should have remained forever invisible hidden under approximately a mile and a half of Earth’s curvature!

If we take a journey down the Chesapeake Bay, by night, we shall see the ‘light’ exhibited at Sharpe's Island for an hour before the steamer gets to it. We may take up a position on the deck so that the rail of the vessel's side will be in a line with the ‘light’ and in the line of sight; and we shall find that in the whole journey the light won't vary in the slightest degree in its apparent elevation. But, say that a distance of thirteen miles has been traversed, the astronomers' theory of ‘curvature’ demands a difference (one way or the other!) in the apparent elevation of the light, of 112 feet 8 inches! Since, however, there is not a difference of 100 hair's breadths, we have a plain proof that the water of the Chesapeake Bay is not curved, which is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.  -William Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe” (36)

We are fairly entitled to conclude, therefore, from the reliable data furnished as to how far lights at sea can be seen, that the world is an extended plane, and not the globe of astronomical speculation.  -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (62)



Support independent publishing: Buy this book on Lulu.




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

56 comments:

JaviFiesta said...

Hello! Congratulations on your great blog. I would buy your book in Spanish. But I have not found. In Spanish language very little information about what you expose yourself and we need to know. In my blog audience JaviFiesta many of your post translated with Google, are very interesting. Are you going to translate your book into other languages? Thanks for everything and a big hug. Javi: D

http://javifiesta.blogspot.com.es/2015/02/la-conspiracion-de-la-tierra-plana.html
http://javifiesta.blogspot.com.es/2015/03/las-grandes-bolas-de-la-nasa-espuestas.html
http://javifiesta.blogspot.com.es/2015/03/la-sociedad-de-la-tierra-plana-es.html
http://javifiesta.blogspot.com.es/2015/02/el-sistema-de-justicia-previene-la.html
http://javifiesta.blogspot.com.es/2015/02/las-armas-nucleares-no-existen.html
http://javifiesta.blogspot.com.es/2015/02/ritos-satanticos-canibalismo-pedofilos.html
http://javifiesta.blogspot.com.es/2015/02/la-medible-no-curvatura-de-la-tierra.html
http://javifiesta.blogspot.com.es/2015/02/el-fraude-de-la-iss-la-estacion.html

globalweimar said...

Eric
Wondering where/how objects that do fall to earth (whether organic or inorganic!) fit into the broader flat earth theory? Also, the end of the last ice age/geological theory, is that too rendered redundant?Thanks, genuine queries in search of a rounded understanding.

Anonymous said...

You are aware that liquids bend light? put a fork in a glass of water And that air is a liquid? look over a hot surface and see the movement of the air bending the light.... you proved nothing.

Barzini said...

Hi Eric,

Have you seen that Quantas offers a direct flight from Sydney to Santiago which takes 12 hours 30 minutes?

Any idea how this could be so if the earth is flat?

Also, do you have any links to a video where someone has zoomed in with a powerful telescope to see something which technically shouldn't be visible if the earth was round?

Surely that is all that is really needed to prove the Flat Earth theory......

Thanks

Barzini

Anonymous said...

is this site the flat earth site now for months you talk about nothing else ???
i like your views on other things also

DaRoach said...

I don't suppose light refraction was taken into consideration with any of these occurrences? It's a known natural phenomenon often nicknamed "looming". This article is expectedly biased and fails to even offer any other explanations for these anomalies (assuming the accounts are all credible) other than "TEH URTH IZ FLAT!!" Really grasping at straws, fellas. If you honestly believe you're right and have concrete grounds to stand on, then you won't go and censor my critique. ;)

Anonymous said...

Here’s How We Know the Earth is Round:

-There’s a horizon, meaning that the surface is not an infinite plane.

-There’re time zones, which can only be explained if the Earth is round, and rotating around its own axis.

-Ships don’t fall off the edge of the Earth.

-When a full Moon occurs in the plane of Earth’s orbit, the Moon slowly moves through Earth’s shadow. Every time that shadow is seen, its edge is round. The only solid object that always projects a round shadow is a sphere. During a lunar eclipse the Earth blocks the Sun from the Moon casting its round shadow on the Moon’s surface

-Ships disappearing over the horizon and the Pole Star shifting to a higher position in the sky suggest a curved Earth.

-In 2005 Steven Fosset circumnavigated the Earth. After a 76-hour and 45-minute flight, travelling 26,389.3 miles he landed in the area he took off.

^^Lighthouses don't prove anything, in the words of the great Dr. Perry Cox..."Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong!"

Anonymous said...

Here's how we know Earth is flat:

- You can see far past where the horizon would be if we were on a ball (the point of this particular post)

- There is a 'shadow' on the moon when both the moon and sun are both visible above the horizon, proving that the shadow is not Earth's because Earth would have to blocking sunlight casted toward the moon to create a shadow.

- Long exposures of the night sky show the stars are only spinning around us.

- You can see the same constellations in the northern hemisphere as you can in the southern hemisphere, which wouldn't be possible on a spherical Earth.

Anonymous said...

Truthseeker

If the information in this article is correct, then the earth is a plane. I have no way of quickly verifying this information of course.

But round-earth proponents cannot use refraction to explain the visibility of these lighthouses from such distances, while at the same time using 'mast sticking up form horizon'-argument to prove earth is round. Either Refraction works, so that you can see far below the horizon or it does not.

I am currently at sea, and I have not seen,with the naked eye, any vessel that disappears below the horizon. They just become very small, and at a distance the upper part of tall vessels always sticks up above the horizon anyway. But I cannot tell for sure whether the lower part is 'behind' the horizon or not. It is just too far away.

Also now as I am standing on deck looking at the horizon, it is completely flat. No visible curve at all.

I ask myself: "We are told that the earth is round, but how would this horizon look like if the earth was flat?"

And I have to conclude: "It would look exactly like this"

Anonymous said...

Truthseeker

From a flat earth point-of-view I still have some problems understanding how sunsets work.

The round earth-heliocentric-model seems to have a better explanation for this particular phenomenon. Because during sunsets it looks like the sun 'goes down' and disappears below the horizon, while mantaining the same size. It does not become smaller and disappear into the horizon like earthly objects that move away from you.

But this is assuming that heavenly objects such as the sun moon and stars have the same properties as earthly objects, which they clearly do not, because then they would fall down (if the earth is flat).

If you are to stick to the flat earth paradigm, you must distinguish between what is going on on earth and in the heavens. It is not the same thing.

There is no philosophical reason to demand that the earth and the heavens are the same.

None of the earthly round-earth-heliocentric explanations for sunsets and other celestial phenomena proves that the earth is round, they are just applying earthly explanations to heavenly phenomena.

Eric Dubay said...

Thanks for translating those articles Javi! I would love to have my books translated but it's not something I can afford to have done professionally. Globalweimar, those are still mysteries I'm looking into as well. Anonymous "refraction" people, refraction is said to bend light only when the object/observer are in different densities and to bend light upwards, not downwards.

"Refraction can only exist where the object and the observer are in different densities. If a shilling be put in the bottom of a glass and observed there is no refraction. Refraction casts the image of the shilling UPWARDS, but a shadow always downwards. If a basin be taken and put near a light, so that the shadow will shorten inwards and DOWNWARDS; but if the rod is allowed to rest in the basin and water poured in, the rod will appear to be bent UPWARDS.” -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (78)

Barzini, we have been covering the minutia of flight routes on IFERS, check through the following videos/links:

Flight Routes Thread

Anonymous, the horizon is flat and rises to the eye of the observer all the way up. This is only consistent with a flat plane. Time zones are caused by the Sun rotating over and around the flat Earth. Noon-time is brought to each successive 15 degree demarcation point 24 times a day as the Sun passes directly overhead. Flight times prove it is the Sun moving and not the Earth. The Antarctic surrounds the oceans, so no ships don't fall off. Lunar eclipses are NOT caused by the "Earth's shadow". I've explained the ship's disappearing, East/West circumnavigation and Polaris over and over again, see previous comments sections if you actually care (people with this attitude rarely do).

For the last Anonymous see the following thread: Perspective of the Sun Going Down Over the Horizon and More 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.

Michael Luder said...

Hi Eric

First may I congratulate you on answering your comments page in such a studious manner. As always you offer up intriguing insights to what is, to the majority, a debate that is shut.

However, this comment..
DaRoach .." This article is expectedly biased and fails to even offer any other explanations for these anomalies (assuming the accounts are all credible)".. brings up an interesting point. If you were to present your posts with the "accepted" theory (in this case, light refraction?) it would surely bring more weight to your argument and read more impartially, which can only give you more credibility? (And possibly save you time in your comments page! :) )

Barzini's question also seems like a very good one too.. "Also, do you have any links to a video where someone has zoomed in with a powerful telescope to see something which technically shouldn't be visible if the earth was round?

Surely that is all that is really needed to prove the Flat Earth theory......"

Please, please don't think me naive. I have spent many inquisitive hours reading your blog, researching your sources among others and enjoyed the process.
The difference is, your information is literally at your finger tips, the information I have gained is imprinted in my memory from reading yours, and others, work. I don't have the time I wish I did to fully study and understand the intricacies of your theories or even the accepted theories.. So perhaps you have already answered Barzinis question and I just do not recall its answer or simply have not transferred other knowledge from your posts to answer it myself?

This link http://mathscinotes.com/2013/08/distance-to-the-horizon-assuming-refraction/
may prove interesting to you, either by easily proving the distances stated in your post are abnormal for a ball earth EVEN with refraction taken into consideration and so would make a great inclusion to support your argument.. or they may be just another shill.. or prove the distances stated in your post are easily feasible with refraction/atmospheric/mirages!!

To me, my comprehension.. sadly.. I do not have a clue where to start using the equations stated in the link.

I am an artist, not a scientist.
To this end, I ask for your patience in your responses and attitude to us, the seeking, the thinkers and the Libertines. We come in the majority with open but cautious minds. Surely, the only way to be with the webs of deceit that we dwell in?

Love and respect

Michael

Barzini said...

Hi Eric,

I'm not convinced by the Flat Earth Clues Long Haul video.....

He seems to be deliberately complicating the matter

The fact is, Quantas flies non-stop from Sydney to Santiago - taking 12 hours 30 minutes....

He is either pretending or is somehow unaware that this flight is unavailable.....

The offering of this flight makes most of his video pointless

Eric Dubay said...

Hey Michael, yes it has been proven repeatedly by Rowbotham, and more modern examples, you can use a telescope to zoom in much more of the flat Earth than would be possible on a ball 25,000 miles in circumference. Barzini, see the following video, towards the end and see flight after flight that only works on the flat map. I don't understand this current talking point where everyone brings up 12.5 hour Chile > NZ flights claiming they're impossible on a flat Earth. Why? Flying at 583mph (average flight speed for this trip) for 12.5 hours gives 7287 miles which works just fine on both current flat maps like Hammonds or the Azimuthal as it does the ball model. There is no issue here (unless of course you try to factor in the supposed 1,038mph Eastward spin of the ball-Earth, THEN you're going to run into trouble rectifying these flight times.) They work just fine on the flat, motionless Earth.

Anonymous said...

Hey Eric I think it would be cool to go into lunar phenomenon regarding flat earth. Eclipses, lunar phases and no rotation and why eclipses happen only during full moon.
I'm about sold on the plane theory but can't figure the moon...
Anonymous Omnivore

Anonymous said...

Eric, your comments on this post are prime example of how phony you are:

"I've explained...East/West circumnavigation and Polaris over and over again, see previous comments sections if you actually care."

Lazy Eric telling his readers to go comb through countless comments in countless threads to look up something he supposedly has a wealth of knowledge about. You aren't helping your argument by saying "Umm excuse me I already EXPLAINED THAT LIKE FOREVER AGO, GO LOOK IT UP IF YOU CARE!" I for one would love to hear your explaination of how people circumnavigate the glode...excuse me "PLANE", but I am not about to go searching through comments to find it, that's why we are asking YOU! If you already explained it then why don't YOU go find your old comments and use you magical keyboard to copy/paste the explanation so we don't have to go sifting through all those bullshit articles. Give your readers the explainations and answers they seek, they are coming to YOU with their questions they want answered after all. Don't bellittle your readers them by telling them to look it up on their own on YOUR SITE! If you want to be taken seriously, have some integrity and give the people what they want, don't bullshit them with your diva-esque behavior.

Anonymous said...

You're an intellectual terrorist

Barzini said...

On all the flat earth maps I've seen Santiago and Sydney look around 30-35,000 kms apart.....

On a globe earth they are only 12,000kms apart

The fact Quantas flies this route non-stop in 12 hours 30 mins is a problem for the flat earth theory as far as I can tell

I think you understand what I'm talking about, if you could give me your thoughts on this specific problem it would be great....

Anyway thanks for the great work....

APlaneTruth said...


Latest post on the amazing work of Gerrard Hickson from 1921 who blew the doors in his most important work:
Kings Dethroned.

Comments, critiques and corrections welcome as long as civil.

How Did The Kings of Astronomy Get it So Wrong? Part I: Copernicus – Newton
http://aplanetruth.info/2015/04/06/26a-how-did-the-kings-of-astronomy-get-it-so-wrong-part-i-copernicus-newton/

Anonymous said...

Thank you Eric. For doing such a great job spreading the truth in such a lovely manner in which people can understand.. Thank you so much it has taught me a lot

J. Lee said...

Part II, How Did The Kings of Astronomy Get it So Wrong? Part II: Einstein and the Still Earth
http://aplanetruth.info/2015/04/07/26b-how-did-the-kings-of-astronomy-get-it-so-wrong-part-ii-einstein-and-the-still-earth/#more-793

This work by Gerrard Hickson blows the door off the errors, omissions and lies of Einstein and his peers at the Astronomical Society of England. This is a very powerful indictment and proof that the entire science of astronomy is based on false truths.

Part i, Mr. Hickson takes to task Copernicus to Newton and destroys their scientific and mathematical work as based on the most basic false assumptions.
http://aplanetruth.info/2015/04/06/26a-how-did-the-kings-of-astronomy-get-it-so-wrong-part-i-copernicus-newton/

This work connects the Great Lie from the 16th Century up to the 1920’s. From there we got the private, for profit Federal Reserve in 1913, the Great Bankruptcy in 1933 and NASA started in 1958 up to today.

This connects the 500 yr. Great Lie.

Huge thanks to Mr. Eric Dubay, Mr. Samuel Rowbotham and Mr. Gerrard Hickson for doing much of the heavy lifting on this most important work.

Welcome to the new Age of Discovery.
Reply

Anonymous said...

If the earth were flat, then the Dunkerque Light House would be seen from MUCH further than 28 miles away right? I mean a light house on the west coast of Portugal should be seen by a light house on the east coast of New York right? Nothing but flat water between them. It wouldn't be seen with the naked eye of course but with some powerful binoculars or a telescope. No one in the bast 500 years has tried that. No one today would even try that to prove it. Why? I that happened I think it would shut a lot of people up one way or another

Darriun18 said...

I seen a video on how the universe looks and its completely animated. All of is fake and is just like a Hollywood movie. How can a telescope see thousands of light years away into different galaxies. It doesn't look realistic at all, NASA are liars. I seem one of the NASA guys who will go into outer space for a year who also has a twin brother is the same Freemasons guy I seen in one of your videos. If earth wasn't flat its definitely not round or pear shaped. Everything in the surface is horizontal. The ocean and the sky is horizontal. Everything goes straight like a line. This is all nothing but a big magic trick played on humanity. The ancient civilizations all knew the earth was flat and practiced real astrology reading the stars. Only these 16 century Freemasons scientist created the ball earth theory. Its completely bullshit, NASA cant even explain how gravity really works or how there ships fly safe to the moon or mars without the suns so called force. Or what about the satellites floating around without being damaged by meteorites. The movies of space is the same as NASA missions in outer space. Its Completely a hoax, we live in flat physical plane with a ice dome surrounding it. There are other planes too beyond this one that can be found through the astral planes or higher realms.

Anonymous said...

How do you explain the planets I see when I use my telescope?

Anonymous said...

Lists up all you NASHOLES. You are an EPIC FAIL.

Anonymous said...

Eric, I do appreciate your research and I'm about to buy your book, but I'd like to know something first. If the earth is flat as you say, and I'm inclined to believe you, how come they have totally different stars in the sky on the southern emisphere compared to the northern? Please tell me, 'cause I havent found this anywhere on the Internet. I'd also like to know what do you think about Matt Boylan and his research. Thank you!

Eric Dubay said...

Hey Anonymous, check out the Sun, Moon, Stars and Planets section on IFERS for more on that. Second Anonymous, here's the copy/pasting you so rudely requested:

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...

I don't know what terrible flat Earth maps you're claiming to be looking at Barzini, but all genuine flat Earth maps mimic reality and are not randomly 3 times bigger as you're claiming. Show me a link of your awful flat Earth map that says Chile/NZ are 30,000+km apart, please. Thanks.

Good work as always Plane Truth! Anon, 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

Thanks for your thoughts Darriun! Anon, I explain the planets in the first video here:

NASA's Huge Balls Exposed

And for the last Anonymous, see the following thread on IFERS about the North/South stars and browse around the Matt Boylan threads there for my opinions about him. Peace!

Anonymous said...

The topics your spreading are on par with being as bad as some religions. You justify all these outlandish theories that were popular in the bronze age but have all been debunked. You seriously believe that there is a global conspiracy make everyone think we are not the center of the universe when we actually are? You believe that NASA is a organization that just takes peoples money for the hell of it? So by that logic they arent doing tons of research to get us off this forsaken planet to explore other regions of space. Wow, im all for freedom of speech but this is really really pushing the limits of it.

Anonymous said...

you see lots of flat earth maps in hollywood movies and tv-shows.

this movie is set in the 60s but has the strangest classroom interior.
With a flat earth map and a photo of Nicola Tesla - not quintessential 60s America's learning material I'd say.

Watch the opening scene.

http://putlocker.tn/thats-what-i-am/

Anonymous said...

===(Quoted)===
Anonymous said...
The topics your spreading are on par with being as bad as some religions. You justify all these outlandish theories that were popular in the bronze age but have all been debunked. You seriously believe that there is a global conspiracy make everyone think we are not the center of the universe when we actually are? You believe that NASA is a organization that just takes peoples money for the hell of it? So by that logic they arent doing tons of research to get us off this forsaken planet to explore other regions of space. Wow, im all for freedom of speech but this is really really pushing the limits of it.
===(Unquoted)===

↑ lol.

Anonymous said...

Another crazy thing if you're trying to find a flight from Papeete (French Polynesia) to Santiago de Chile. On ball earth this would be crazy not to do a direct flight over the pacific. However, these are not offered. You can find flights through Auckland, New Zealand or through Los Angeles, Mexico, Lima - which would be ludicrous, until you take a look at a flat earth map, then it makes perfect sense.

Anonymous said...

The glass firmament above us is the looking glass of which Lewis Carroll wrote in his adventures of Alice in Wonderland which is full of masonic symbolism.

We are the ones behind the looking glass. Everything here is inverted - the now popular phrase; doctors make you sick, schools make you dumb etc. The Vatican is the whore of Babylon, their God is Satan - the cult of El.
etc, etc.

This world is full of Matt Hatters, Evil Queens and Cheshire Cats.

We are all way down the rabbit whole and for answers we're going to have to look up for answers, back through the looking glass.

Like little Charlie in Willy Wonka and Chocolate Factory, we have to find the magic lift to take us up up up all the way through the glass ceiling. Another story brimming with masonic symbolism.

We are all like the character Mike, the little cowboy, shrunk to fit in the TV - Televisions use to be a glass tube - we are all Trumans in our very own Truman Show.

Anonymous said...

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/video/amazing-water-bubble-grows-space-26807543



how do they do this?

Darriun18 said...

Another thing too is most people dont realize the UN uses flat earth maps. The ball earth maps are a hologram covering the true flat surface of this earth plane. That comment you made Anonymous makes since about us people being the reflection of the glass dome since everything is one consciousness and there is no I or you. These Zionist, Freemason, Illuminati magicians have pulled a very big trick on humanity. Everything from education, science, religion, government has lied to us. We must unlearn everything we have learned. The strange thing is all these other new age conspiracy sites dont mention or even question about flat earth. They always talk about the universe and aliens coming back to earth with no solid evidence. Seems to me the new age movements that talk about the universe and round earth are apart of the new world order or they are deceiving their selves. If people knew about flat earth as the truth they will know that not only there is a creator but we are a reflection of the creators mind. Maybe there are infinite flat planes of existence, the only other plane I know of really is the astral plane that is close to this 3d physical plane.

Graham Hayward said...

Hello Eric, I've listened to all your interviews and listened to a lot of other conjecture as well. I'm not sold on the 'official' meme by any means and I've questioned it since I was a kid in church kindergarten.

I'm currently having a discussion with a friend who has told me he knows someone who has been to the South pole/antarctica numerous times and no one has tried to stop his progress.

I have no way of knowing obviously one way or the other but he's telling me there are no blockades or interference to prevent anyone from entering. Have you , or anyone else you know tried to enter recently? I'm just curious as to whether someone has video proof of being stopped or turned away.

Anyway, I appreciate what you're doing and would be interested in hearing what you have to say on this matter. Thanks and good luck in the future, this is an amazing time to be alive as I'm sure you'd agree.

Respectfully, Graham

kari said...

why would whoever it is want us to believe the world is round if it is not....what would be the reason for this humungus lie ??

Anonymous said...

Can anyone tell me a reason why the shape of the earth needs/needed to be hidden?? Or why it matters at all, all i see is people throwing theories around but offering no explanation as to why its been hidden, i mean who actually gains? I.E I can understand the conspiracy with 9/11 where america needed an excuse to raid a country, but then when you use a bit of rational thinking and logic you start to realise that to pull that off a phenomenal amout of people would have to be involved in the cover up, yet not on single human has slipped up or talked yet,

Anonymous said...

Basically the Sun Worshippers changed things five hundred years ago, to replace the earth as the center of the universe with the Sun. This is to discredit the Bible, so the Sun Worshippers can get all of Man kind to follow their Satanist Agenda with full consent. The Sun Worship replaces the old God of the Bible with Satan the Illuminated one. This Satanic Cult controls Mankind as though they where farm animals. Don't feel bad, billions of humans are now living in a world of lies, and they blindly do it with consent

Chris said...

This just proves that we are living in a copy of the real, both sides of debate have no full proof.

Many people will be next surprised to know that, You are not even living on earth but a mere copy of it.

If you think Hollywood is crazy with fiction wait till you explore further the flat earth phenomenon.

Eric Dubay said...

Why They Lie to Us About the Flat Earth

Your friend sounds like a liar to me Graham, or maybe he's just been very lucky. There are international treaties being enforced here. Him trying to tell you otherwise is silly. Read about Jarle Andhoy, Rodney Cluff and others. You can only go to the fake ceremonial south pole on their guided tours. Antarctica is completely off-limits to independent explorers. Listen to how the reacted when Mark Knight just said he's gonna go without permission in our Flat Earth Podcast.

wendyworn said...

Eric,
It is not necessary that you post my comment. I wanted you to be aware of this podcast. As far as I can tell, they are saying that you said things, (such as the earth moving upwards to explain gravity) that I don't think you actually said, as I would have questioned it while going over your research.

http://21stcenturywire.com/2015/04/15/episode-3-boiler-room-live-talk-radio-wednesdays-on-the-acr-network/

maybe you could post a rebuttal?
keep up the good work.

Eric Dubay said...

Hey, thanks Wendy, I've already heard and written a short response to their lies / misrepresentations here.

Anonymous said...

Hi,

I live in Wellington, New Zealand and have no knowledge of or awareness of the location of the Port Nicholson Light. Can you advise where this is? Wellington is generally accepted as being Port Nicholson.

Rick said...

Eric, I recently signed in the IFERS forum and posted a message about my own thinking on the miles per degree longitude problem at the same latitude in the north and south. The next day I was banned. Why?

Anonymous said...

How do you deal with the objection that this is a "superior mirage": http://www.abc57.com/story/28925566/mirage-of-chicago-skyline-seen-from-michigan-shoreline

arctourist said...

hey you guys,
why's it always lighthouses,
i mean why should such primitive things be necessary in our modern world now,especially since these 'experts' got so much faith in their 'gee-pee-ess'and all that crap,right?
seems to me,you just can't have it both ways...either the earth is much bigger than they say,or else it's really some weird 'plane' on some larger world...it's no longer inconceivable,anyways,i guess...
almost nothing should surprise us anymore,y'know?

Anonymous said...

Eric,wouldn't the water be flat? You've said it yourself, water self levels.

arctourist said...

water is flat,sir--you are correct! sea-level finds 'level'-as do all lakes!

Anonymous said...

I'm curious which map should be used. Google searches of Hammonds Projection bring up http://i.imgur.com/9XsxSvC.jpg which kinda stinks.

apollo11 said...

Hi Eric....

I must say that this topic/debate is thought provoking and exciting to say the least. I have researched the flat earth theory for about two months. While I am not 100% convinced....but am almost there. The one question I have for you is what is the number one "smoking gun" evidence that convinced you that the earth is flat. I look forward to your answer.

Anonymous said...

I buy we live on a Flat Earth.
My question is "What causes Earthquakes & Volcanoes"?
That's the question I get asked often & I can't give an anwser.
Can you enlighten me? Please.

Anonymous said...


Hello Eric,

I am absolutely convinced that the Earth is Flat based on your findings. I have purchased and read your book the Flat Earth Conspiracy and I intend to buy the others when Amazon says they are in stock. I am amazed by the amount of scientific and common sense proof out there that point to a flat earth and the lack of proof for a globe earth model. I am terrified by the amount and detail of the global conspiracy towards a New World Order, I have been expecting that for a number of years but the Flat Earth took me by surprise.

I have a question regarding the Apollo Space programs and their validity and the entire model of the Universe. The evidence and photographs of the Universe is very large both from our Mason friends as well as amateurs so I do tend to lean towards the existence of a smaller scale Universe with stars so called planets and galaxies all inside the Firmament as described in the Bible.

Based on the assumption that the Van Allen Radiation Belt is Nasa's interpretation of the Firmament and since all celestial objects according our biblical model are inside the Firmament then the possibility of man travelling and in fact reaching these bodies is very real since they are inside the Van Allen Radiation Belt. Can you comment on this, or anyone else for this matter Thank you

Leah said...

Dear Eric

I've been thinking about the stars visible to the naked eye in the night sky and the fact that the constellations have not changed in all of known history ... Globe theory makes things too complex and beyond most peoples capabilities of reasoning ...

The globe model dictates that the visible stars are at extreme distances from us , as well as from each other , the closest being four light years away , the furthest being a lot lot further ...

The same goes for each constellation , the stars that make up the shape of the constellation being nowhere near each other etc ...

All of these stars including our sun are travelling at differing extreme speeds through the universe or around our galaxy , also supposedly away from each other

Then consider our earths elliptical orbit , it's tilt , it's wobble on it's axis etc , the fact it's chasing the sun in a spiral orbit as the sun travels around the galaxy , no doubt also in a spiral orbit , like earth and the planets of the solar system , the stars of the galaxy also chasing the black hole at its centre

With all those random variables , it has to be impossible , that after all the earths hundreds of thousands of supposed daily rotations , thousands of yearly rotations around the sun , and the portion of the galaxy that we have supposedly moved around in that time ... That the stars visible to the naked eye would remain in the same recognisable patterns !?!?!

For that to be possible , the stars that are further away from us would have to be moving faster than the stars closest to us , at a factor relative to the speed and distance of the star in relation to all other stars , as well as to the speed of light and time taken for the light to reach us


Also , how does light travel such vast distances ? Considering that light is supposed to radiate outward in every direction from its origin ... At vast distances , with the origin being so far away , how does any of the light reach us ? Do the light rays not open up and gain distance between each other as they travel away from the source in every direction ?

Surely light particles or whatever they are , would have to travel parallel to one and other , or multiply continuously , to travel such vast distances from one moving object - and be visible on another


Have been thinking about the sun and moon too ... To the naked eye they appear the same size , yet one is 240000 miles away and the other is 93,000,000 miles ?

Science says the reason the moon perfectly eclipses the sun is because the sun is 400 times bigger than the moon and also 400 times further away ....

Ermmmm hello !?!? Yeah ok , that would be correct if you could correlate size and distance with perspective ...

When something is moving away from you or you are moving away from something at a steady speed , your perspective of the opposite object changes ... At first the perceived and observed decrease in size of the object is quick , yet as it gets further away this decrease in size slows down ...

Consider this , a graph with x axis being size and y axis being distance

The explanation that the sun is 400 times bigger and 400 times further away than the moon , would necessitate a straight line graph ... The explanation stating that 'actual size' and distance , correlate to 'perceived size' at any given distance

However the real graph would be a curved graph , as perceived change in size is large when the object moving toward or away from the observer is at a close distance - and yet small when moving toward or away at a vast distance ...

Leah said...

Putting it another way ...

When you look at a photograph that demonstrates perspective , one that has lamp or fence posts or uprights at a regular interval or a train track with sleepers etc , you notice that as distance increases , the perceived size of similar objects decreases , but the rate of decrease is smaller each time , the perceived distance between objects at a similar distance , also decreases and the rate of decrease is also smaller each time

So ...

If you had a 4m disc and a 10mm disc ( size ratio being 400 to 1 ) and you placed the small disc 1m away and the large disc 400m away ( distance ratio being 400 to 1 ) ... would they appear the same size ?

What if you then doubled the distance of both discs ? Would they still appear the same size from the viewpoint of the observer ?

What if you doubled the diameter of each disc ? Again still keeping the size and distance ratios at 400 to 1 , but as with doubling the distance , only changing one side of the equation ... Would they still appear to be the same size ?

It is illogical , considering the nature of perceived size and distance due to perspective

Consider having both discs 1m away from the observer (a camera) , then incrementally moving the large disc away at 4 m intervals (giving 100 increments for simplicity) taking a photograph with each increment ...

The photographs then measured to determine the decrease in size of the large disc ... Would each increment decrease the visual size of the the large disc by 1% ? Finally , when the ratios match at 400 to 1 for stance and size , appearing to be the same ?

What happens if the ratios for both size and distance are 200 to 1 , or less or more ?

Is the ratio the important factor ? Or is it the distance , or the size ? Or is it just pure chance that the actual sizes and distances of the sun and moon align perfectly with the maths , physics etc that supposedly determined this to be fact ?



Anonymous said...

Who is the author of "the lighthouses of the world" book?