Monday, March 28, 2016

The South Pole Does Not Exist!


In the Flat-Earth model of the cosmos, the North Pole is the immovable center of the world and the entire universe.  Polaris, the North Star, sits straight over the North Pole at the highest point in the heavens, and like a slowly rotating planetarium dome all the celestial bodies revolve around Polaris and over the Earth once per day.  The Sun circles over and around the circumference of Earth every 24 hours, steadily traveling each day from the equator during the March vernal equinox, up to the Tropic of Cancer at the June summer solstice, back down to the equator for the September autumnal equinox, and all the way down to the Tropic of Capricorn on the December winter solstice.  



In the Flat-Earth model, the South Pole does not exist at all and Antarctica is instead a gigantic ice-wall extending the circumference of Earth holding in the oceans like a giant bowl, or a “world cup.”  As strange as this concept may sound at first, it is a fact that if you set a bearing due South from anywhere on Earth, inevitably at or before 78 degrees Southern latitude, you will find yourself face-to-face with an enormous ice-wall towering 100-200 feet in the air extending to the East and West the entire circumference of the world!


The ice-barrier, so frequently referred to in accounts of the Antarctic regions, is the fore-front of the enormous glacier-covering, or ice-cap, which, accumulating in vast, undulating fields from the heavy snowfall, and ultimately attaining hundreds, if not thousands, of feet in thickness, creeps from the continent of Antarctica into the polar sea. The ice-barrier, yet a part of the parent ice-cap, presents itself to the navigator who has boldness enough to approach its fearful front, as a solid, perpendicular wall of marble-like ice, ranging from one thousand to two thousand feet in thickness, of which from one hundred to two hundred feet rises above, and from eight hundred to eighteen hundred feet sinks below, the level of the sea."  -Greely, General A. W. "Antarctica, or the Hypothetical Southern Continent." Cosmopolitan 17 (1894): p. 296

It has been demonstrated that the earth is a plane, the surface-centre of which is immediately underneath the star called ‘Polaris,’ and the extremities of which are bounded by a vast region of ice and water and irregular masses of land.  The whole terminates in fog and darkness, where snow and driving hail, piercing sleet and boisterous winds, howling storms, madly-mounting waves, and clashing icebergs are almost constant.  -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!” (117)

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

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

Before reaching the Antarctic ice-wall, navigating the increasingly tumultuous Southern oceans, explorers encounter the longest, darkest, coldest nights and the most dangerous seas and storms anywhere on Earth.  Vasco de Gama, an early 16th century Portuguese explorer of the South Seas wrote how, “The waves rise like mountains in height; ships are heaved up to the clouds, and apparently precipitated by circling whirlpools to the bed of the ocean.  The winds are piercing cold, and so boisterous that the pilot’s voice can seldom be heard, whilst a dismal and almost continual darkness adds greatly to the danger.”

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

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


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

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

If the Earth were truly a globe, then every line of latitude South of the equator would have to measure a gradually smaller and smaller circumference the farther South traveled.  In other words, the circumference at 10 degrees South latitude would comprise a smaller circle than at the equator, 20 degrees South latitude would comprise a circle smaller than 10, and so on.  If, however, the Earth is an extended plane, then every line of latitude South of the equator should measure a gradually larger and larger circumference the farther South traveled.  10 degrees South latitude will comprise a larger circle than the equator, 20 degrees South latitude will comprise a circle larger than 10, and so on.  Likewise, if the Earth were a globe, lines of longitude would bubble out at the equator while converging at both poles.  Whereas if the Earth is an extended plane, lines of longitude should simply expand straight outwards from the North Pole.  So which is actually the case?

Upon the principle, as taught by Scripture and common observation, that the world is not a Planet, but consists of vast masses of land stretched out upon level seas, the North being the centre of the system, it is evident that the degrees of longitude will gradually increase in width the whole way from the North centre to the icy boundary of the great Southern Circumference. In consequence of the difference between the actual extent of longitudes and that allowed for them by the Nautical Authorities, which difference, at the latitude of the Cape of Good Hope, has been estimated to amount to a great number of miles, many Ship-masters have lost their reckoning, and many vessels have been wrecked.  Ship-captains, who have been educated in the globular theory, know not how to account for their getting so much out of their course in Southern latitudes, and generally put it down to currents; but this reason is futile, for although currents may exist, they do not usually run in opposite directions, and vessels are frequently wrecked, whether sailing East or West.  -David Wardlaw Scott, “Terra Firma” (102)


During Captain James Clark Ross’s voyages around the Antarctic circumference, he often wrote in his journal perplexed at how they routinely found themselves out of accordance with their charts, stating that they found themselves an average of 12-16 miles outside their reckoning every day, some days as much as 29 miles.  Lieutenant Charles Wilkes commanded a United States Navy exploration expedition to the Antarctic from August 18th, 1838 to June 10th, 1842, almost four years spent “exploring and surveying the Southern ocean.”  In his journals Lieutenant Wilkes also mentioned being consistently east of his reckoning, sometimes over 20 miles in less than 18 hours.

The commanders of these various expeditions were, of course, with their education and belief in the earth's rotundity, unable to conceive of any other cause for the differences between log and chronometer results than the existence of currents. But one simple fact is entirely fatal to such an explanation, viz., that when the route taken is east or west the same results are experienced.  The water of the southern region cannot be running in two opposite directions at the same time; and hence, although various local and variable currents have been noticed, they cannot be shown to be the cause of the discrepancies so generally observed in high southern latitudes between time and log results.  The conclusion is one of necessity, forced upon us by the sum of the evidence collected that the degrees of longitude in any given southern latitude are larger than the degrees in any latitude nearer to the northern center; thus proving the already more than sufficiently demonstrated fact that the earth is a plane, having a northern center, in relation to which degrees of latitude are concentric, and from which degrees of longitude are diverging lines, continually increasing in their distance from each other as they are prolonged towards the great glacial southern circumference.  -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not a Globe!”  (261)

February 11th, 1822, at noon, in latitude 65.53. S. our chronometers gave 44 miles more westing than the log in three days. On 22nd of April (1822), in latitude 54.16. S. our longitude by chronometers was 46.49, and by D.R. (dead reckoning) 47° 11´: On 2nd May (1822), at noon, in latitude 53.46. S., our longitude by chronometers was 59° 27´, and by D.R. 61° 6´. October 14th, in latitude 58.6, longitude by chronometers 62° 46´, by account 65° 24´. In latitude 59.7. S., longitude by chronometers was 63° 28´, by account 66° 42´. In latitude 61.49. S., longitude by chronometers was 61° 53´, by account 66° 38´.  -Captain James Weddell, “Voyages Towards the South Pole”

In the southern hemisphere, navigators to India have often fancied themselves east of the Cape when still west, and have been driven ashore on the African coast, which, according to their reckoning, lay behind them.  This misfortune happened to a fine frigate, the Challenger, in 1845.  How came Her Majesty’s Ship ‘Conqueror,’ to be lost?  How have so many other noble vessels, perfectly sound, perfectly manned, perfectly navigated, been wrecked in calm weather, not only in dark night, or in a fog, but in broad daylight and sunshine - in the former case upon the coasts, in the latter, upon sunken rocks - from being ‘out of reckoning,’ under circumstances which until now, have baffled every satisfactory explanation.”  -Rev. Thomas Milner, “Tour Through Creation”

The equatorial circumference of the supposed ball-Earth is said to be 24,900 statute or 21,600 nautical miles.  A nautical mile is the distance, following the supposed curvature of the Earth, from one minute of latitude to the next.  A statue mile is the straight line distance between the two, not taking into account Earth’s alleged curvature.

The “Australian Handbook, Almanack, Shippers’ and Importers’ Directory” states that the distance between Sydney and Nelson is 1400 nautical or 1633 statute miles.  Allowing a more than sufficient 83 miles as the distance for rounding Cape Farewell and sailing up Tasman Bay to Nelson leaves 1550 statute miles as the straight-line distance from the meridian of Sydney to the meridian of Nelson.  Their given difference in longitude is 22 degrees 2’14”.  Therefore if 22 degrees 2’14” out of 360 is 1550 miles, the entirety measures 25,182 miles.  This is larger than the Earth is said to be at the equator, and 4262 miles greater than it would be at Sydney’s southern latitude on a globe of said proportions!  One 360th part of 25,182 gives 70 miles as the distance between each degree of longitude at Sydney’s 34 degree Southern latitude.  On a globe 25,000 miles in equatorial circumference, however, degrees of longitude at 34 degrees latitude would be only 58 miles, a full 12 miles per degree less than reality.  This perfectly explains why Ross and other navigators in the deep South experienced 12+ mile daily discrepancies between their reckoning and reality, the farther South traveled the farther the divide.

From near Cape Horn, Chile to Port Philip in Melbourne, Australia the distance is 9,000 miles.  These two places are 143 degrees of longitude from each other.  Therefore the whole extent of the Earth’s circumference is a mere arithmetical question.  If 143 degrees make 9,000 miles, what will be the distance made by the whole 360 degrees into which the surface is divided?  The answer is, 22,657 miles; or, 8357 miles more than the theory of rotundity would permit.  It must be borne in mind, however, that the above distances are nautical measure, which, reduced to statute miles, gives the actual distance round the Southern region at a given latitude as 26,433 statute miles; or nearly 1,500 miles more than the largest circumference ever assigned to the Earth at the equator.”  -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Earth Not a Globe, 2nd Edition” (52)

Similar calculations made from the Cape of Good Hope, South Africa to Melbourne, Australia at an average latitude of 35.5 degrees South, have given an approximate figure of over 25,000 miles, which is again equal to or greater than the Earth’s supposed greatest circumference at the equator.  Calculations from Sydney, Australia to Wellington, New Zealand at an average of 37.5 degrees South have given an approximate circumference of 25,500 miles, greater still!  According to the ball-Earth theory, the circumference of the Earth at 37.5 degrees Southern latitude should be only 19,757 statute miles, almost six thousand miles less than such practical measurements.

The above calculations are, as already stated, only proximate; but as liberal allowances have been made for irregularities of route, etc., they are sufficiently accurate to prove that the degrees of longitude, as we proceed south-wards, do not diminish, as they would upon a globe, but expand or increase, as they must if the earth is a plane; or, in other words, the farthest point, or greatest latitude south, must have the greatest circumference and degrees of longitude.”  -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not a Globe!” (258)

Parallels of latitude only - of all imaginary lines on the surface of the Earth - are circles, which increase, progressively, from the northern centre to the southern circumference. The mariner's course in the direction of any one of these concentric circles is his longitude, the degrees of which INCREASE to such an extent beyond the equator (going southwards) that hundreds of vessels have been wrecked because of the false idea created by the untruthfulness of the charts and the globular theory together, causing the sailor to be continually getting out of his reckoning. With a map of the Earth in its true form all difficulty is done away with, and ships may be conducted anywhere with perfect safety. This, then, is a very important practical proof that the Earth is not a globe.”  -William Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe” (14)



Support independent publishing: Buy this book on Lulu.




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

Friday, March 18, 2016

The Arctic and Antarctic Prove Flat Earth





If the Earth were truly a globe, the Arctic and Antarctic polar regions and areas of comparable latitude North and South of the equator should share similar conditions and characteristics such as comparable temperatures, seasonal changes, length of daylight, plant and animal life.  In reality, however, the Arctic/Antarctic regions and areas of comparable latitude North/South of the equator differ greatly in many ways.

If the earth be the globe of popular belief, the same amount of heat and cold, summer and winter, should be experienced at the same latitudes North and South of the Equator.  The same number of plants and animals would be found, and the same general conditions exist.  That the very opposite is the case, disproves the globular assumption.  The great contrasts between places at the same latitudes North and South of the Equator, is a strong argument against the received doctrine of the rotundity of the earth.”  -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (8)

Antarctica is by far the coldest place on Earth with an average annual temperature of approximately -57 degrees Farenheit, and a record low of -135.8!  The average annual temperature at the North Pole, however, is a comparatively warm 4 degrees.  Throughout the year, temperatures in the Antarctic vary less than half the amount at comparable Arctic latitudes.  The Northern Arctic region enjoys moderately warm summers and manageable winters, whereas the Southern Antarctic region never even warms enough to melt the perpetual snow and ice. 

This uniformity of temperature partly accounts for the great accumulation of ice which is formed not on account of the great severity of the winter, but because there is practically no summer to melt it.  In the Antarctic there is eternal winter and snow never melts.  As far north as a man has travelled he has found reindeer and hare basking in the sun, and country brilliant with rich flora; within the Antarctic circle no plant is to be found.”  -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (9)

The island of Kerguelen at 49 degrees Southern latitude has only 18 species of native plants that can survive its hostile climate.  Compare this with the island of Iceland at 65 degrees Northern latitude, 16 degrees further North of the equator than Kerguelen is South, yet Iceland is home to 870 species of native plants.  On the Isle of Georgia, just 54 degrees Southern latitude, the same latitude as Canada or England in the North, where dense forests of various tall trees abound, the infamous Captain Cook wrote that he was unable to find a single shrub large enough to make a toothpick!  Cook wrote, “Not a tree was to be seen.  The lands which lie to the south are doomed by nature to perpetual frigidness - never to feel the warmth of the sun’s rays; whose horrible and savage aspect I have not words to describe.  Even marine life is sparse in certain tracts of vast extent, and the sea-bird is seldom observed flying over such lonely wastes.  The contrasts between the limits of organic life in Arctic and Antarctic zones is very remarkable and significant.  Vegetables and land animals are found at nearly 80 degrees in the north; while from the parallel of 58 degrees in the south, the lichen, and such-like plants only, clothe the rocks, and seabirds and the cetaceous tribes alone are seen upon the desolate beaches.” 

In the Arctic there are 4 clearly distinguished seasons, warm summers, and an abundance of plant and animal life, none of which can be said of the Antarctic.  The Eskimo live as far North as the 79th parallel, whereas in the South no native man is found higher than the 56th.  Admiral Ferdinand von Wrangel, the 19th century Russian Arctic explorer, wrote how in the North, “Countless herds of reindeer, elks, black bears, foxes, sable and grey squirrels fill the upland forests; stone foxes and wolves roam over the low ground; enormous flights of swans, geese, and ducks arrive in spring, and seek deserts where they may moult, and build their nests in safety. Eagles, gulls, and owls pursue their prey along the sea-coast; ptarmigan run in troops among the bushes; little snipes are busy among the brooks and in the morasses; the social crows seek the neighbourhood of man's habitations; and when the sun shines in spring, one may sometimes even hear the cheerful note of the finch, and in autumn that of the thrush.

"Beyond the 70th degree of Southern latitude not a tree meets the eye, wearied with the white waste of snow; forests, woods, even shrubs have disappeared, and given place to a few lichens and creeping woody plants, which scantily clothe the indurated soil. Still, in the farthest north, Nature claims her birthright of beauty; and in the brief and rapid summer she brings forth numerous flowers and grasses, to bloom for a few days, to be again blasted by the swiftly-recurring winter. The rapid fervour of an arctic summer had already (June 1st) converted the snowy waste into luxuriant pasture-ground, rich in flowers and grass, with almost the same lively appearance as that of an English meadow."  -W. & R. Chambers, “Arctic Explorations”

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

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

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

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

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



Support independent publishing: Buy this book on Lulu.



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

Monday, March 7, 2016

Who Brought Back the Flat Earth?




Since late 2014 Google Analytics has shown a drastic exponential rise in people searching the term “Flat Earth.”  The number of pages referencing flat Earth have also jumped from a meager few thousand results to the current figure of over 21 million all in the space of a year and a half!  So who is responsible for this rapid resurgence of the flat Earth concept?  Alleged ex-NASA insider Matt Boylan calls it is “his movement” and claims full responsibility himself, Poet and book-collector Paul Michael Bales also feels he was the one responsible for this resurgence, while many others have pointed to video-game designer Mark Sargent as being the real catalyst.  In this article/video I will show conclusive proof beyond any reasonable doubt who has actually been the most influential and responsible for the growth of the modern flat Earth movement.

Every time I have publicly contested the claims of these three individuals, they accuse me of doing so out of “ego,” and say that I am “creating division in the movement.”  First of all, defending my perspective and exposing flaws in their arguments is done out of respect for the truth, not my own personal aggrandizement.  Secondly, they are all making the exact same claim as myself, so any amount of “ego” present in my claim is also equally present in theirs.  And lastly, it is my contention that THEY are the ones creating division in the movement by purposely mixing truth and lies in typical controlled opposition fashion to muddy the waters, discredit the message, and deter neophytes from researching further.

Please see the evidence we at IFERS have gathered regarding these individuals and other suspected controlled opposition shills in the flat Earth movement:

Matt Boylan - The Jew Apologist Shill:  http://ifers.ace.st/t57-matt-boylan-the-jew-apologist-shill

Paul Michael Bales - The Lying Morpheus:  http://ifers.ace.st/t74-paul-michael-bales-the-lying-morpheus

Mark Sargent Raging Shill Clues:  http://ifers.ace.st/t7-mark-sargent-raging-shill-clues

The Flat Earth Shill Wall of Shame:  http://ifers.ace.st/t38-flat-earth-shill-wall-of-shame

To begin with, the simple answer to the question of who started the flat Earth movement is no one!  The Earth has always been flat and there have always been people who knew this, spoke about it and wrote about it.  Ever since the advent of NASA, however, the flat Earth concept has been mired in ridicule and nearly disappeared completely from human awareness.  No pro-flat Earth books had been published in approximately 50 years and the only website about the subject was “The Flat Earth Society” which treated the entire thing like satire and made several false claims about what flat Earthers actually hold true.  

Back in 2008, long before Matt Boylan, Paul Michael Bales or Mark Sargent were anywhere on the scene, I published a book and started a website called The Atlantean Conspiracy which contained several articles about the truth of Geocentricity and even quoted Charles Johnson, the former President of the International Flat Earth Research Society.  At the time I had already read Samuel Rowbotham and William Carpenter’s old 19th century flat Earth books, and though personally still on the fence regarding the shape of the Earth, I was confident they were correct about the location (or Geocentricity) of Earth, so I wrote about it.  

In 2009, after watching Alex Jones interview and praise several NASA astronauts on his show, I wrote an article and sent a message to him and his producers about the Moon Landing Hoax and included a link to Samuel Rowbotham’s flat Earth book for them to read.  Alex even mentioned this on-air the next day and called me a “flat-Earther” who “thinks he’s covering up some Atlantean Conspiracy,” (the title of my book and website).  

For the next several years I continued writing books/articles about various conspiracies and worked on building a huge social media presence.  By making multiple accounts, adding as many friends/followers as possible, joining and posting to as many groups and pages as possible, over the course of a few years I began building up very large followings on Facebook, Google Plus, LinkedIn, Twitter, StumbleUpon, PInterest, Tsu and many other sites.  To give you an example of their efficacy you can see here my main Google Plus account currently has over 135 million views and my secondary one has over 87 million.

Meanwhile, at this point, Matt Boylan, Paul Michael Bales, and Mark Sargent had still yet to make a blip on the internet radar.  The first of them to mention flat Earth was Matt Boylan when he created his “NASA Channel” on YouTube in mid-2011.  He made a few decent videos exposing NASA image fakery, but his channel certainly did not contain many flat Earth proofs/evidence, and there are more videos of him ranting about Axe deodorant, hookers on Tinder, his championship sexual prowess, and other irrelevant topics than there are exposing the flat Earth.  In short, anyone visiting his channel would NOT become a flat Earther and would be more likely turned off from the subject due to his manic ranting style and lack of factual content.

In early 2014 I began writing my book “The Flat Earth Conspiracy” and came across Paul Michael Bales on Facebook, a recent flat Earth convert who had been collecting a library of old original flat Earth books and letters.  Hoping to find some good reference material, I messaged him asking for recommended titles and he told me a few choice books to check out.  The full extent of our interaction consisted of a short Facebook conversation, yet curiously after my book was published and the flat Earth movement began growing, Paul began stating publicly that he was “the Morpheus to my Neo” and that he “taught me everything I know about the flat Earth.”  He even made the ludicrous claim that my book was “plagiarized from old Facebook posts of his!”  Matt Boylan also jumped in and had the gall to say that “my entire book was plagiarized from his information,” which is equally laughable considering he and “his information” are only mentioned in 2 paragraphs of my 252 page book.  Needless to say, both of their claims are baseless and go to show how desperate they are to receive credit where it is not due.

You can also see from this Google analytics chart that the Flat Earth keyword had not made any significant change in 2011 since the launch of Matt’s YouTube channel, nor in late 2012/early 2013 when Paul claims to have gotten his start.  The moment when the Flat Earth tides shifted and the exponential growth of the movement began was clearly around and after November 2014, the exact month when I exploded all of my flat Earth research onto the internet.  In November 2014, I published the first pro-flat Earth book written in 50 years, “The Flat Earth Conspiracy,” I also published several popular articles on the subject, uploaded the most popular “Flat Earth Conspiracy” documentary on YouTube, began giving radio interviews, and soon re-started Charles Johnson’s IFERS (International Flat Earth Research Society).  These simultaneous actions, my intentional exploding of credible flat Earth information onto the internet all at once, which I had been preparing for the entire year before, are undoubtedly the catalyst behind the exponential growth curve seen beginning here.

Later on, around March 2015, recent flat Earth convert Mark Sargent came out of nowhere, began uploading new flat Earth videos every day, uploading new interviews several times per week, got offered his own radio show, started being heralded by many as “the King of flat Earth,” and credited with starting the modern flat Earth revival.  At first I was glad to have him on-board until the cracks began to show and the clear disinformation campaign began.  Mark claimed the Moon and stars were “holographic projections” maintained by alleged “dome-builders” who keep us inside a “Truman show” enclosed structure among much other non-sense.  He even lied about me in several interviews including one where he claimed that I promoted the idea of a constantly rising flat Earth to account for gravity, when in fact I constantly expose this false concept as being disinformation.



So, in conclusion, not only do I have publicly available proof of promoting flat Earth before any of these people, but I also have a much larger following/influence than all of them put together.  My International Flat Earth Research Society receives over 50,000 visitors per month, my YouTube channel currently has 6.2 million views, my website has 8.6 million, both my 200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball and The Atlantean Conspiracy books have received over 1 million downloads each, just two of my Google Plus accounts have a combined total of over 200 million views!  Combine all this with my reach on Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, StumbleUpon, Pinterest etc. and my long-standing record of diligent activism and it should be obvious who is the most responsible / influential person in causing the current flat Earth revival.  But, of course, if I dare to stand-up for myself and say so, that’s just my ego causing division in the movement, right?

Saturday, March 5, 2016

Earth is Not a Planet





In the heliocentric model, Earth is just one of 8 “planets” in our “solar system,” all of which are said to be huge spherical Earth-like habitations or globular gas giants millions of miles away.  They claim the Earth under our feet along with these 7 other planets all revolve concentric circles/ellipses around the Sun - hence the term “heliocentric.”  The previously prevailing “geocentric” model had placed the Earth as the immovable center of the universe with the Sun, Moon, stars and “planets” all revolving around us, just as they appear.  In the heliocentric model, however, which would be more appropriately titled the “Acentric” model, the Sun is only the center of our “solar system,” while itself supposedly simultaneously revolving 500,000 mph spirals around the “Milky Way galaxy” which itself is constantly shooting 670,000,000 mph away from an alleged “Big Bang” creationary explosion at the beginning of time!



In the geocentric model, the 7 “planets” were known as “wandering stars,” with the multitude of other stars known as “fixed stars.”  The wandering stars were so called because they can be seen meandering their own unique paths around the heavens while all the other stars remain fixed in their steady group-rotation around Polaris.  The wandering stars also happen to be among the brightest in the night sky, and just as heliocentrsits falsely claim the Moon to be a mere reflector of the Sun’s light, they claim the bright starlight of these “planets” is merely them reflecting the Sun’s light back at us!  This has already been shown to be geometrically impossible, however, as convex bodies do not and cannot reflect light in this way. 




In the heliocentric model, the wandering stars are all supposedly spherical Earth-like places several million miles away from us, while the fixed stars are all allegedly super-distant “suns,” similar to our own, but several trillion miles away, complete with their own “solar systems” and accompanying planets, perhaps even populated with sentient alien beings like ourselves!  NASA’s current “official” astronomical statistics state that there are upwards of 10 trillion such “planets” in our “galaxy” alone, and at least 200 billion galaxies in the universe!  Therefore, they claim, Earth is only 1 of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, or one septillion planets in the universe!

Our Modem Astronomers imagine the Stars to be immense worlds or suns, some of them many thousands of times larger than our own, and at an enormous distance. Sir Robert Ball, in his ‘Cause of an Ice-Age,’ p. 77, says of Sirius - that it is ‘a million times as distant from us as the Sun’ - that is, that it is ninety-two millions of millions of miles from the Earth! It is thought that Stars are in a more or less advanced state of development, and that probably some of them may be already inhabited by beings suited to their spheres. Their distance from us they calculate to be so immense, that, according to Sir William Herschel, the light from some of them will take a thousand years to reach this world of ours!”  -David Wardlaw Scott, “Terra Firma” (153)

Again, these stars are assumed to have positions so far from the earth that the distance is almost inexpressible; figures, indeed, may be arranged on paper, but in reading them no practical idea is conveyed to the mind. Many are said to be so distant that should they fall with the velocity of light, or above 160,000 miles in a second of time, 600,000,000 of miles per hour, they would require nearly 2,000,000 of years to reach the earth! Sir William Herschel, in a paper on ‘The power of telescopes to penetrate into space,’ affirms that with his powerful instruments he discovered brilliant luminaries so far from the earth that the light which they emitted ‘could not have been less than one million nine hundred thousand years in its progress!’"  -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!” (376)



The fixed stars are so called, because except for very long periods, they do not appreciably alter their relative positions; and they are mere points of light, so small that the most powerful telescopes cannot magnify them into discs.  Yet they are supposed to be suns of immense size, removed by the astronomers to immeasurable distances away from us, for the credit and convenience of their theories.”  -Albert Smith, “The Sea-Earth Globe and Its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions” (32)

NASA even claims to have sent several remote-controlled flying-telescopes, like the popular “Hubble” camera into outer-space, transmitting back to Earth pictorial “proof” of the validity of their model!  These Hubble pictures show that the wandering stars are all in fact spherical Earth-like planets, just as the heliocentrists claimed all along!  The Hubble pictures show that the fixed stars are also in fact distant suns, trillions of miles away, just as the heliocentrists claimed!  These Hubble pictures and videos, all of which are indistinguishable from a good photoshop or Hollywood production, completely confirm for hypnotized heliocentrists the truth of NASA’s claims and the existence of various celestial phenomena which only NASA and their advanced cameras can show, like planets, galaxies, black holes, quasars, etc.

Using even the most advanced non-NASA telescopes, however, the fixed and wandering stars appear to be nothing more than tiny dots of multi-colored light.   It cannot be ascertained whether fixed stars are actually distant suns, whether wandering stars are actually Earth-like planets, or whether any of NASA’s claims hold any validity outside of their alleged pictorial evidence from these supposed remote-controlled flying space-telescope images!  Outside of NASA, what evidence do we have that stars are actually distant solar systems?  What evidence do we have that planets are Earth-like places in space?  They are certainly interesting and plausible ideas, but there is absolutely no empirical evidence to support them.  In fact, if NASA hadn’t implanted such ideas into their heads, very few people would ever look up at the night sky and assume those little pin-pricks of light were all Earth-like objects millions of miles away, or suns trillions of miles away, complete with orbiting planets and moons just like ours!  The only reason people believe wandering stars are Earth-like planets and fixed stars are distant suns is because of NASA propaganda.
 
The planets are not solid, opaque masses of matter, as is believed. They are simply immaterial, luminous and transparent discs.”  -Gabrielle Henriet, “Heaven and Earth” (23)

By the aid of the telescope have been discovered in the starry vault in the celestial fields which light traverses, as in the corallas of our flowering plants, and in the metallic oxides, almost every gradation of prismatic colour between the two extremes of refrangibility.  In a cluster near the Southern Cross - red, green, blue, and bluish green - appear in large telescopes, like gems of many colours, like a superb piece of fancy jewellery.”  -Alexander von Humboldt



If stars are all distant planets or suns, how is it that various phenomena have often been observed including stars changing color, intensity of light, sudden appearance, disappearance, or shooting quickly from one place to another?  I have watched single stars changing their colors as regularly as a disco ball, others shooting through the sky and disappearing, and stranger still, I once saw a star shoot quickly straight upwards through the sky for two seconds and then stop again!

Back in the late 16th century, when the heliocentric theory was starting to take hold over the imaginations of an unsuspecting public, Danish Astronomer Tycho Brahe famously argued for geocentricity, positing that if the Earth revolved in an orbit round the sun, the change in relative position of the stars after 6 months of orbital motion could not fail to be seen.  The stars should seem to separate as we approach and come together as we recede.  In actual fact, however, after 190,000,000 miles of supposed orbit around the Sun, not a single inch of parallax can be detected in the stars!

In the time of Tycho Brahe it was said that the earth revolved around the sun, but he argued that if the earth revolved around the sun, the relative position of the stars would change very much, and the matter must, in the nature of the case, be easily detected.  Accordingly, experiments were tried at intervals of six months, and the result showed that the stars were in exactly the same position as they had occupied six months before, thus proving that the earth does not move at all.”  -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (122)

If the earth is at a given point in space on say January 1st, and according to present-day science, at a distance of 190,000,000 miles from that point six months afterwards, it follows that the relative position and directions of the stars will have greatly changed, however small the angle of parallax may be. That this great change is nowhere apparent and has never been observed incontestably proves that the earth is at rest - that it does not move in an orbit round the sun.”  -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (67)

When Tycho Brahe demonstrated that after 190,000,000 miles of supposed orbit around the Sun, not a single inch of parallax could be detected, heliocentrists desperate to patch the glaring hole in their theory, pushed their hypothetical distances to the stars into the trillions of miles, claiming the closest one, Proxima Centauri, was a ludicrous 25 trillion miles away, and thereby making all the stars so conveniently far that no appreciable parallax could be detected!  This expedient explanation, which heliocentrists have clung to ever since, has proven satisfactory to silence the manipulated minds of the masses, but still fails to adequately account for several issues.

It is found by observation that the stars come to the meridian about four minutes earlier every twenty-four hours than the sun, taking the solar time as the standard. This makes 120 minutes every thirty days, and twenty-four hours in the year. Hence all the constellations have passed before or in advance of the sun in that time. This is the simple fact as observed in nature, but the theory of rotundity and motion on axes and in an orbit has no place for it. Visible truth must be ignored, because this theory stands in the way, and prevents its votaries from understanding it.”  -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!” (321)

Considerably more than a million Earths would be required to make up a body like the Sun -the astronomers tell us: and more than 53,000 suns would be wanted to equal the cubic contents of the star Vega. And Vega is a ‘small star!’ And there are countless millions of these stars! And it takes 30,000,000 years for the light of some of those stars to reach us at 12,000,000 miles in a minute! And, says Mr. Proctor, ‘I think a moderate estimate of the age of the Earth would be 500,000,000 years!’ ‘Its weight,’ says the same individual, ‘is 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons!’ Now, since no human being is able to comprehend these things, the giving of them to the world is an insult - an outrage. And though they have all risen from the one assumption that Earth is a planet, instead of upholding the assumption, they drag it down by the weight of their own absurdity, and leave it lying in the dust - a proof that Earth is not a globe.”  -William Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe” (75)



Several experiments have since been performed and repeated by notable scientists like Albert Michelson, Edward Morley, George Airy, and Georges Sagnac proving that it is the stars that revolve around a stationary Earth and not the other way around.  The conclusive results of their experiments are not contested or even mentioned in modern astronomy books; rather they are conveniently swept under the carpet to keep prying minds from seeing through the lies.  For example, the experiment known as “Airy’s Failure” (since it failed to prove heliocentricity) involved filling a telescope with water to slow the speed of light inside.  Usually telescopes must be slightly tilted to get starlight down the axis of the tube supposedly due to “Earth's speed around the sun.” Airy discovered that actually the starlight was already coming in at the correct angle so no change was necessary. This demonstrated that the stars move relative to a stationary Earth and not the other way around, because if it was the telescope moving he would have to change the angle.

All the planets, including the sun, revolve round the earth. These circumstances cannot be denied since they are plainly visible, either in the ordinary way with the naked eye, or with the help of the telescope. It can be said, in this connection, that in the case of a science which should be based exclusively on observation and not on speculation such as astronomy, the evidence of the senses is the only factor upon which conclusions can, and must be, based. If the planets can be seen revolving round the earth, it is for the decisive factor that they do revolve in such a way. It is asserted that this is not so, and it is maintained that the earth and the planets revolve round the sun. We note with astonishment, however, the bizarre and definitely suspicious fact that these planetary movements are not visible. They cannot be seen and yet they are called real! How then can these movements be proved and their speed be ascertained since they are invisible? On the other hand, the existing geocentric planetary motions which can be observed and measured, and which, consequently, constitute a perfectly valid system, are condemned as unreal and apparent! A pertinent remark may, incidentally, be made on the subject. Why do the astronomical tables which are published year after year, give the so-called apparent movements of the planets in the zodiac? Why take the trouble of calculating and putting them on record at all if they are not real? Why is it also that no mention is made of the so-called real movements of the planets?”  -Gabrielle Henriet, “Heaven and Earth” (15-16)

Trust your eyes and your cameras! They have no reason to deceive you about whether the stars are going around nightly! Then get it in your mind: This single fact surrounding star trails that has been photographed thousands of times and cannot be denied must be explained away by the Theoretical Science Establishment. All of the factless allegations - a rotating and orbiting Earth; billions of light year distances to the stars; a 15 billion year old universe; the whole Big Bang Paradigm; all of the alleged evolution of the universe, earth, and mankind; that is to say: all of modern evolution-based cosmology controlling ‘knowledge’ today, all of it, is completely undone if the stars are doing what cameras show they are doing, namely, going around the Earth nightly ... If you can do so for a few minutes, just lay aside the Copernican indoctrination that accompanies such pictures and take a good hard look at these photographs of something that really, really happens every single night. Do you see what I see? I see all the visible stars in the northern skies going around the North Star in perfect circles. In other words, I see all the stars which these time exposures have recorded actually going around that navigational star that God put there for us in the Northern Hemisphere.”  -Marshall Hall, "The Size and Structure of the Universe"

The plurality of worlds is based on assumptions so contrary to known possibilities, that the ‘grand idea’ must be thrown into the waste-paper basket.  The supposed great distance of the sun from the earth is the main cause of the delusions of the learned as to the so-called worlds above us being inhabited.  This distance is based on a fictitious idea, that of the revolution of the earth round the sun, which I have already shown to be unconditionally false.  The sun is a small body of light and near the earth, therefore all the star distances are wrong, their sizes and all other suppositions.  The plurality of worlds is only the logical sequence of belief if the earth be a rapidly revolving globe.  But this has been shown to be ridiculous in the extreme.  Evidence, apart from any theory has been presented which entirely nullifies such an assumption, and renders it absurd; showing that such an unnatural idea has not a vestige of natural fact to support it.  The grand doctrine of the plurality of worlds, therefore, like all the other grand doctrines of modern astronomy, must be consigned to oblivion.  When it can be shown that this world is a globe and by what known principle the inhabitants can hang on to the swinging ball, like the house fly crawls along the ceiling, it will be quite time enough to talk about the plurality of worlds.”  -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (103)



Support independent publishing: Buy this book on Lulu.



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