Could the Earth really be Flat?

In all fairness, when I first became aware that this notion was “circling” around again, I must admit, I thought it was quite insane.  But somehow (by the grace of God) didn’t end up dismissing the possibility out right, and ended up spending the time and energy required for deliberate, careful, and thoughtful investigation.

As it turns out, and as I will demonstrate through the course of this post using innumerable evidences, such an idea is actually more scientifically sound than the contrary, but does essentially require us to re-think and reconsider the entire astronomical model we’ve been taught, as we’ve been brainwashed and such is the comprehensiveness and depth of the deception. I can recall during my public school education, when I was in middle school, we were more or less taught (it was implied) that the men of old thought the earth was flat (as if it were some sort of laughable notion,) no one these days in their “right mind” would question the rotundity of the earth.

Throughout this post we will deal with this incredibly controversial subject from  multiple angles. First, because of its  relevancy to the nature of this blog, we will deal with the Biblical perspective, so if your not quite sure how you feel about the Bible, you can click here to skip to the section dealing with the scientific, objective, empirical, facts, and experimentation.

Biblical Perspective

The Historic Position

Historically speaking, it has across many cultures and religions been commonly understood that the earth was a plane, at the center of the universe and at rest. Why? Not because they were prehistoric, uneducated, uninformed, ignoramuses; but because this is the natural conclusion to come to based on our senses and observation (for instance the earth doesn’t feel like it could be wobbling at 1,000 mph at the equator spinning on its axis of ‘23.4°‘ (a number which fascinatingly enough renders the inverse angle creating 90° at 666 (66.6°) ,) orbiting the sun at 67,000 mph, with the entire solar system spiraling at 500,000 mph around the Milky Way careening across the universe from the ‘big-bang’ at 670,000,000 mph; it can be observed that the sun, moon (which appear roughly the same size,) and stars appear to revolve around the earth; and that the horizon line and water are always level; it can also be observed that water ‘sticks’ to the surface of the earth, which couldn’t be possible if the earth were a ball (see quote towards the bottom of this post for elaboration on this idea,) etc.)

As follows, this has also historically been the the commonly held belief throughout the majority of Christendom.  To illustrate that point let’s consider a quote from John Calvin’sInstitutes on the Christian Religion” where he condemns the globular model:

Even when under the guidance and direction of these events, we are in a manner forced to the contemplation of God (a circumstance which all must occasionally experience), and are thus led to form some impressions of Deity, we immediately fly off to carnal dreams and depraved fictions, and so by our vanity corrupt heavenly truth. This far, indeed, we differ from each other, in that every one appropriates to himself some peculiar error; but we are all alike in this, that we substitute monstrous fictions for the one living and true God—a disease not confined to obtuse and vulgar minds, but affecting the noblest, and those who, in other respects, are singularly acute. How lavishly in this respect have the whole body of philosophers betrayed their stupidity and want of sense? To say nothing of the others whose absurdities are of a still grosser description, how completely does Plato, the soberest and most religious of them all, lose himself in his round globe? What must be the case with the rest, when the leaders, who ought to have set them an example, commit such blunders, and labour under such hallucinations? In like manner, while the government of the world places the doctrine of providence beyond dispute, the practical result is the same as if it were believed that all things were carried hither and thither at the caprice of chance; so prone are we to vanity and error. I am still referring to the most distinguished of the philosophers, and not to the common herd, whose madness in profaning the truth of God exceeds all bounds” -pg .46 (54 of .PDF)

Not only was this the commonly held belief because it’s what our senses tell us, and because it’s evident that this is what scriptures teach (as I will demonstrate,) but why would the God who we know and who’s character is clear and consistent as it’s recorded in dealing with man throughout the Bible, in exception, contrarily create the domain for man in such a way that it were totally confusing (1 Cor. 14:33) and actually operating  in a deceptive way (Jn. 8:44) being contrary to how it appeared to our senses.

Scriptural evidence

Face of the Earth/Waters

Genesis 1:2, Psalm 104:30, etc.

Once again let us consult both an older dictionary and a contemporary one as this not only holds the clues which otherwise may be easily looked over, but also demonstrates how new ones are in fact compromised in their definitions, and that indeed language has been “sculpted” and “reformed” through CULTure to redefine our behaviors and beliefs. (for brevity sake I will not be re-writing the entire definitions but only what’s relevant for are current considerations)

Face: (WEBSTERS CONSOLIDATED-ENCYCLOPEDIC DICTIONARY, 1956) The surface of a thing, or the side which presents itself to the spectator; the front or forepart; a plane [flat] surface of a solid; the sole of a plane.

Face: (DICTIONARY APPLICATION, IMAC, Snow Leopard v.10.6.8)  The side of a planet or moon facing the observer. [which of course we are taught are spheres]

For one thing what ever happened to not using the word your trying to define in it’s very definition….? Besides no mention of the word ‘Face’ possibly referring to a plane whatsoever (the historic definition,) in addition, in the modern definition  we also find the admittance of the new application not just to spherical objects, but go figure specifically to planets!! How convenient! Must just be a coincidence though, right….?

Here I shall quote what I once heard Eric Jon Phelps, author of the book Vatican Assassins say in his radio show, “if you don’t believe in conspiracy fact, then that makes you a coincidence theorist, because it means you think everything is just a bunch of coincidences and not related.” Indeed, if one is to objectively study history, conspiracies aren’t some kooky, baseless, theories, and postulations imagined in the “deranged” mind of some paranoid middle aged man living in his mother’s basement (the connotations the term now carries,) but rather a simple and unfortunate reoccurring matter of fact. Anyone who is willing to be honest and objective will ultimately see the pattern, the big picture, and will ultimately be forced to face reality and acknowledge the same.

All the Kingdoms of the World

Matthew 4:8

When Jesus Christ was tempted in the wilderness by the devil, he was taken to an “exceeding high mountain” and was shown “all the kingdoms of the earth.”

How could this be possible on a globular earth? It’s generally agreed that based on the alleged dimensions of the earth as a ball that the declination due to curvature would be about 8 inches per mile times distance squared.

(Alas, here’s we’re confronted with example of Google spreading either misinformation or disinformation (intended to mislead.) If you do a general search for “curvature of the earth” google will display the the 1st equation listed from the link below, which immediately after the one they used as it appears on that page, they clarify that actually wasn’t the correct answer as they had been emailed by an engineer who reminded them that according to Pythagoras theorem, they forgot to square the distance! —http://mathcentral.uregina.ca/QQ/database/QQ.09.02/shirley3.html)

Here‘s an excerpt from Rowbotham’s Zetetic Astronomy simply stating the correct equation with a diagram.

Let us also refer to an excerpt from Thomas Winship’s book published in 1899 “Zetetic Cosmogony” for official reference:

In Chambers’ Mathematical Tables the curvature of the globe is given as 7.935 inches to the mile, varying inversely as the square of the distance. If it be required to ascertain the curvature on a globe of 25,000 statue miles equatorial circumference, square the distance and multiply by 7.935 inches. The result is the curvature. Thus, in six miles there is a dip of nearly 24 feet; in 30 miles, nearly 600 feet; and so on. In Mensuration by T. Baker, C.E., the correction for curvature is said to be 7.962 inches to the mile. These two equations so nearly agree, and amount to just about what the correction would be on a globe of the size the earth is said to be, that they may be taken as correct. If, therefore, the world we love on is a globe, it is a simple matter to find out how far any object at a given height can be seen.“-pg. 21

This would mean if we assumed the location where Jesus was tempted was somewhere around Nazareth; that Cairo, Egypt for instance would have been  around 20 miles below the horizon from where he was standing (407 miles^2 = 165,649 * 8 inches = 1,325,192 / 12 inches per mile = 110,432.67 feet / 5280 = 20.9 miles). So even if the scriptures weren’t to be interpreted literally (which is how Jesus himself interpreted scriptures; article here for further reading) and were only referring to kingdoms in that part of the world, I guess  it wouldn’t have been much of a “temptation” as even kingdoms as close as Egypt would have been totally out of view.

Now some will argue perhaps this didn’t literally happen but was some sort of vision, well I believe if we consider those types of instances in scripture, such as in Daniel 4:11, we can rule that idea out because it clearly states when it didn’t take place in the natural but was rather a vision.

Every Eye shall See

Revelation 1:7

The Bible states when Christ returns “every eye shall see him.” First of all, the notion that this would merely be by some miracle that everyone would be able see him at once coming straight down on globular earth is more or less dismissed by a literal reading of the scriptures. Perhaps the only way it could otherwise be explained in the globular model would be if when Christ returned he made several circuits around the ball earth until all land was covered (which would take MANY laps based on the alleged size and thus limitation of sight based on curvature.) So not only do these factors in themselves make that very unlikely, but this is idea is further discredited by considering how in Acts 1:9 it’s recorded that when Jesus ascended into heaven he was taken up (not around), and then in verse 11 it states he will return in a like manner.

Four Corners of the Earth

Revelation 7:1, Isaiah 11:12, etc.

Let’s start by considering the definition from Strong’s Concordance regarding the meaning in the original Greek tongue of the scripture:

gōnia (1137) – go-nee’-ah – γωνία: Probably akin to G[reek]1119 [(knee)]; an angle:- Corner, quarter [(revelation 20:8)].

Before coming to the conviction of my current beliefs (that the earth is a plane) I interpreted these scriptures to be referring to the cardinal directions (i.e. North, South, East, West.) But not only would holding to this interpretation require us to disregard the 1st possible definition (as it’s rendered in scripture,) “corners” literally, but even if we were to go with the other possible rendering of the original tongues, “quartered” (divided into 4ths,) it still couldn’t be referring to the cardinal directions, because when one really thinks about, even in the globular model, half of the cardinal directions are infinite (for example if the earth were a globe, and you were traveling east, you would always be headed east no matter a) your position on the globe b) how long you continued in that direction, etc. The same is true for west, and thus either way you look at it it couldn’t be referring to the cardinal directions.)

End of the Earth

Daniel 4:11, Jeremiah 16:19, Job 38:13, etc.

Let’s consider the underlying Hebrew regarding the verse in Daniel from Strong’s Concordance:

sôph (5491) – sofe – סוף – (Chaldee); corresponding to H[ebrew]5490 [(a termination: conclusion, end, hinder part.)]- end

For one if the earth were a globe, it would of course have no end in the literal sense of the word as it’s surface would continue indefinitely, even if its continuation were out of site due to the curvature; but furthermore we can be sure Daniel’s vision is referring to a literal end of a planer earth, because when consider how it’s rendered (in the singular; i.e. “end” and not “ends”,) it’s implied that rather than on a globular earth, where no matter your position you would always be equidistant and centered with regards to the horizon, and thus be able to see the ends (more than one,) an end in every direction, it’s stated that from his position he was only able to see an end (only one,) which of course would only be possible on  a plane.

Earth According to God’s revelation to Job

Job 38:5, Job 38:14

Verse 5 states that God laid a line (measuring) upon the earth (rendered across in versions other than our go-to-translation, the KJV bible; such as the NIV), wouldn’t it say laid a line around the earth if it were in fact globular?

Verse 14 states that the earth’s figure is like a clay seal (similar to a wax seal, only clay.) Historically speaking, regardless of their shape, seals were always stamped flat. (click here for historical reference.)

Earth as a Footstool

Acts 7:49, Is. 66:1, Lk. 20:42-44, Ps. 110:1

Again and again in the scripture God calls the earth his footstool. You know what’s interesting about footstools? They’re flat. Don’t believe me? Do a Google image-search, or just take a look at the one in your living room!

Common counter-arguments from Scripture

So what about Isaiah 40:22, Luke 17:34-36, Proverbs 8:27, and Job 26:7?

These are some of the common scriptures used by Bible believers to justify the rotundity of the earth. But let us Examine:

 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth” –Isaiah 40:22

A circle is not the same as a sphere. A Circle is defined as a round plane. A sphere is defined as having every point on its surface equidistant from its center. The earth can be a circle and still be a plane; which is exactly what Thomas Winship maintains in his “Zetetic Cosmogony” surnamed “conlusive evidence that the world is not a rotation-revolving-globe, but a stationary plane circle.

In that dayI tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bedTwo women shall be grinding together…Two men shall be in the field-Luke 17:31,34-36

These scriptures, describing the second-coming of Christ, are used to refute the idea of the earth being a plane as they suggest that it will be nighttime at one place on the earth while at the same time being and daytime in another  part. But what’s been overlooked is that this would still be possible, and in fact would have to be the case in the flat-earth model; for which to better understand refer to the following YouTube presentations (Time Zones FE-Model, Seasons FE-Model.)

When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:-Proverbs 8:27

Strong’s Concordance H2329 defines the word for compass in the original tongue (Hebrew) to mean a circle or circuit (which of course compasses draw 2D circles, not spheres.) Yet, even it were referring to a compass of cardinal directions, it would still have to be plane in order for compasses to function in the way that we observe them to (as will be elaborated on below.)

He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing-Job 26:7

Just because the earth is not a globe, is stationary, does not revolve around the sun, and has pillars beneath it, doesn’t mean that it can’t still be suspended in space. Also note how in the first part of the verse it only lists one of the cardinal directions (which logically would have to be North if the earth were a plane,) as in order to get a sphere, would require stretching from multiple directions.

Scientific Evidence

First thing is first. One must decide for himself how true science is to be defined. Is it the culmination of statements made by those who claim to be scientist, regardless of the actual validity of the claims, but based merely on their title and accolades? Or is it rather what is evidenced by actual experimentation and facts which can be carried out and verified by any ‘scientist’ or layman alike, yielding consistent results, in accordance to the scientific method?

(refer to this paragraph from above regarding what the curvature per mile should be)

I will now proceed to present several compelling evidences from historic books and other sources. While there of course many entire books on these matters, I will only be providing a several quotes, for brevity sake, because I will have to type each quote out,  and also because I believe God rewards the truth-seeker for personal initiative. Nonetheless, the  quotes I will provide based on experimentation, observation, and reasoning should be sufficient for drawing conclusions and will at the same time, if nothing else,  render the researcher aware of the respective books from which they are cited for further research and investigation.

That The Earth is Flat

… we are informed in “Theoretic Astronomy,” p. 47, as follows—

“On the Royal Observatory wall at Greenwich is a brass plate, which states that a certain horizontal mark is 154 feet above mean water at Greenwich, and 155.7 feet above mean water Liverpool.”

Here our Astronomers publicly acknowledge that the difference of the level of the water between Greenwich and Liverpool is only one foot seven inches, while, by their theoretic law of curvature, reckoning the direct distance as 180 miles, the difference of the level between these two places should be over four miles! They thus completely stultify their own law of curvature, and expose themselves to ridicule by thus upholding a theory so contrary to ascertained fact.“-Terra Firma, David Wardlaw Scott, Pg. 124-125

In Cambridge, England there is a 20 mile canal called the Old Bedford which passes in a straight line through the Fenlands known as the Bedford Level. The water has no interruption from locks or water-gates of any kind and remains stationary making it perfectly suitable for determining whether any amount convexity/curvature actually exists. In the latter part of the 19th century, Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, a famous Flat-Earther and author of the fine book, “Earth Not a Globe! An Experimental Inquiry into the True Figure of the Earth: Proving it a Plane, Without Axial or Orbital Motion; and the Only Material World in the Universe” traveled to the Bedford level and performed a series of experiments to determine whether the surface of standing water is flat or convex.

a boat, with a flagstaff, the top of the flag 5 feet above the surface of the water, was directed to sail from a place called ‘Welche’s Dam’ )a well-known ferry passage), to another called ‘Welny Bridge.’ These two points are six statue miles apart. The author, with a good telescope, went into the water; and with the eye about 8 inches above the surface, observed the receding boat during the whole period required to sail to Welny Bridge. The flag and the boat were distinctly visible throughout the whole distance! There could be no mistake as to the distance passed over, as the man in charge of the boat had instructions to lift one of his oars to the top of the arch the moment he reached the bridge. The experiment commenced about three o’clock in the afternoon of a summer’s day, and the sun was shining brightly and nearly behind or against the boat during the whole of its passage. Every necessary condition had been fulfilled, and the result was to the last degree definite and satisfactory. The conclusion was unavoidable that the surface of the water for a length of six miles did not to any appreciable extent decline or curvate downwards from the line of sight. But if the earth is a globe, the surface of the six miles length of the water would have been 6 feet higher in the center than at the two extremities. From this experiment it follows that the surface of standing water is not convex, and therefore horizontal, and that the earth cannot be other than a plane!“-Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe! An Experimental Inquiry into the True Figure of the Earth: Proving it a Plane, Without Axial or Orbital Motion; and the Only Material World in the Universe” (12-13)

In a second experiment, Dr. Rowbotham placed seven flags along the edge of the water each one mile distant from the next with their tops positioned 5 feet above the surface. Near the last one he also positioned a longer, 8 foot staff bearing a 3 foot flag so that its bottom aligned precisely with the tops of the other flags. He then mounted a telescope at a height of 5 feet behind the first flag and and took his observations. If the Earth was a globe of 25,000 miles each successive flag would have to decline a definite and determined amount below the last. The first and second flags simply established the line of sight, the third flag should then fall 8 inches below the second, the fourth flag 32 inches below , the fifth 6 feet, the sixth 10 feet 8 inches, and the seventh flag should be a clear 16 feet 8 inches below the line of sight! Even if the Earth was a globe of a hundred thousand miles, an amount of easily measurable curvature should and would still be evident in this experiment. But the reality is not a single inch of curvature was detected and the flags all lined up perfectly as consistent with a flat plane.

The rotundity of the earth would necessitate the above conditional but as they cannot be found to exist, the doctrine must be pronounced as only a simple theory, having no foundation in fact–a pure invention of misdirected genius; splendid in its comprehensiveness and bearing upon natural phenomena; but, nevertheless, mathematical and logical necessities compel its denunciation as an absolute falsehood.-Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!”” (14) as taken from Eric Dubay’s “Flat-Earth Conspiracy”, Pg. 28

“I remember being taught when a boy, that the Earth was a great ball, revolving at a very rapid rate around the Sun, and, when I expressed to my teacher my fears that the waters of the oceans would tumble off, I was told that they were prevented from doing so by Newton’s great law of Gravitation, which kept everything in its proper place. I presume that my countenance must have had some signs of incredulity, for my teacher immediately added – I can show you a direct proof of this; a man can whirl around his head a pail filled with water without it being spilt, and so, in like manner, can the oceans be carried around the Sun without losing a drop. As this illustration was evidently intended to settle the matter, I then said no more upon the subject. Had such been proposed to me afterwards as a man, I would have answered somewhat as follows – Sir, I beg to say that the illustration you have given of a man whirling a pail of water round his head, and the oceans revolving round the Sun, does not in any degree confirm your argument because the water in the two cases is placed under entirely different circumstances, but, to be of any value, the conditions in each case must be the same, which here they are not. The pail is a hollow vessel which holds the water inside it, whereas, according to your teaching, the Earth is a ball, with a continuous curvature outside, which, in agreement with the laws of nature, could not retain any water.” -David Wardlaw Scott, “Terra Firma: The Earth Not a Planet Proved From Scripture, Reason, and Fact,” Pg.1-2

Since any given body of water must have a level surface, no one part higher than another, and seeing that all our oceans (a few inland seas excepted) are connected together, it follows that they are all VIRTUALLY OF THE SAME LEVEL.”-The English Mechanic, 26th, June 1896

Astronomers say the magical magnetism of gravity is what keeps all the oceans of the world stuck to the ball-earth. They say that because the Earth is so massive, by virtue of this mass it creates a magic force able to hold people, oceans and atmosphere tightly clung to the underside of the spinning ball. Unfortunately, however, they cannot provide any practical example of this on a scale smaller than the planetary. For example, a spinning wet tennis ball has the exact opposite effect of the supposed ball-earth! Any water poured over it simply falls off the sides, and giving it a spin results in water flying off 360 degrees like a dog shaking after a bath. Astronomers concede the wet tennis ball example displays the opposite effect of their supposed ball-Earth, but claim that at some unkown mass, the magic adhesive properties of gravity suddenly kick in allowing the wet tennis ball-Earth to keep every drop of “gravitized” water stuck to the surface. Again, their theory flies in the face of all practical evidence, but they have been running with it for 500 years, so why stop now?Eric Dubay’s “Flat-Earth Conspiracy”, Pg.29-30

A sphere where people on the other side live with their feet above their heads, where rain, snow and hail fall upwards, where trees and crops grow upside-down and the sky is lower than the ground? The ancient wonder of the hanging gardens of Babylon dwindle into nothing in comparison to the fields, seas, towns, and mountains that pagan philosophers believe to be hanging from the earth without support!”-Lacantius, “On the False Wisdom of the Philosophers,” as taken from Eric Dubay’s “Flat-Earth Conspiracy”, Pg.6

“Another Favorite ‘proof’ of ball-Earthers is the appearance from an observer on shore of ships’ hulls being obfuscated  by the water and disappearing form view when sailing away towards the horizon, Their claim is that ship’s hulls disappear before their mastheads because the ship is beginning its declination around the convex curvature of the ball-Earth. Once again, however, their hasty conclusion is drawn from a faulty premise, namely that only on a ball-Earth can this phenomenon occur. The fact of the matter is taht the Law of Perspective on plane surfaces dictates and necessitates the exact same occurrence…”-Eric Dubay’s “Flat-Earth Conspiracy”, Pg.134

“On any frozen lake or canal, notably on the ‘Bedford Canal,’ in the county of Cambridge, in winter and on a clear day, skaters may be observed several miles away, seeming to glide along upon limbs without feet–skates and boots quite invisible to the unaided eye, but distinctly visible through a good telescope. But even on the sea, when the water is very calm, if a vessel is observed until it is just ‘hull down,’ a powerful telescope turned upon it will restore the hull to sight. From which it must be concluded that the lower part of a receding ship disappears through the influence of perspective, and not from sinking behind the summit of a convex surface.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!” (216)

This law of Perspective meets  us on every hand; and cannot be gainsaid. If, on a straight road, we observe a row of lamps, which are all of the same size, we shall find that, from our standpoint, their height will gradually diminish as we look toward the farther end; but, if we ourselves approach to that end, the nearer we get to it, the higher proportionately will the lamps appear. Again, if, on a straight line, we look at a frozen lake from a certain distance, we shall observe people who appear to be skating on their knees, but if we approach sufficiently near, we shall see them performing graceful motions on their feet. Farther, if we look through a straight tunnel, we shall notice that the roof and the roadway below converge to a point of light at the end. It is the same law which makes the hills sink to the horizon, as the observer recedes, which explains how the ship’s hill disappears in the offing. I would also remark that when the sea is undisturbed by waves, the hull can be restored to sight by the aid of a good telescope long after it has disappeared from the naked eye, thus proving that the ship had not gone down behind the watery hill of a convex globe, but is still sailing on the level of a plane sea.-Terra Firma, David Wardlaw Scott, Pg. 75

all compasses point North and South at the same time even at the equator, which incontestably proves that the sea is horizontal, and therefore, that the world is not globular, for if it were, one end of the magnet would then dip towards the North and the other point to the Heavens.-Terra Firma, David Wardlaw Scott, Pg. 124

The upper surface of a fluid at rest is a horizontal plane. Because if a part of the surface were higher than the rest, those parts of the fluid which were under it would exert a greater pressure upon the surrounding parts than they receive from them, so that motion would take place amongst the particles and continue until there were none at a higher level than the rest, that is, until the upper surface of the whole mass of fluid became a horizontal plane.-W.T. Lynn, “First Principles of Natural Philosophy”as taken from Eric Dubay’s “Flat-Earth Conspiracy”, Pg. 24

The surface of all water, when not agitated by natural causes, such as winds, tides, earthquakes etc. is perfectly level. The sense of sight proves this to every unprejudiced and reasonable mind. Can any so-called scientist, who teaches that the earth is a whirling globe, take a heap of liquid water, whirl it round, and so make rotundity? He cannot. Therefore it is utterly impossible to prove that an ocean is a whilring rotund section of a globular earth, rushing through ‘space’ at the lying-given-rate of false philosophers.-William Thomas Wiseman, “The Earth An Irregular Plane”as taken from Eric Dubay’s “Flat-Earth Conspiracy”, Pg. 26

Rivers run DOWN to the sea because of the inclination of their beds. Rising at an altitude above sea-level, in some cases thousands of feet above the sea. The ‘Parana’ and “Paraguay’ in South America are navigable for over 2,000 miles, and their water run the same way until they find their level of stability, where the sea tides begin. But if the world be a globe, the ‘Amazon’ in South America that flows always in an easterly direction, would sometimes be running uphill and sometimes down, according to the movement of the globe. Then the ‘Congo’ in West Africa, that always pursues a westerly course to the sea, would in the same manner be running alternatively up and down. When that point of the globe exactly between them was up, they would both be running up, although in opposite direction; and when the globe took half a turn, they would both be running down! We know from practical experiment that water will find its level, and cannot by any possibility remain other than level, or flat, or horizontal-whatever term may be used to express the idea. It is therefore quite out of the range of possibility that rivers could do as they would have to do on a globe.-Zetetic Cosmogony, Thomas Winship, Pg.110

Whoever heard of a river in any part of its course flowing uphill? Yet this it would require to do were the Earth a Globe. Rivers , like the Mississippi, which flow from the North southwards towards the Equator, would need, according to Modern Astronomic theory, to run upwards, as the Earth at the Equator is said to bulge out considerably more, or, in other words, is higher than any other part. Thus the Mississippi in its immense course of over 3,000 miles, would have to ascend 11 miles before it reached the Gulf of Mexico!”-Terra Firma, David Wardlaw Scott, Pg. 126

Whether at sea-level, the top of Mount Everest, or flying a hundred thousand feet in the air, the always horizontal horizon line always rises up to meet the eye-level of the observer and remains perfectly flat. You can test this yourself on a beach or hilltop, in a large field or desert, aboard a hot-air balloon or helicopter; you will see the panoramic horizon ascend with you and remain completely level all around. If the Earth were actually a big ball, however, the horizon should sink as you ascend, not rise to your eye-level, and it would dip at each end of your periphery, not remain flat all around. Standing in a rising balloon, you would have to look downward to the horizon; the highest point of the ball-Earth would be directly beneath you and declining on each side.Eric Dubay’s “Flat-Earth Conspiracy”, Pg. 32

The marine horizon, from whatever position it is viewed, always appears to be, and is, in fact, a perfectly level line, and since this appearance is the same in all parts of the world, its surface must be level; and therefore the Earth is a Plane. This may be proved to be the case, by erecting at a suitable elevation on the sea shore, a duly-levelled board, or a string – at right angles to a plumb-line – tightly stretched between two vertical poles. On looking towards the sea, the horizontal line for a distance of 20 miles may be easily observed, and throughout its entire length it will be found to coincide with the straight-edge, or string: but if the earth were a globe, the horizontal line would from an arc of twenty miles in length, curveting both ways fro the center, at the rate of eight inches, multiplied by the square of the distance. Hence the horizontal line at either end of the distance ought to be depressed some 66 feet below the horizon in the center. But as no such appearance is sever presented, it necessarily follows that the earth cannot be a globe, or other than a plane-B. Chas. Brough, “The Zetetic” Volume 1 Number 11, July 1872 as taken from Eric Dubay’s “Flat-Earth Conspiracy”, Pg. 35

In September, 1898, I received a letter from Australia in which the writer says: ‘In the year 1872 I was on board the ship ‘Thomas Wood, ‘ Capt. Gibson From China to London. Owing to making a long passage, we ran short of provisions, and so short after rounding the Cape that the Captain spoke of putting into St. Helena for a supply. It was then my hobby to get the first glimpse of land, make a survey, just as the sun would be rising. The island was clearly in view, well on the starboard bow, I reported this to Capt. Gibson. He disbelieved me, saying it was impossible as we were 75 miles distant, He, however, offered me paper and pencil to sketch the land I saw. This I did. He then said, ‘you are right,’ and shaped his course accordingly. I had never seen the Island before and could not have described the shape of it had I not seen it. St. Helena is a high volcanic island, and if my informant had seen the top only, there would have to be an allowance made for the height of the land, but as he sketched the island he must have seen the whole of it, which should have been 3,650 feet below the line of sight, if the world be a globe-Zetetic Cosmogony, Thomas Winship, Pg.21

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 isntace: the light at Cape Hatteras is seen at such a distance (40 miles) that, according to theory, it ought to be nine-hundred feet higer 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”, Pg. 5

Surveyors, engineers and architects are never required to factor the supposed curvature of the Earth into their projects, providing another proof the world is a plane, not a planet. Canals and railways, for example, are always cut and laid horizontally, often over hundreds of miles, without any allowance for curvature.

One surveyor, Mr. T. Westwood, wrote into the January, 1896 “Earth Review” magazine stating that, “In leveling, I work from Ordinance marks, or canal levels, to get the height above sea level. The puzzle to me used to be, that over several miles each level was and is treated throughout its whole length as the same level from end to end; not the least allowance being made for curvature. One of the civil engineers in this district, after some amount of argument on each side as to the reason why no allowance for curvature was made, said he did not believe anybody would know the shape of the earth in this life.”-Eric Dubay’s “Flat-Earth Conspiracy”, Pg. 45

“…Let those who believe it is the practice for surveyors to make allowance for ‘curvature’ ponder over the following from the Manchester Ship Canal Company (Earth Review, October, 1893) ‘It is customary in Railway and Canal constructions for all levels to be referred to a datum which is nominally horizontal and is so shown on all sections. It is not the practice in laying out public works to make allowance for the curvature of the earth.-Zetetic Cosmogony, Thomas Winship, Pg.23

“In projecting railways on a globe, the datum line would be the arc of a circle corresponding to the latitude of the place. That the datum line for the railway projections is always a horizontal line, proves that the general configuration of the world is horizontal. To support the globe theory, the gentlemen of the observatories should call upon the surveyor to prove that he allows the necessary amount for ‘curvature.’ But this is what the learned men dare not do, as it is well-known that the allowance for the supposed curvature is never made.” “…Let those who believe it is the practice for surveyors to make allowance for ‘curvature’ ponder over the following from the Manchester Ship Canal Company (Earth Review, October, 1893) ‘It is customary in Railway and Canal constructions for all levels to be referred to a datum which is nominally horizontal and is so shown on all sections. It is not the practice in laying out public works to make allowance for the curvature of the earth.-Zetetic Cosmogony, Thomas Winship, Pg.107

Engineer, W. Winckler, wrote into the Earth Review October 1893 regarding the Earth’s supposed curvature, stating, “As an engineer of many years standing, I saw that this absurd allowance is only permitted in school books. No engineer would dream of allowing anything of the kind. I have projected many miles of railways and many more of canals and the allowance has not even been thought of, much less allowed for. This allowance for curvature mans this – that it is 8″ for the first mile of a canal, and increasing at the ratio by the square of the distance in miles; thus a small navigable canal for boats, say 30 miles long, will have, by the above rule an allowance for curvature of 600 feet. Think of that and then please credit engineers for not being quite such fools. Nothing of the sort is allowed. We no more think of allowing 600 feet for a line of 30 miles of railway or canal, than of wasting or time trying to square the circle.”“-Eric Dubay’s “Flat-Earth Conspiracy”, Pg. 45

The distance between the Red Sea at Suez and the Mediterranean Sea is 100 statute miles, that datum line of the Canal being 26 feet below the level of the mediterranean, and is continued horizontally the whole way from sea to sea, there not being a single lock on the canal, the surface of the water being parallel with the datum line. It is thus clear that there is no curvature or globularity for the whole hundred miles between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea; had there been, according to the Astronomic theory, the middle of the Canal would have been 1,666 feet higher than at either end, whereas the Canal is perfectly horizontal for the whole distance. The Great Canal of China, said to be 700 miles in length, was made without regard to any allowance for supposed curvature, as the Chinese believe the Earth to be a stationary Plane. I may also add that no allowance was made for it in the North Sea Canal, or in the Manchester Ship Canal, both recently constructed, thus clearly proving that there is no globularity in Earth or Sea, so that the world cannot possibly be a Planet.”-Terra Firma, David Wardlaw Scott, Pg. 134

In a long line, like that of the Great Pacific Railway, extending across North America, the supposed curvature would, of course, be proportionately great, extending to many miles in height, but not one inch was allowed by the engineers for curvature during the whole course of the construction of that vast line of Railway. And, if we think of it, how could it be otherwise? All Railway metals must, of necessity, be straight, for how could any engine or carriage run with safety on a convex surface?-Terra Firma, David Wardlaw Scott, Pg. 125

J.C. Bourne in his book “The History of the Great Western Railway” stated that the entire original English railroad, more than 118 miles long, that the whole line with the exception of the inclined planes may be regarded practically as level. The British Parliament Session in 1862 that approved its construction recorded in Order No. 44 for the proposed railway, “That the section be drawn to the same HORIZONTAL scale as the plan, and to a vertical scale of not less than one inch to every one hundred feet, and shall show the surface of the ground marked on the plan, the inteded level of the proposed work, the height of every embankment, and the depth of every cutting, and a DATUM HORIZONTAL LINE which shall be the same throughout the whole length of the work.Eric Dubay’s “Flat-Earth Conspiracy”, Pg. 49

“One hundred and eighteen miles of LEVEL railway, and yet that surface on which it is projected a globe? Impossible. It cannot be. Early in 1898 I met Mr. Hughes, chief officer of the steamer ‘City of Lincoln.’ This gentleman told me he had projected thousands of miles of level railway in South America, and never heard of any allowance for curvature being made. On one occasion he surveyed over one thousand miles of railway which was a perfect straight line all the way. It is well known that in the Argentine Republic and other parts of South America, there are railways thousands of miles long without curve or gradient. In projecting railways, the world is acknowledged to be a plane, and if it were a globe the rules of projection have yet to be discovered. Level railways prove a level world, to the utter confusion of the globular school of impractical men with high salaries and little brains.”-Zetetic Cosmogony, Thomas Winship, Pg.126

“Airplane pilots and sea navigators fly and sail as though the Earth were a plane. Pilots reach their desired altitude and maintain it effortlessly for hours, never contending with anything like 2,777 feet per minute of forced inclination due to Earth’s curvature. Similarly, ship captains in navigating great distances at sea, never need to factor the supposed curvature of the Earth into their calculations! Both Plane Sailing and Great Circle Sailing, the most popular navigation methods, use plane, not spherical trigonometry.Eric Dubay’s “Flat-Earth Conspiracy”, Pg. 51

“One of heliocentrist’s favorite “proofs” of their ball-Earth theory is the ability for ships and planes to circumnavigate, to sail or flu 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 run, 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 no other than the United Nations which haughtily uses a flat-Earth map as its official logo and flag!”Eric Dubay’s “Flat-Earth Conspiracy”, Pg. 131

“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.”-Terra Firma, David Wardlaw Scott, Pg. 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 center 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 center 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)

That The Earth Doesn’t Rotate

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

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

“When sitting in a rapidly-moving railway carriage, let a spring-gun be fired forward, or in the direction in which the train is moving. Again, let the same gun be fired, but in the opposite direction; and it will be found that the ball or other projectile will always go farther in the first case than in the latter. If a person leaps backward from a horse in full gallop, he cannot jump so great a distance as he can by jumping forward. Leaping from a sledge, coach, or other object, backward or forwards, the same results are experienced. Many other practical cases could be cited to show that any body projected from another body in motion, does not exhibit the same behaviour as it does when projected form a body at rest. Nor are the results the same when projected in the same direction as that in which the body moves, as when projected in the opposite direction; because in the former case, the projected body receives its momentum from the projectile force, plus that given to it by the moving body; and in the latter case, this momentum, minus that of the moving body. Hence it would found that if the earth is moving rapidly from west to east, a canon fired in a due easterly direction would send a ball to a greater distance then it would if fired in a due westerly direction. but the most experienced artillerymen – many of whom have had great practice, both at home and abroad, in almost every latitude, – have declared that no difference whatever is observable. That in charging and pointing their guns, no difference in the working is ever required. Gunners in war ships have noticed a considerable difference in the results of their firing from guns at the bow, when sailing rapidly towards the object fired at, and when firing from guns placed at the stern while sailing way from the object: and in both cases the results are different to those observed when firing from a ship at perfect rest. These details of practical experience are utterly incompatible with the supposition of a revolving earth.”-Dr.Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!” (73)-as taken from Eric Dubay’s “Flat-Earth Conspiracy”, Pg. 15-17

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

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

Granting heliocentrists their atmosphere-glue supposition helps them dismiss the results of vertically-fired cannonball experiments but does not and cannot help them explain away the results of horizontal cardinally-fired cannonballs. Similarly, granting them their magic-velcro helps dismiss the results of hovering helicopter and hot-air balloon experiments, but does not and cannot explain away the results of airplanes flying in cardinal directions. For instance, if both the Earth and its lower atmosphere are supposedly rotating together Eastwards 1,038 miles per hour at the equator, then airplane pilots would need to make an extra 1,038 mph compensation acceleration when flying Westwards! North and South-bound pilots would by necessity have to set diagonal courses to Compensate! Since no such compensations are ever necessary except in the imaginations of astronomers, it follows that the Earth does not move.”-Eric Dubay’s “Flat-Earth Conspiracy”, Pg. 18-19

…Remember, no experiment has ever shown the earth to be moving. Add to that the fact that the alleged rotational speed we’ve all been taught as scientific fact MUST decrease every inch or mile one goes north or south of the equator, and it becomes readily apparent that such things as accurate aerial bombing in WWII (down a chimney from 25,000 feet with a plane going any direction at high speed) would have been impossible if calculated on an earth moving below at several hundred MPH and changing constantly with the latitude.” -Marshall Hall, “A Small, Young Universe After All”-as taken from Eric Dubay’s “Flat-Earth Conspiracy”, Pg. 24

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

 Additional Evidence

Okay, so if you weren’t already convinced (or even if you are for that matter,) at this point I’ve got to mention Matt Boylan’s (alias Math Powerland) allegations (which are documented in an interview with him here.) Matt started painting at an early age, becoming a high profile (being hired by may celebrities, models, etc.) professional Hyper-realist painter (specializing in doing floors, pools, etc., ) or in other words re-creating textures in nature in realistic ways with paints (some of his work can be viewed at his website here, and on YouTube here.)

Matthew contests that after graduating with a degree in “political science and intelligence” from “a Jesuit” school in Canada (St. Francis Xavier) NASA took notice of his work and recruited him from a University Expedition, where they had him falsifying images by creating textures, spill-effects, lighting angles/shadows for specific times of day/conditions, as well as transferring objects to these lunar/planetary “surfaces,” creating nebula, etc. (to be passed off as ‘real,’ satellite images, of planets, etc.) Matt states, that at the time, was made clear he was not talk about with others.

Matt states this work was more less “not steady” and that he was “filling in for somebody else’s work” freelance. And that eventually he was invited to a “function/party” at a cottage in the Hamptons, for “initiation” into a certain division of NASA, where he met a certain “well  known” scientist/astrophysicists/photo-realistic painter/consultant for NASA and and Defense Department, as well as  well as other individuals “high up” in the  Defense department and NASA.

Matt Alleges that as a result circumstantial happenstance and the natural course of conversation, it was revealed to him science “hidden from the public” refuting Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity, that rather the universe worked by principles of temperature rather than mass. The person apparently went on to describe the earth as being flat, where Matt thought they were just messing with him to see if “he was stupid.” But maintains he noticed the person who brought him there gleefully watching him to see how he’d take what he was being told, and that they were laughing at him for “not getting it” and that “the earth never went back to being a ball with these guys.” Matt also states that he had a girlfriend at the time who worked for the government who was also at the party with him for the exchange, but that eventually the relationship fell apart.

Matt believes the reason for the discourse was to “see how he played ball” because it was something he’d have to be privy to for upcoming projects. Matt says that this disclosure greatly disturbed him so he thenceforth began really thinking about it, and testing the idea, and looking at images of the earth etc. with more scrutiny, and asking the tough questions, to determine whether they were messing with him or if it were true after all.

Matt states at this point “numbers and extensions” of these ‘co-workers’ started changing, he was no longer able to “get through,” and that agencies he had worked for started to claim he never had. At this point he started becoming very vocal in large part to protect himself, but also for the good of humanity.

But Could they Really Fake The Satellite video and Imagery?

Just check out some of videos and images below, and decide for yourself:

Use of Wide-Angle Lenses

All the Supposed Time lapses of Earth from space forget to include cloud movement

Use of CGI Examples 1

Use CGI Examples 2

Use of CGI Examples 3

Use of CGI Example 4

Use of CGI Example 5

Opening Scene of Star Wars

Also check out the following resources for further research:

YouTube – The Sharpening with Rob Skiba

If you’ve been blessed and believe in our ministry, please consider giving so that we can continue to produce content and expand our outreach:

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Could the Earth really be Flat?

  1. First of all, it says Jesus was taken to a high point. Who said it had to be an actual mountain? Mankind wasn’t spread out all over the earth. They could of been just referring to the kingdoms they knew of around the Middle East. Secondly, “end of the earth” could mean something different in the Bible.

    Like

    1. What? “Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain“… Are you perhaps not using a real Bible? Also, in the article above in the context of that that scripture I refuted the other points you suggested. But even still, if one takes the context of the whole, for instance not only what our senses tell us, but especially what true scientific experimentation suggests, and there’s only one truly scientific conclusion which can be arrived at.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s