If the Earth were a globe, rolling and dashing through "space" at the rate of "a hundred miles in five seconds of time," the waters of seas and oceans could not, by any known law, be kept on its surface - the assertion that they could be retained under these circumstances being an outrage upon human understanding and credulity! But as the Earth - that is, the habitable world of dry land - is found to be "standing out of the wafer and in the water" of the "mighty deep," whose circumferential boundary is ice, we may throw the statement back into the teeth of those who make it and flaunt before their faces the flag of reason and common sense, inscribed with a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
92.) "There is no inconsistency in supposing that the earth does move round the sun," says the Astronomer Royal of England. Certainly not, when theoretical astronomy is all supposition together! The inconsistency is in teaching the world that the thing supposed is a fact. Since, then, the "motion" of the Earth is supposition only – since, indeed, it is necessary to suppose it at all – it is plain that it is a fiction and not a fact; and, since "mobility" and "sphericity" stand or fall together, we have before us a proof that Earth is not a globe.
It is a well-known fact that clouds are continually seen moving in all manner of directions - yes, and frequently, in different directions at the same time - from west to east being as frequent a direction as any other. . Now, if the Earth were a globe, revolving through space from west to east at the rate of nineteen miles in a second, the clouds appearing to us to move towards the east would have to move quicker than nineteen miles in a second to be thus seen; whilst those which appear to be moving in the opposite direction would have no necessity to be moving at all, since the motion of the Earth would be more than sufficient to cause the appearance. But it only takes a little common sense to show us that it is the clouds that move just as they appear to do, and that, therefore, the Earth is motionless. We have, then a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
Since this image is visible above where the object is, it is called a superior mirage. Because cooler air has no physical reason to rise, a temperature inversion is a stable situation, with little convection as with the condition that produces an inferior mirage. Therefore, superior mirages can be very steady, much steadier than inferior mirages. Furthermore, since the refraction acts almost continually rather than at one point, superior mirages normally are erect rather than inverted. If one gains a little altitude, one can get out of the inversion layer, and thus avoid seeing a superior mirage. In my earlier article, I pointed out that this is what Alfred Russell Wallace did when he repeated the Bedford level experiment. Russell did not see the distant object that was his target, which is consistent with a spherical earth. Russell correctly accounted for this effect, but Rowbotham did not.
29. If the Earth were a globe, it would, unquestionably, have the same general characteristics - no matter its size - as a small globe that may be stood upon the table. As the small globe has top, bottom, and sides, so must also the large one - no matter how large it be. But, as the Earth, which is "supposed" to be a large globe, bas no sides or bottom as the small globe has, the conclusion is irresistible that it is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
If the sun is the center of the solar system (which is actually based on Pagan Sun Worship) and the earth is orbiting around it, then for this event in Joshua to occur, it would mean that the earth stopped spinning and stood still, not the sun. For the earth to suddenly stop spinning at its supposed 1000 miles per hour spin, it would have caused catastrophic devastation on earth. But, if the earth is flat and still, and the sun and moon rotate around and above the earth, then it would make perfect sense for the sun to stand still in order to prolong the day.
If the Earth were a globe, an observer who should ascend above its surface would have to took downwards at the horizon (if it be possible to conceive of a horizon at all under such circumstances) even as astronomical diagrams indicate that angles - varying from ten to nearly fifty degrees below the "horizontal" line of sight! (It is just as absurd as it would be to be taught that when we look at a man full in the face we are looking down at his feet!) But, as no observer in the clouds, or upon any eminence on the earth, has ever had to do so, it follows that the diagrams spoken of are imaginary and false; that the theory which requires such things to prop it up is equally airy and untrue; and that we have a substantial proof that Earth is not a globe.
Regarding the "traveling at the same speed" idea. When in an aircraft, two people can toss a ball to each other. From the POV of those Inside, the ball is moving at normal ball tossing speed. From the POV of those outside, the ball is being gently tossed to over 500kph and the catcher catchers it without problem. If this is the "everything on the planet moving at the same speed" idea in action. Which does make it possible to travel in either direction.
Another thing to note is that there is no mention of “planets” in Genesis or the rest of the Bible. It only mentions wandering stars. So where does the idea of planets come from? They originate in pagan mythology. They are not “Terra Firma” that you can land on. They are spinning orbs above the dome, wandering stars. A look at real planets from real telescopes shows a much different picture than the fake CGI “planets” we are shown by occult run NASA.
In the past 60 years of space exploration, we’ve launched satellites, probes, and people into space. Some of them got back, some of them still float through the solar system (and almost beyond it), and many transmit amazing images to our receivers on Earth. In all of these photos, the Earth is (wait for it) spherical. The curvature of the Earth is also visible in the many, many, many, many photos snapped by astronauts aboard the International Space Station. You can see a recent example from ISS Commander Scott Kelly's Instagram right here:

If the Earth were a globe, an observer who should ascend above its surface would have to took downwards at the horizon (if it be possible to conceive of a horizon at all under such circumstances) even as astronomical diagrams indicate that angles - varying from ten to nearly fifty degrees below the "horizontal" line of sight! (It is just as absurd as it would be to be taught that when we look at a man full in the face we are looking down at his feet!) But, as no observer in the clouds, or upon any eminence on the earth, has ever had to do so, it follows that the diagrams spoken of are imaginary and false; that the theory which requires such things to prop it up is equally airy and untrue; and that we have a substantial proof that Earth is not a globe.


Another MAJOR problem with the Ball earth model is that the path of the total eclipse shadow that is coming on August 21 in North America (and all paths of the solar eclipses) is only 73 miles across! How can a shadow be SMALLER than the object casting the shadow? This is physically impossible! We know from experience that shadows can be the same size or larger than the object casting the shadow, but it can never be smaller. We are told that the moon is 2,159 miles in diameter. So shouldn’t the moon’s shadow on earth be at LEAST 2,159 miles wide? But instead we are given the path of the next eclipse across the United States and it is only 73 miles wide. You have to be in a very specific location to even see the total eclipse.
Besides the above difficulties or incompatibilities, many cases are on record of the sun and moon being eclipsed when both were above the horizon. The sun, the earth, and the moon, not in a straight line, but the earth below the sun and moon–out of the reach or direction of both–and yet a lunar eclipse has occurred! Is it possible that a “shadow” of the earth could be thrown upon the moon, when sun, earth, and moon, were not in the same line? The difficulty has been met by assuming the influence of refraction, as in the following quotations:–
×