90.) "Is water level, or is it not?" was a question once asked of an astronomer. "Practically, yes; theoretically, no," was the reply. Now, when theory does not harmonize with practice, the best thing to do is to drop the theory. (It is getting too late, now to say "So much the worse for the factsI") To drop the theory which supposes a curved surface to standing water is to acknowledge the facts which form the basis of Zetetic philosophy. And since this will have to be done sooner or later, – it is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

Hey Eric could you write something about Androgynous/(Hermaphroditic) agenda? I saw something about it in book cutting throug the matrix by Allan Watt and I am very interested in this subject. Nowadays all jewish/iluminat governments support transsexualism and indoctrinated children in schools so i think what Allan Watt write about freemasonery plan to build new human, androgynous, brainless, bee-worker is true.

Yes! the earth is flat, just ask the water it will never lie to you , it always seeks its own level, ALWAYS!! That is why we have the term sea level, airplane= air+plane, a thing that flies in the air over a plane. the list can go on and on. I have studied Ancient history for last 30 years read more than 500 books, One must be able to separate what is real and what is not real on many levels to understand truth as it is. remember sound=vibration=frequency on all levels of existence .
The first photograph (Figure 4) is of a cargo ship bearing the name of the company on its hull. The company is the NYK line, a major Japanese shipping company. Notice that the bottoms of the letters are not visible. The letters on the hulls of cargo ships do not extend to the water line, even when fully loaded, so clearly the bottom of the hull is not visible. This is consistent with what we would expect on a spherical earth, but not on a flat earth. Notice the white bridge castle to the left. The shipping containers are multicolored, and they are stacked at least seven high above the hull directly in front of the bridge castle. Below the visible tiers of the multi-colored containers there is a level of what appears to be gray containers. It is not clear why the containers in this layer are the same color. Finally, notice that the image is a bit blurry. This is because of turbulence in the air between the ship and shore. With increasing distance, the turbulence will get worse, and the images will get blurrier.
99.) Mr. Hind speaks of two great mathematicians differing only fifty-five yards in their estimate of the Earth's diameter. Why, Sir John Herschel, in his celebrated work, cuts off 480 miles of the same thing to get "round numbers!" This is like splitting a hair on one side of the bead and shaving all the hair off on the other! Oh, "science!" Can there be any truth in a science like this? All the exactitude in astronomy is in Practical astronomy – not Theoretical. Centuries of observation have made practical astronomy a noble art and science, based – as we have a thousand times proved it to be – on a fixed Earth; and we denounce this pretended exactitude on one side and the reckless indifference to figures on the other as the basest trash, and take from it a proof that the "science" which tolerates it is a false – instead of being an "exact" – science, and we have a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
145) Heliocentrists believe the Moon is a ball, even though its appearance is clearly that of a flat luminous disc. We only ever see the same one face (albeit at various inclinations) of the Moon, yet it is claimed that there is another “dark side of the Moon” which remains hidden. NASA states the Moon spins opposite the spin of the Earth in such a perfectly synchronized way that the motions cancel each other out so we will conveniently never be able to observe the supposed dark-side of the Moon outside of their terrible fake CGI images. The fact of the matter is, however, if the Moon were a sphere, observers in Antarctica would see a different face from those at the equator, yet they do not – just the same flat face rotated at various degrees.
24.) When a man speaks of a "most complete" thing amongst several other things which claim to be what that thing is, it is evident that they must fall short of something which the "most complete" thing possesses. And when it is known that the "most complete" thing is an entire failure, it is plain that the others, all and sundry, are worthless. Proctor's "most complete proof that the Earth is a globe" lies in what he calls "the fact" that distances from place to place agree with calculation. But, since the distance round the Earth at 45 " degrees" south of the equator is twice the distance it would be on a globe, it follows that what the greatest astronomer of the age calls "a fact" is NOT a fact; that his "most complete proof' is a most complete failure; and that be might as well have told us, at once, that he has NO PROOF to give us at all. Now, since, if the Earth be a globe, there would, necessarily, be piles of proofs of it all round us, it follows that when astronomers, with all their ingenuity, are utterly unable to point one out – to say nothing about picking one up – that they give us a proof that Earth is not a globe.
Mr Hind speaks of the astronomer watching a star as it is carried across the telescope by the diurnal revolution of the Earth." Now, this is nothing but downright absurdity. No motion of the Earth could possibly carry a star across a telescope or anything else. If the star is carried across anything at all, it is the star that moves, not the thing across which it is carried! Besides, the idea that the Earth, if it were a globe, could possibly move in an orbit of nearly 600,000,000 of miles with such exactitude that the cross-hairs in a telescope fixed on its surface would appear to glide gently over a star "millions of millions" of miles away is simply monstrous; whereas, with a FIXED telescope, it matters not the distance of the stars, though we suppose them to be as far off as the astronomer supposes them to be; for, as Mr. Proctor himself says, "the further away they are, the less they will seem to shift." Why, in the name of common sense, should observers have to fix their telescopes on solid stone bases so that they should not move a hair's-breadth, - if the Earth on which they fix them move at the rate of nineteen miles in a second? Indeed, to believe that Mr. Proctor's mass of "six thousand million million million tons" is "rolling, surging, flying, darting on through space for ever" with a velocity compared with which a shot from a cannon is a "very slow coach," with such unerring accuracy that a telescope fixed on granite pillars in an observatory will not enable a lynx-eyed astronomer to detect a variation in its onward motion of the thousandth part of a hair's-breadth is to conceive a miracle compared with which all the miracles on record put together would sink into utter insignificance. Captain R. J. Morrison, the late compiler of "Zadkeil's Almanac;" says: "We declare that this "motion" is all mere 'bosh'; and that the arguments which uphold it are, when examined with an eye that seeks for TRUTH only, mere nonsense, and childish absurdity. "Since, then, these absurd theories are of no use to men in their senses, and since there is no necessity for anything of the kind in Zetetic philosophy, it is a "strong presumptive proof" - as Mr. Hind would say that the Zetetic philosophy is true, and, therefore, a proof that Earth is not a globe..
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.
Silica is a mineral that existed in much greater quantities and in living things before the flood. It’s very possible that the glass dome above our earth is made of silica glass that broke open during the flood , when God opened the windows of heaven, and it shattered glass onto the earth. This is more evidence of the glass dome that separates the water from the waters, described in Genesis.
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.
Many fans have written in and asked who really wrote and composed Supertramp’s songs. So, our intention is to help the public realize who the actual songwriters were behind the classic “Supertramp” songs so that when people hear Roger’s voice, “one of the most recognizable voices in rock history,” they will recognize it as Roger Hodgson, the songwriter and composer of the songs we love. It is our hope to give Roger the honor and appreciation for his musical creations that have given the world so much. And with that goal in mind, we have prepared the following song list and historical information answering some of the questions that we are often asked.
68.) Mr. J.M. Lockyer says: Because the Sun seems to rise in the east and set in the west, the Earth really spins in the opposite direction; that is, from west to east," Now, this is no better than though we were to say – Because a man seems to be coming up the street, the street really goes down to the man! And since true science would contain no such nonsense as this, it follows that the so-called science of theoretical astronomy is not true, and, we have another proof that the Earth is not a globe.
70.) Mr. Lockyer, in describing his picture of the supposed proof of the Earth's rotundity by means of ships rounding a "hill of water," uses these words: – "Diagram showing how, when we suppose the earth is round, we explain how it is that ships at sea appear as they do." This is utterly unworthy of the name of Science! A science that begins by supposing, and ends by explaining the supposition, is, from beginning to end, a mere farce. The men who can do nothing better than amuse themselves in this way must be denounced as dreamers only, and their leading dogma a delusion. This is a proof that Earth, not a globe.

The first photograph (Figure 4) is of a cargo ship bearing the name of the company on its hull. The company is the NYK line, a major Japanese shipping company. Notice that the bottoms of the letters are not visible. The letters on the hulls of cargo ships do not extend to the water line, even when fully loaded, so clearly the bottom of the hull is not visible. This is consistent with what we would expect on a spherical earth, but not on a flat earth. Notice the white bridge castle to the left. The shipping containers are multicolored, and they are stacked at least seven high above the hull directly in front of the bridge castle. Below the visible tiers of the multi-colored containers there is a level of what appears to be gray containers. It is not clear why the containers in this layer are the same color. Finally, notice that the image is a bit blurry. This is because of turbulence in the air between the ship and shore. With increasing distance, the turbulence will get worse, and the images will get blurrier.
If the earth is a sphere like we’ve been taught, with different layers of rock and a molten core, where did all the water of “the great deep” come from? The “great deep”, a giant reservoir of water going to great depths below the earth, does not fit into the globe earth model at all. It does, however, describe perfectly the Biblical Ancient Hebrew model of the flat earth.
×