194) From David Wardlaw Scott, “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 shown 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 its being spilt, and so, in like manner, can the oceans be carried round 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.”
4) If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference as NASA and modern astronomy claim, spherical trigonometry dictates the surface of all standing water must curve downward an easily measurable 8 inches per mile multiplied by the square of the distance. This means along a 6 mile channel of standing water, the Earth would dip 6 feet on either end from the central peak. Every time such experiments have been conducted, however, standing water has proven to be perfectly level.
If we refer to the diagram in "Cornell's Geography," page 4, and notice the ship in its position the most remote from the observer, we shall find that, though it is about 4,000 miles away, it is the same size as the ship that is nearest to him, distant about 700 miles! This a an illustration of the way in which astronomers ignore the laws of perspective. This course is necessary, or they would be compelled to lay bare the fallacy of their dogmas. In short, there is, in this matter, a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
In general, we at the Flat Earth Society do not lend much credibility to photographic evidence. It is too easily manipulated and altered. Many of the videos posted here to "prove a round earth" by showing curvature will show no curvature or even concave curvature at parts. The sources are so inaccurate it's difficult to build an argument on them in either case. Furthermore, barrel distortion and other quirks of modern cameras will cause a picture to distort in ways which may not be immediately obvious or apparent, especially without references within the picture. Photographs are also prone to distortion when taken through the bent glass of a pressurized cabin as well as atmospheric conditions on the outside. With this litany of problems, it's easy to see why photographic evidence is not to be trusted.
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.
34) 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, making all mathematical calculations on the assumption that the Earth is perfectly flat. If the Earth were in fact a sphere, such an errant assumption would lead to constant glaring inaccuracies. Plane Sailing has worked perfectly fine in both theory and practice for thousands of years, however, and plane trigonometry has time and again proven more accurate than spherical trigonometry in determining distances across the oceans.
Another point concerning timezones, the sun, and Earth: If the sun was a “spotlight” (very directionally located so that light only shines on a specific location) and the world was flat, we would see the sun even if it didn’t shine on top of us (as you can see in the drawing below). Similarly, you can see the light coming out of a spotlight on a stage in the theater, even though you—the crowd—are sitting in the dark. The only way to create two distinctly separate time zones, where there is complete darkness in one while there’s light in the other, is if the world is spherical.
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.
tar appears on the horizon, "the Sun should therefore look much larger" – if the Earth were a plane! Therefore, he argues, "the path followed cannot have been the straight course," – but a curved one. Now, since it is nothing but common scientific trickery to bring forward, as an objection to stand in the way of a plane Earth, the non-appearance of a thing which has never been known to appear at all, it follows that, unless that which appears to be trickery were an accident, it was the only course open to the objector – to trick. (Mr. Proctor, in a letter to the "English Mechanic" for Oct. 20,1871, boasts of having turned a recent convert to the Zetetic Philosophy by telling him that his arguments were all very good, but that "it seems as though [Mark the language!] the sun ought to look nine times larger in summer." And Mr. Proctor conclude's thus: "He saw, indeed, that, in his faith in "Parallax," he had "written himself down an ass.") Well, then: trickery or no trickery on the part of the objector, the objection is a counterfeit – a fraud – no valid objection at all; and it follows that the system which does not purge itself of these things is a rotten system, and the system which advocates, with Mr. Proctor at their head, a weapon to use – the Zetetic philosophy of "Parallax" – is destined to live! This is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
71.) The astronomers' theory of a globular Earth necessitates the conclusion that, if we travel south of the equator, to see the North Star is an impossibility. Yet it is well known this star has been seen by navigators when they have been more than 20 degrees south of the equator. This fact, like hundreds of other facts, puts the theory to shame, and gives us a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
83.) It has been shown that the meridians are, necessarily, straight lines; and that it is impossible to travel round the Earth in a north or south direction: from which it follows that, in the general acceptation of the word "degree" – the 360th – part of a circle – meridians have no degrees: for no one knows anything of a meridian circle or semicircle, to be thus divided. But astronomers speak of degrees of latitude in the same sense as those of longitude. This, then, is done by assuming that to be true which is not true. Zetetic philosophy does not involve this necessity. This proves that the basis of this philosophy is a sound one, and, in short, is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
46.) It has been shown that an easterly or a westerly motion is necessarily a circular course round the central North, The only north point or centre of motion of the heavenly bodies known to man is that formed by the North Star, which is over the central portion of the outstretched Earth. When, therefore, astronomers tell us of a planet taking a westerly course round the Sun, the thing is as meaningless to them as it is to us, unless they make the Sun the northern centre of the motion, which they cannot do! Since, then, the motion which they tell us the planets have is, on the face of it, absurd; and since, as a matter of fact, the Earth can have no absurd motion at all, it is clear that it cannot be what astronomers say it is – a planet; and, if not a planet, it is a proof that Earth is not a globe.
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.
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:
159) If there were progressively faster and faster spinning atmosphere the higher the altitude that would mean it would have to abruptly end at some key altitude where the fastest layer of gravitized spinning atmosphere meets the supposed non-gravitized non-spinning non-atmosphere of infinite vacuum space! NASA has never mentioned what altitude this impossible feat allegedly happens, but it is easily philosophically refuted by the simple fact that vacuums cannot exist connected to non-vacuums while maintaining the properties of a vacuum – not to mention, the effect such a transition would have on a rocket “space ship” would be disastrous.
122) Quoting Allen Daves, “If the Government or NASA had said to you that the Earth is stationary, imagine that. And then imagine we are trying to convince people that 'no, no it's not stationary, it's moving forward at 32 times rifle bullet speed and spinning at 1,000 miles per hour.' We would be laughed at! We would have so many people telling us 'you are crazy, the Earth is not moving!' We would be ridiculed for having no scientific backing for this convoluted moving Earth theory. And not only that but then people would say, 'oh then how do you explain a fixed, calm atmosphere and the Sun's observable movement, how do you explain that?' Imagine saying to people, 'no, no, the atmosphere is moving also but is somehow magically velcroed to the moving-Earth. The reason is not simply because the Earth is stationary.' So what we are actually doing is what makes sense. We are saying that the moving-Earth theory is nonsense. The stationary-Earth theory makes sense and we are being ridiculed. You've got to picture it being the other way around to realize just how RIDICULOUS this situation is. This theory from the Government and NASA that the Earth is rotating and orbiting and leaning over and wobbling is absolute nonsense and yet people are clinging to it, tightly, like a teddy bear. They just can't bring themselves to face the possibility that the Earth is stationary though ALL the evidence shows it: we feel no movement, the atmosphere hasn't been blown away, we see the Sun move from East-to-West, everything can be explained by a motionless Earth without bringing in all these assumptions to cover up previous assumptions gone bad.”
54) At places of comparable latitude North and South, dawn and dusk happen very differently than they would on a spinning ball, but precisely how they should on a flat Earth. In the North dawn and dusk come slowly and last far longer than in the South where they come and go very quickly. Certain places in the North twilight can last for over an hour while at comparable Southern latitudes within a few minutes the sunlight completely disappears. This is inexplicable on a uniformly spinning, wobbling ball Earth but is exactly what is expected on a flat Earth with the Sun traveling faster, wider circles over the South and slower, narrower circles over the North.
11) A surveyor and engineer of thirty years published in the Birmingham Weekly Mercury stated, “I am thoroughly acquainted with the theory and practice of civil engineering. However bigoted some of our professors may be in the theory of surveying according to the prescribed rules, yet it is well known amongst us that such theoretical measurements are INCAPABLE OF ANY PRACTICAL ILLUSTRATION. All our locomotives are designed to run on what may be regarded as TRUE LEVELS or FLATS. There are, of course, partial inclines or gradients here and there, but they are always accurately defined and must be carefully traversed. But anything approaching to eight inches in the mile, increasing as the square of the distance, COULD NOT BE WORKED BY ANY ENGINE THAT WAS EVER YET CONSTRUCTED. Taking one station with another all over England and Scotland, it may be stated that all the platforms are ON THE SAME RELATIVE LEVEL. The distance between Eastern and Western coasts of England may be set down as 300 miles. If the prescribed curvature was indeed as represented, the central stations at Rugby or Warwick ought to be close upon three miles higher than a chord drawn from the two extremities. If such was the case there is not a driver or stoker within the Kingdom that would be found to take charge of the train. We can only laugh at those of your readers who seriously give us credit for such venturesome exploits, as running trains round spherical curves. Horizontal curves on levels are dangerous enough, vertical curves would be a thousand times worse, and with our rolling stock constructed as at present physically impossible.”
100.) The Sun, as he travels round over the surface of the Earth, brings "noon" to all places on the successive meridians which he crosses: his journey being made in a westerly direction, places east of the Sun's position have had their noon, whilst places to the west of the Sun's position have still to get it. Therefore, if we travel easterly, we arrive at those parts of the Earth where "time" is more advanced, the watch in our pocket has to be "put on"or we may be said to "gain time." If, on the other hand, we travel westerly, we arrive at places where it is still "morning," the watch has to be "put back," and it may be said that we "lose time." But, if we travel easterly so as to cross the 180th meridian, there is a loss, there, of a day, which will neutralize the gain of a whole circumnavigation; and, if we travel westerly, and cross the same meridian, we experience the gain of a day, which will compensate for the loss during a complete circumnavigation in that direction. The fact of losing or gaining time in sailing round the world, then, instead of being evidence of the Earth's "rotundity," as it is imagined to be, is, in its practical exemplification, an everlasting proof that the Earth is not a globe.
20.) The common sense of man tells him – if nothing else told him – that there is an "up" and a "down" in -nature, even as regards the heavens and the earth; but the theory of modern astronomers necessitates the conclusion that there is not: therefore, 'the theory of the astronomers is opposed to common sense – yes, and to inspiration – and this is a common sense proof that the Earth is not a globe.