39.) We have abundance of evidence that the Sun moves daily round and over the Earth in circles concentric with the northern region over which hangs the North Star; but, since the theory of the Earth being a globe is necessarily connected with the theory of its motion round the Sun in a yearly orbit, it falls to the ground when we bring forward the evidence of which we speak, and, in so doing, forms a proof that the 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 Notth America (and all paths of the solar eclipses) is only 70 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 70 miles wide. You have to be in a very specific location to even see the total eclipse.
46) On a ball-Earth Cape Town, South Africa to Buenos Aries, Argentina should be a straight shot over the Atlantic following the same line of latitude across, but instead every flight goes to connecting locations in the Northern hemisphere first, stopping over anywhere from London to Turkey to Dubai. Once again these make absolutely no sense on the globe but are completely understandable options when mapped on a flat Earth.
11.) As the mariners' compass points north and south at one time, and as the North, to which it is attracted is that part of the Earth situated where the North Star is in the zenith, it follows that there is no south "point" or "pole" but that, while the centre is North, a vast circumference must be South in its whole extent. This is 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.


What if the earth was a sphere in inverse? I'm no scientist but I found this discussion by accident and it challenged both beliefs in me. There was a ride at a local amusement park that was cylindrical and would start spinning with the floor eventually falling out beneath us. We would stay attached to the sides. Eventually they would slow the spinning down and we would loosen up from the wall. Is it possible that the Earth envelops the sun, moon, stars and "outer space" as we know? That everything we know is inside as opposed to outside our world we know and experience? Very interesting subject nonetheless.
48) On a ball-Earth Santiago, Chile to Johannesburg, South Africa should be an easy flight all taking place below the Tropic of Capricorn in the Southern hemisphere, yet every listed flight makes a curious re-fueling stop in Senegal near the Tropic of Cancer in the North hemisphere first! When mapped on a flat Earth the reason why is clear to see, however, Senegal is actually directly in a straight-line path half-way between the two.
51.) A "Standing Order" exists in the English Houses of Parliament that in the cutting of canals, &c., the datum line employed shall be a "horizontal line, which shall be the same throughout the whole length of the work." Now if the Earth were a globe, this "Order" could not be carried out: but, it is carried out: therefore it is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
48.) In Mr. Proctor's "Lessons in Astronomy," page 15, a ship is represented as sailing away from the observer, and it is given in five positions or distances away on its journey. Now, in its first position, its mast appears above the horizon, and, consequently, higher than the observer's line of vision. But, in its second and third positions, representing the ship as further and further away, it is drawn higher and still higher up above the line of the horizon! Now, it is utterly impossible for a ship to sail away from an observer, under the, conditions indicated, and to appear as given in the picture. Consequently, the picture is a misrepresentation, a fraud, and a disgrace. A ship starting to sail away from an observer with her masts above his line of sight would appear, indisputably, to go down and still lower down towards the horizon line, and could not possibly appear – to anyone with his vision undistorted – as going in any other direction, curved or straight. Since, then the design of the astronomer-artist is to show the Earth to be a globe, and the points in the picture, which would only prove the Earth to be cylindrical if true, are NOT true, it follows that the astronomer-artist fails to prove, pictorially, either that the Earth is a globe or a cylinder, and that we have, therefore, a reasonable proof that the Earth is not. a globe.
60.) There is no problem more important to the astronomer than that of the Sun's distance from the Earth. Every change in the estimate changes everything. NOW, since modern astronomers, in their estimate of this distance, have gone all the way along the line of figures from three millions of miles to a hundred and four millions – today, the distance being something over 91,000,000; it matters not how much: for, not many years ago, Mr. Hind gave the distance, "accurately," as 95,370,000! – it follows that they don't know, and that it is foolish for anyone to expect that they ever will know, the Sun's distance! And since all this speculation and absurdity is caused by the primary assumption that Earth is a wandering, heavenly body, and is all swept away by a knowledge of the fact that Earth is a, plane, it is a clear proof that 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.
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.

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.
The Astronomer Royal, of England, George B. Airy, in his celebrated work on Astronomy, the "Ipswich Lectures," says - "Jupiter is a large planet that turns on his axis, and why do not we turn?" Of course, the common sense reply is: Because the Earth is not a planet! When, therefore, an astronomer royal puts words into our mouth wherewith we may overthrow the supposed planetary nature of the Earth, we have not far to go to pick up a proof that Earth is not a globe.
44.) It is in evidence that, if a projectile be fired from a rapidly moving body in an opposite direction to that in which the body is going, it will fall short of the distance at which it would reach the ground if fired in the direction of motion. Now, since the Earth is said to move at the rate of nineteen miles in, a second of time, "from west to east," it would make all the difference imaginable if the gun were fired in an opposite direction. But, as, in practice, there is not the slightest difference, whichever way the thing may be done, we have a forcible overthrow of all fancies relative to the motion of the Earth, and a striking proof that the Earth is not a globe.
Some say the flood was a myth. But there is plenty of evidence of Noah’s flood to prove that it really happened. If you believe in the story of the flood in the Bible, then you must also believe in the “waters above” that God used to destroy that wicked generation. The only Earth model that fits the Biblical description of a glass firmament, holding the waters above, is the Flat Earth. Again the globe falls flat!
6.) If we stand on the sands of the sea-shore and watch a ship approach us, we shall find that she will apparently "rise" – to the extent, of her own height, nothing more. If we stand upon an eminence, the same law operates still; and it is but the law of perspective, which causes objects, as they approach us, to appear to increase in size until we see them, close to us, the size they are in fact. That there is no other "rise" than the one spoken of is plain from the fact that, no matter how high we ascend above the level of the sea, the horizon rises on and still on as we rise, so that it is always on a level with the eye, though it be two-hundred miles away, as seen by Mr. J. Glaisher, of England, from Mr. Coxwell's balloon. So that a ship five miles away may be imagined to be "coming up" the imaginary downward curve of the Earth's surface, but if we merely ascend a hill such as Federal Hill, Baltimore, we may see twenty-!five miles away, on a level with the eye – that is, twenty miles level distance beyond the ship that we vainly imagined to be " rounding the curve," and "coming up!" This is a plain proof that the Earth is not a globe.
Mr. J. R. Young, in his work on Navigation, says. "Although the path of the ship is on a spherical surface, yet we may represent the length of the path by, a straight line on a plane surface." (And plane sailing is the rule.) Now, since it is altogether impossible to "represent" a curved line by a straight one, and absurd to make the attempt, it follows that a straight line represents a straight line and not a curved one. And, Since it is the surface of the waters of the ocean that is being considered by Mr. Young, it follows that this surface is a straight surface, and we are indebted to Mr. Young, a professor of navigation, for a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

43) If Earth was a ball there are several flights in the Southern hemisphere which would have their quickest, straightest path over the Antarctic continent such as Santiago, Chile to Sydney, Australia. Instead of taking the shortest, quickest route in a straight line over Antarctica, all such flights detour all manner of directions away from Antarctica instead claiming the temperatures too cold for airplane travel! Considering the fact that there are plenty of flights to/from/over Antarctica, and NASA claims to have technology keeping them in conditions far colder (and far hotter) than any experienced on Earth, such an excuse is clearly just an excuse, and these flights aren’t made because they are impossible.
The higher up you climb, the farther you will see. Usually, we tend to relate this to Earthly obstacles—like the fact we have houses or other trees obstructing our vision on the ground, and climbing upwards we have a clear view—but that’s not the true reason. Even if you stood on a completely clear plateau with no obstacles between you and the horizon, you would see much farther from the greater height than you would on the ground.
Some say the flood was a myth. But there is plenty of evidence of Noah’s flood to prove that it really happened. If you believe in the story of the flood in the Bible, then you must also believe in the “waters above” that God used to destroy that wicked generation. The only Earth model that fits the Biblical description of a glass firmament, holding the waters above, is the Flat Earth. Again the globe falls flat!
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:–
×