“hundred miles below the sun and moon, [then it] cannot, by any known possibility come between them. It cannot therefore intercept the light of the sun, and throw its own shadow upon the moon. If such a thing were a natural possibility, how could the moon continue to shine during the whole or any considerable part of the period of its passage through the dark shadow of the earth? Refraction, or what has been called “Earth light,” will not aid in the explanation; because the light of the moon is at such times “like the glowing heat of firer tinged with deep red.” “Reddish is not the word to express it, it was red–red hot.” “The reddish light made it, seem to be on fire.” “It looked like a fire smouldering in its ashes.” “Its tint was that of red-hot copper.” The sun light is of an entirely different colour to that of the eclipsed moon; and it is contrary to known optical principles to say that light when refracted or reflected, or both simultaneously, is thereby changed in colour. If a light of a given colour is seen through a great depth of a comparatively dense medium, as the sun is often seen in winter through the fog and vapour of the atmosphere, it appears of a different colour, and generally of such as that which the moon so often gives during a total eclipse; but a shadow cannot produce any such effect, as it is, in fact, not an entity at all, but simply the absence of light.
36.) If we take a journey down the Chesapeake Bay, by night, we shall see the "light" exhibited at Sharpe's Island for an hour before the steamer gets to it. We may take up a position on the deck so that the rail of the vessel's side will be in a line with the "light" and in the line of sight; and we shall find that in the whole journey the light will won't vary in the slightest degree in its apparent elevation. But, say that a distance of thirteen miles has been traversed, the astronomers' theory of "curvature" demands a difference (one way or the other!) in the apparent elevation of the light, of 112 feet 8 inches! Since, however, there is not a difference of 100 hair's breadths, we have a plain proof that the water of the Chesapeake Bay is not curved, which is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
106) The so-called “South Pole” is simply an arbitrary point along the Antarctic ice marked with a red and white barbershop pole topped with a metal ball-Earth. This ceremonial South Pole is admittedly and provably NOT the actual South Pole, however, because the actual South Pole could be demonstrably confirmed with the aid of a compass showing North to be 360 degrees around the observer. Since this feat has never been achieved, the model remains pure theory, along with the establishment’s excuse that the geomagnetic poles supposedly constantly move around making verification of their claims impossible.
The Flat Earth, God’s true creation, is a beautiful, peaceful Truth, making you very valuable and the center of God’s Creation. The first chapter of Genesis clearly describes a flat, Stationary earth, set on pillars on the deep waters, with a glass dome (Firmament) above, and with the sun and moon inside the dome. The Ball Earth is a Satanic lie. It doesn’t exist, except on screens, in textbooks, and in people’s programmed minds.
At the end of the day, I think the one single proof of FE or Ball E, will be the irrefutable circumnavigation of Antarctica. As it is, we have no modern attempt. We have no attempt to travel across its middle, and no one wants to take on the challenge of a North South circumnavigation of the planet, the last great achievement (which is odd to me). All three of these things Not being done are Very strange indeed.
As with the Chicago skyline, there are many images on the internet, usually videos, of ships some distance away in which their hulls are visible. Many of these are taken during warm weather, such as late spring and summer, when the water is likely to be much cooler than the air, producing a temperature inversion. However, what would happen if one were to repeat this experiment over water that is warmer than the air temperature? Since there is no temperature inversion, the hulls of ships ought to disappear. This condition is likely to prevail on cool days in late autumn and early winter, when water temperatures are higher than air temperatures. These conditions also can produce inferior mirages, though not nearly as pronounced as over land on sunny summer days.
It is well known that the law, regulating the apparent decrease in the size of objects as we leave them in the distance (or as they leave us) is very different with luminous bodies from what it is in the case of those which are non-luminous. Sail past the light of a small lamp in a row-boat on a dark night, and it will seem to be no smaller when a mile off than it was when close to it. Proctor says, in speaking of the Sun: "his apparent size does not change!" - far off or near. And then he forgets the fact! Mr. Proctor tells us, subsequently, that, if the traveler goes so far south that the North Star 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 concludes 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.
There is much real evidence to prove the Flat stationary earth and it’s not just photos and hearsay. Many professional pilots and military personnel have come out as Flat Earthers, and have confirmed that there is no curvature on the earth, flights don’t make sense on a ball, and GPS is ground-based and more. Here are some of these very interesting interviews by Mark Sargent, a Flat Earther. They bring up some very compelling evidence and that will make even the most staunch Ball Earther think twice, or at least we can hope so. If anything, it should make you think about where we really live. These interviews are not made up or staged. They are real! You can prove their evidence correct with your own research.
151) If Earth were a spinning ball revolving around the Sun it would actually be impossible for star-trail photos to show perfect circles even at the North Pole! Since the Earth is also allegedly moving 67,000mph around the Sun, the Sun moving 500,000mph around the Milky Way, and the entire galaxy going 670,000,000mph, these four contradictory motions would make star-trail time-lapses all show irregular curved lines.
People have believed that the Earth is flat since the beginning of humanity, but the modern Flat Earth hypothesis stemmed from an experiment called the Bedford Level Experiment, conducted in the mid-1800s by a man named Samuel Rowbotham. Rowbowtham, who wrote a book named Earth Not a Globe, started the modern movement by debating scientists publicly and accumulating followers. In the experiment, Rowbowtham attempted to measure the curvature of the earth by observing the curvatures at a local river. He took his results as disproving the theory of a round earth, but future scientists have said that the results he obtained could be accounted for by the parallax effect.
In 1997, during work on what would have been his first solo album, Davies decided to reform Supertramp. The group promptly returned to recording and touring, which yielded another two studio albums before they split again. Supertramp reunited in 2010 for their 70–10 tour. A 2015 tour was announced but ultimately cancelled due to Davies' health issues.
One of the most asked questions about the Flat Earth is how Eclipses work on the flat earth model. This topic is even more popular now because of the soon coming total solar eclipse on August 21, 2017, across North America. This article will explain different theories on how the solar and lunar eclipses work and will also address how and why they do not work on the Globe model. Even though the eclipses are proclaimed as difficult to explain on the flat earth and therefore proof that the flat earth theory is false, in actuality the Eclipses when examined closely prove the Globe model completely false and impossible and the earth to be a flat stationary plane.
The first main problem with the globe model is that the next solar eclipse on August 21 is coming from the west. We have been told that the moon rotates around the earth from east to west just like the sun. But the moon during the solar eclipse is eclipsing the sun from the WEST. So how does that work on the Ball earth model? They say it’s just an optical illusion because of the angle of the sun. One scientist from NASA said its because the moon rotates from west to east! What? And another scientist said the the moon rotates around the earth twice as fast as the earth spins! Huh? When did that happen? The explanations from NASA get even more confusing and make no sense. If their “science” is so accurate, then why can’t they agree on which way the moon rotates around the earth or how fast it’s going? Something is amiss. Could it be something other than the moon eclipsing the sun?
That the mariners' compass points north and south at the same time is a fact as indisputable as that two and two makes four; but that this would be impossible if the thing, were placed on a globe with "north" and "south' at the centre of opposite hemispheres is a fact that does not figure in the school-books, though very easily seen: and it requires no lengthy train of reasoning to bring out of it a pointed proof that the Earth is not a globe.
Bottom line, there is some power in this world trying hard to make people live this illusion that earth is not the center of this universe and that we came from single cells. In other words, no God and all is just a matter of random toss of a lucky dice .... my scientific answer to these people is WTF why you do not want to wake up and open your eyes. It took me 30 Thirty YEARS to see this and I regret that I did not see it before. I feel sad that I found this too late after spending my life supporting an illusion a fake science ..... :(
72.) Astronomers tell us that, in consequence of the Earth's "rotundity," the perpendicular walls of buildings are, nowhere, parallel, and that even the walls of houses on opposite sides of a street are not! But, since all observation fails to find any evidence of this want of parallelism which theory demands, the idea must be renounced as being absurd and in opposition to all well-known facts. This is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
149) Throughout thousands of years the same constellations have remained fixed in their same patterns without moving out of position whatsoever. If the Earth were a big ball spinning around a bigger Sun spinning around a bigger galaxy shooting off from the Biggest Bang as NASA claims, it is impossible that the constellations would remain so fixed. Based on their model, we should, in fact, have an entirely different night sky every single night and never repeat exactly the same star pattern twice.
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.
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.
aking our ideal point of departure to be at Valentia, we consider ourselves at St. John's, the 1665 miles of water between us and Valentia would just as well "curvate" downwards as it did in the other case! Now, since the direction in which the Earth is said to "curvate" is interchangeable – depending, indeed, upon the position occupied by a man upon its surface – the thing is utterly absurd; and it follows that the theory is an outrage , and that the Earth does not "curvate" at all: – an evident proof that the Earth is not a globe.