In other words: If so many planets that were created in different locations and under different circumstances show the same property, it’s likely that our own planet has the same property as well. All of our observations show that other planets are spherical (and since we know how they’re created, it’s also obvious why they take this shape). Unless we have a very good reason to think otherwise (which we don’t), our planet is very likely the same.

136) Many people think that modern astronomy’s ability to accurately predict lunar and solar eclipses is a result and proof positive of the heliocentric theory of the universe. The fact of the matter however is that eclipses have been accurately predicted by cultures worldwide for thousands of years before the “heliocentric ball-Earth” was even a glimmer in Copernicus’ imagination. Ptolemy in the 1st century A.D. accurately predicted eclipses for six hundred years on the basis of a flat, stationary Earth with equal precision as anyone living today. All the way back in 600 B.C. Thales accurately predicted an eclipse which ended the war between the Medes and Lydians. Eclipses happen regularly with precision in 18 year cycles, so regardless of geocentric or heliocentric, flat or globe Earth cosmologies, eclipses can be accurately calculated independent of such factors.


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.
So the point is we have no idea what is below us. We can not dig down very far and find out. Or at least we have not dug down more than 7.5 miles so far… But if the earth is flat you could theoretically dig through it. But we have not dug down more than 7.5 miles, which is nothing compared to the 8,000 mile diameter they give for the earth…. So the point is we can’t dig down very far so we don’t know…
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.
71) It is often possible to see the Chicago skyline from sea-level 60 miles away across Lake Michigan. In 2015 after photographer Joshua Nowicki photographed this phenomenon several news channels quickly claimed his picture to be a “superior mirage,” an atmospheric anomaly caused by temperature inversion. While these certainly do occur, the skyline in question was facing right-side up and clearly seen unlike a hazy illusory mirage, and on a ball-Earth 25,000 miles in circumference should be 2,400 feet below the horizon.
Read Genesis 1 again and be honest with yourself. Which earth is it describing? Is the Bible describing a spinning ball hurling around a giant sun, with no security from meteorites and no solid foundation, in a vast universe? Or is it describing a flat stationary earth inside a protective glass dome, with a close sun and moon, where we are set on a firm foundation with no need to fear meteorites or aliens from outer space; a place where God is close and above us, not in some distant corner of the universe?

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 only explanation which has been given of this phenomenon is the refraction caused by the earth’s atmosphere. This, at first sight, is a plausible and fairly satisfactory solution; but on carefully examining the subject, it is found to be utterly inadequate; and those who have recourse to it cannot be aware that the refraction of an object and that of a shadow are in opposite directions. An object by refraction is bent upwards; but the shadow of any object is bent downwards, as will be seen by the following very simple experiment. Take a plain white shallow basin, and place it ten or twelve inches from a light in such a position that the shadow of the edge of the basin touches the centre of the bottom. Hold a rod vertically over and on the edge of the shadow, to denote its true position. Now let water be gradually poured into the basin, and the shadow will be seen to recede or shorten inwards and downwards; but if a rod or a spoon is allowed to rest, with its upper end towards the light, and the lower end in the bottom of the vessel, it will be seen, as the water is poured in, to bend upwards–thus proving that if refraction operated at all, it would do so by elevating the moon above its true position, and throwing the earth’s shadow downwards, or directly away from the moon’s surface. Hence it is clear that a lunar eclipse by a shadow of the earth is an utter impossibility.
 192) Quoting “Terra Firma” by David Wardlaw Scott, “The system of the Universe, as taught by Modern Astronomers, being founded entirely on theory, for the truth of which they are unable to advance one single real proof, they have entrenched themselves in a conspiracy of silence, and decline to answer any objections which may be made to their hypotheses … Copernicus himself, who revived the theory of the heathen philosopher Pythagoras, and his great exponent Sir Isaac Newton, confessed that their system of a revolving Earth was only a possibility, and could not be proved by facts. It is only their followers who have decorated it with the name of an ‘exact science,’ yea, according to them, ‘the most exact of all the sciences.’ Yet one Astronomer Royal for England once said, speaking of the motion of the whole Solar system: ‘The matter is left in a most delightful state of uncertainty, and I shall be very glad if any one can help me out of it.’ What a very sad position for an ‘exact science’ to be in is this!”

156) People also claim to see curvature in Go Pro or other high altitude camera footage of the horizon. While it is true that the horizon often appears convex in such footage, it just as often appears concave or flat depending on the tilt/movement of the camera. The effect is simply a distortion due to wide-angle lenses. In lens-corrected and footage taken without wide-angle technology, all amateur high-altitude horizon shots appear perfectly flat.
The Sun and Moon may often be seen high in the heavens at the same time - the Sun rising in the east and the Moon setting in the west - the Sun's light positively putting the Moon's light out by sheer contrast! If the Newtonian theory were correct, and the moon had her light from the Sun, she ought to be getting more of it when face to face with that luminary - if it were possible for a sphere to act as a reflector all over its face! But as the Moon's light pales before the rising Sun, it is a proof that the theory fails; and is gives us a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
These pictures are not optical illusions. This is reality! This is what we actually observe when we take off the blinders and really look at nature. The truth is so simple that even a child can observe that the sun is small and close. We are taught to ignore what we observe, to not believe our eyes, but instead to believe what the modern scientific community and public schools are teaching. We are taught to ignore the evidence of our true world,which has led millions of people to rejecting our Creator, through deception and lies.
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..

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 .
Both Davies and Hodgson talked of a reunion a couple of times, however, this would never come to pass. The first hint of a reunion came in 1993 when Davies and Hodgson reunited for an A & M dinner honoring Jerry Moss, co-founder of A & M Records. This dinner resulted in writing and demoing new songs, but it never went anywhere due to disagreements over management. Another hint of a reunion came in 2010 when Roger Hodgson approached Rick Davies about a fortieth anniversary of their very first album Supertramp (rogerhodgson.com). Rick Davies declined the invitation and any chance of Supertramp reuniting was squashed.
If the earth is flat we are held hostage to one of the biggest hoaxes of the last 500 hundred years of human existence. Every day I see evidence of the flat earth. Just look at how at time the clouds are not moving at all --completely still. If the earth was spinning at 1600 klms per hour --how could it be that at times the clouds are completely still not moving in the sky at all.(how could the clouds be moving at the same speed as the rotating earth?)When you look at a long distant horizon --from right to left --there is no curviture in the earth whatsoever. If you try to point this out to people they will think you have lost your mind.. we have been brainwashed to believe a lie which is very difficult to prove to the world populous that there is a flat earth. The deception is wrapped in scientific mumbo jumbo which is very easy to accept as it is backed up by a lot of scientific explanation--if you want to take the easy way out--you just accept that the earth is a globe spinning at 1600 klms per hour . But how does all the water of the seas stay stuck to the planet when the earth is spinning around at 1600 klms per hour? (gravity cannot hold water upside down--water will flow to the lowest point--how can that happen on a spinning globe?)
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.
The Rev. D. Olmsted, in describing a diagram whish is supposed to represent the Earth as a globe, with a figure of a man sticking out at each side and one hanging head downwards, says "We should dwell on this point until it appears to us as truly up," In the direction given to these figures as it does with regard to a figure which he has placed on the top! Now, a system of philosophy which requires us to do something which is, really, the going out of our minds, by dwelling on an absurdity until we think it is a fact, Cannot be a system based on God's truth, which never requires anything of the kind. Since, then, the popular theoretical astronomy of the day requires this, it is evident that it is the wrong thing, and that this conclusion furnishes us with a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
×