Since this image is visible above where the object is, it is called a superior mirage. Because cooler air has no physical reason to rise, a temperature inversion is a stable situation, with little convection as with the condition that produces an inferior mirage. Therefore, superior mirages can be very steady, much steadier than inferior mirages. Furthermore, since the refraction acts almost continually rather than at one point, superior mirages normally are erect rather than inverted. If one gains a little altitude, one can get out of the inversion layer, and thus avoid seeing a superior mirage. In my earlier article, I pointed out that this is what Alfred Russell Wallace did when he repeated the Bedford level experiment. Russell did not see the distant object that was his target, which is consistent with a spherical earth. Russell correctly accounted for this effect, but Rowbotham did not.
"By actual observation," says Schoedler, in his " Book of Nature," we know that the other heavenly bodies are spherical, hence we unhesitatingly assert that the earth is so also." This is a fair sample of all astronomical reasoning. When a thing is classed amongst "other" things, the likeness between them must first be proven. It does not take a Schoedler to tell us that "heavenly bodies" are spherical, but " the greatest astronomer of the age" will not, now, dare to tell us that THE EARTH is - and attempt to prove it. Now, since no likeness has ever been proven to exist between the Earth and the heavenly bodies, the classification of the Earth with the heavenly bodies is premature - unscientific -false! This is a proof that Earth is not a globe.
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.
12.) As we have seen that there is, really no south point (or pole) but an infinity of points forming, together, a vast circumference — the boundary of the known world, with its battlements of icebergs which bid defiance to man's onward course, in a southerly direction – so there can be no east or west "points,' just as there is no "yesterday," and no "tomorrow." In fact, as there is one point that is fixed (the North), it is impossible for any other point to be fixed likewise. East and west are, therefore, merely directions at right angles with a north and south line: and as the south point of the compass shifts round to all parts of the circular boundary, (as it may be carried round the central North) so the directions east and west, crossing this line, continued to form a circle at any latitude. A westerly circumnavigation, is going around with the North Star continually on the right hand, and an easterly circumnavigation is performed only when the reverse condition of things is maintained, the North Star being on the left hand as the journey is made. These facts, taken together, form a beautiful proof that the Earth is not a globe.
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.
“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.

If the Earth were a globe, it would certainly have to be as large as it is said to be - twenty-five thousand miles in circumference. Now, the thing which I have called a "proof" of the Earth's roundness, and which is presented to children at school, is, that if we stand on the seashore we may see the ships, as they approach us, absolutely "coming up," and that, as we are able to see the highest parts of these ships first, it is because the lower parts are "behind the earth's curve." Now since if this were the case - that is, if the lower parts of these ships were behind a "hill of water" - the size of the Earth, indicated by such a curve as this, would be so small that it would only be big enough to hold the people of a parish, if they could get all round it, instead of the nations of the world, it follows that the idea is preposterous; that the appearance is due to another and to some reasonable cause; and that, instead of being a proof of the globular form of the Earth, it is a proof that at Earth is not a globe.


121) When you observe the Sun and Moon you see two equally-sized equidistant circles tracing similar paths at similar speeds around a flat, stationary Earth. The “experts” at NASA, however, claim your common sense every day experience is false on all counts! To begin with, they say the Earth is not flat but a big ball; not stationary but spinning around 19 miles per second; they say the Sun does not revolve around the Earth as it appears, but Earth revolves around the Sun; the Moon, on the other hand, does revolve around the Earth, though not East to West as it appears, rather West to East; and the Sun is actually 400 times larger than the Moon and 400 times farther away! You can clearly see they are the same size and distance, you can see the Earth is flat, you can feel the Earth is stationary, but according to the gospel of modern astronomy, you are wrong and a simpleton worthy of endless ridicule if you dare to trust your own eyes and experience.
×