98.) 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&
150) If Earth were a spinning ball it would be impossible to photograph star-trail time-lapses turning perfect circles around Polaris anywhere but the North Pole. At all other vantage points the stars would be seen to travel more or less horizontally across the observer’s horizon due to the alleged 1000mph motion beneath their feet. In reality, however, Polaris’s surrounding stars can always be photographed turning perfect circles around the central star all the way down to the Tropic of Capricorn.
With increasing distance from the object, the earth’s curvature causes the surface of the water to fall away from the beam of light. Over one mile, the amount of drop is eight inches, but the drop increases quadratically with distance. Consequently, after three miles the drop is six feet, and after six miles the drop is 24 feet. This is the point of the Bedford level experiment—the curvature of the earth ought to intervene to prevent the mast of the boat being visible from much more than three miles, let alone six miles. However, for the light from the distant object not to be visible, it would have to travel in a straight line. But with a temperature inversion, straight-line motion would carry the light from a cooler layer of air into a warmer layer of air at nearly a grazing angle. The light cannot do this, so it continually is internally reflected, causing the light to bend around the edge of the earth. Therefore, with a temperature inversion, one can see objects that lie well beyond the edge of the earth’s curvature when viewing close to the surface of water.

Also many fans have asked about the agreement that Rick and Roger made concerning their respective songs when they dissolved their partnership. When Roger Hodgson left Supertramp in 1983, he and Rick agreed that the band would not play Roger’s songs. Their agreement was for Supertramp to become a vehicle for Rick’s music and Roger would go forward with his future secured by his songs and his voice. This was not just a gentleman’s agreement; the publishing company and contract legally recognize which songs each songwriter actually wrote. Roger has contractual approval rights over the use of his songs and Rick for his.

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.
This is compelling stuff, and clearly growing in popularity. My question is - how do you move on from here - from an online truther movement to some real influence over national or even international education policy? Because, forgive me for saying so, but you seem to have a mountain to climb in that respect. Pretty much every child on the planet is being taught the orthodoxy. How do you gain real traction to change that? I don't think the internet is enough by itself, do you? Is there any hope in the new Trump administration?
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.[1] 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.[2]
33.) If the Earth were a globe, people – except those on the top – would, certainly, have to be "fastened" to its surface by some means or other, whether by the "attraction" of astronomers or by some other undiscovered and undiscoverable process! But, as we know that we simply walk on its surface without any other aid than that which is necessary for locomotion on a plane, it follows that we have, herein, a conclusive proof that Earth is not a globe.
If the earth is a sphere like we’ve been taught, with different layers of rock and a molten core, where did all the water of “the great deep” come from? The “great deep”, a giant reservoir of water going to great depths below the earth, does not fit into the globe earth model at all. It does, however, describe perfectly the Biblical Ancient Hebrew model of the flat earth.
×