95) On a clear day from the highland near Douglas Harbor on the Isle of Man, the whole length of the coast of North Wales is often plainly visible to the naked eye. From the Point of Ayr at the mouth of the River Dee to Holyhead comprises a 50 mile stretch which has also been repeatedly found to be perfectly horizontal. If the Earth actually had curvature of 8 inches per mile squared, as NASA and modern astronomy claim, the 50 mile length of Welsh coast seen along the horizon in Liverpool Bay would have to decline from the center-point an easily detectable 416 feet on each side!

143) People claim that if the Earth were flat, with the Sun circling over and around us, we should be able to see the Sun from everywhere all over the Earth, and there should be daylight even at night-time. Since the Sun is NOT 93 million miles away but rather just a few thousand and shining down like a spotlight, once it has moved significantly far enough away from your location it becomes invisible beyond the horizon and daylight slowly fades until it completely disappears. If the Sun were 93 million miles away and the Earth a spinning ball, the transition from daylight to night would instead be almost instantaneous as you passed the terminator line.

88.) If we could – after our minds had once been opened to the light of Truth – conceive of a globular body on the surface of which human beings could exist, the power – no matter by what name it be called – that would hold them on would, then, necessarily, have to be so constraining and cogent that they could not live; the waters of the oceans would have to be as a solid mass, for motion would be impossible. But we not only exist, but live and move; and the water of the ocean skips and dances like a thing of life and beauty! This is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

166) The “geostationary communications satellite” was first created by Freemason science-fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke and supposedly became science-fact just a decade later. Before this, radio, television, and navigation systems like LORAN and DECCA were already well-established and worked fine using only ground-based technologies. Nowadays huge fibre-optics cables connect the internet across oceans, gigantic cell towers triangulate GPS signals, and ionospheric propagation allows radio waves to be bounced all without the aid of the science-fiction best-seller known as “satellites.”

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..
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.
70.) Mr. Lockyer, in describing his picture of the supposed proof of the Earth's rotundity by means of ships rounding a "hill of water," uses these words: – "Diagram showing how, when we suppose the earth is round, we explain how it is that ships at sea appear as they do." This is utterly unworthy of the name of Science! A science that begins by supposing, and ends by explaining the supposition, is, from beginning to end, a mere farce. The men who can do nothing better than amuse themselves in this way must be denounced as dreamers only, and their leading dogma a delusion. This is a proof that Earth, not a globe.
53) At places of comparable latitude North and South, the Sun behaves very differently than it would on a spinning ball Earth but precisely how it should on a flat Earth. For example, the longest summer days North of the equator are much longer than those South of the equator, and the shortest winter days North of the equator are much shorter than the shortest South of the equator. This is inexplicable on a uniformly spinning, wobbling ball Earth but fits exactly on the flat model with the Sun traveling circles over and around the Earth from Tropic to Tropic.
Well I dont rule out a creator because so many things were by design. Look at how some animals protect themselves. Take a skunk, that is ingenious, but doubt it was through evolution. Look at a raccoon, cool looking mast dont you think, that's what Hollywood says as well. Look a all males, their penis retracts when not in use, hmm somebody was thinking. No, not evolution but careful breeding by some one. Probably many Somebodies came here and created their own species, that's why we look a little different from continent to continent. who knows how far back it goes, maybe all mammals were created by somebody. But then whales might be smarter than us.
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.

84.) If we move away from an elevated object on or over a plain or a prairie, the height of the object will apparently diminish as we do so. Now, that which is sufficient to produce this effect on a small scale is sufficient on a large one; and traveling away from an elevated object, no matter how far will cause the appearance in question – the lowering of the object. Our modern theoretical astronomers, however, in the case of the apparent lowering of the North Star as we travel southward, assert that it is evidence that the Earth is globular! But as it is clear that an appearance which is fully, accounted for on the basis of known facts cannot be permitted to figure as evidence in favor of that which is only a supposition, it follows that we rightfully order it to stand down, and make way for a proof that the 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.
Newtonian philosophers teach us that the Moon goes round: the Earth from west to east. But observation - man's most certain mode of gaining knowledge - shows us that the Moon never ceases to move in the opposite direction - from east to west. Since, then, we know that nothing can possibly move in two, opposite directions at the same time, it is a proof that the thing is a big blunder; and, in short, it is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
19.) Every man in his senses goes the most reasonable way to work to do a thing. Now, astronomers (one after another – following a leader), while they are telling us that Earth is a globe, are cutting off the upper half of this suppositious globe in their books, and, in this way, forming the level surface on which they describe man as living and moving! Now, if the Earth were really a globe, this would be just the most unreasonable and suicidal mode of endeavoring to show it. So that, unless theoretical astronomers are all out of their senses together, it is, clearly, a, proof that the Earth is not a globe.

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.
so if the earth is not a sphere in space revolveing around the sphereical sun, then what is it. Its one thing to say that "its not that way" but its different to say "its actually this way not that way". So what way is it? what way are you proposing is the correct way? do you beleive this is the only planet in the universe? do you believe that the stars are only decorations on a flat backdrop? I'm not certain what idea you are proposing is the correct way of looking at this...
64) Quoting “Earth Not a Globe!” by Samuel Rowbotham, “It is known that the horizon at sea, whatever distance it may extend to the right and left of the observer on land, always appears as a straight line. The following experiment has been tried in various parts of the country. At Brighton, on a rising ground near the race course, two poles were fixed in the earth six yards apart, and directly opposite the sea. Between these poles a line was tightly stretched parallel to the horizon. From the center of the line the view embraced not less than 20 miles on each side making a distance of 40 miles. A vessel was observed sailing directly westwards; the line cut the rigging a little above the bulwarks, which it did for several hours or until the vessel had sailed the whole distance of 40 miles. The ship coming into view from the east would have to ascend an inclined plane for 20 miles until it arrived at the center of the arc, whence it would have to descend for the same distance. The square of 20 miles multiplied by 8 inches gives 266 feet as the amount the vessel would be below the line at the beginning and at the end of the 40 miles.”