174) NASA graphics artists have placed things like faces, dragons, and even the word “SEX” into cloud patterns over their various ball-Earth pictures. Their recent 2015 Pluto pictures even clearly have a picture of Disney’s “Pluto” the dog layered into the background. Such blatant fraud goes unnoticed by the hypnotized masses, but provides further proof of the illegitimacy of NASA and their spinning ball planet mythos.
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.
 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!”
Can someone make me understand of Curvature feet calculation which is mentioned in several proofs. As in 71 number proof ( or several other distanced based proofs ) That the Observer distance is 60 miles sea-level from Chicago buildings which should be 2,400 feet below the horizon. As per Nasa earth curvature goes down 8 inches per mile. 72 inches(6 feet) and 60 miles contain 60 x 8 = (480 inches) that is equal to (480/12) = 40 feet. How does it count to 2,400 feet?
23.) If astronomical works be searched through and through, there will not be found a single instance of a bold, unhesitating, or manly ,statement respecting a proof of the Earth's " rotundity." Proctor speaks of "proofs which serve to show … that the Earth is not flat," and says that man "finds reason to think that the Earth is not flat," and speaks of certain matters being "explained by supposing" that the Earth is a, globe; and says that people have "assured themselves that it is a globe;" but he says, also, that there is a " most complete proof that the Earth is a globe:" just as though anything in the world could possibly be wanted but a proof – a proof that proves and settles the whole question. This, however, all the money in the United States Treasury would not buy; and, unless the astronomers are all so rich that they don't want the cash, it is a sterling proof that the Earth is not a globe.
173) NASA has several alleged photographs of the ball-Earth which show several exact duplicate cloud patterns! The likelihood of having two or three clouds of the exact same shape in the same picture is as likely as finding two or three people with exactly the same fingerprints. In fact it is solid proof that the clouds were copied and pasted in a computer program and that such pictures showing a ball-shaped Earth are fakes.
The idea that, instead of sailing horizontally round the Earth, ships are taken down one side of a globe, then underneath, and are brought up on the other side to get home again, is, except as a mere dream, impossible and absurd! And, since there are neither impossibilities nor absurdities in the simple matter of circumnavigation, it stands without argument, a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
Another container ship made its way outward, as shown in Figure 11, a photograph taken through the supports of the pier at Virginia Beach. You can clearly read the name of the shipping company, Maersk Line, on the turquoise hull. What appears to be stains under the letters are the beginnings of an inferior mirage of the letters. Instead of a level of gray containers immediately above the hull, the layer of containers right above the hull on this ship appear a deep red. As with the other ship, in each succeeding photograph this ship is farther away, as evidenced by the decreasing apparent sizes of the containers and the ship.
If the circular motion of the Sun is a wider circle in December and Shorter in June and it still completes a circle in 24 hours, that Must mean the Speed of the Sun's travel changes accordingly right? Now a fixed spinning record will have one speed but depending on where on the record you are your linear motion will be different. Does this mean then, to achieve the change in speed for a FE Sun, it would need to be affixed to something unseen that is rotating?
191) From Pythagoras to Copernicus, Galileo and Newton, to modern astronauts like Aldrin, Armstrong and Collins, to director of NASA and Grand Commander of the 33rd degree C. Fred Kleinknecht, the founding fathers of the spinning ball mythos have all been Freemasons! The fact that so many members of this, the largest and oldest secret society in existence have all been co-conspirators bringing about this literal “planetary revolution” is beyond the possibility of coincidence and provides proof of organized collusion in creating and maintaining this multi-generational deception.

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...

If the Earth were a globe, an observer who should ascend above its surface would have to took downwards at the horizon (if it be possible to conceive of a horizon at all under such circumstances) even as astronomical diagrams indicate that angles - varying from ten to nearly fifty degrees below the "horizontal" line of sight! (It is just as absurd as it would be to be taught that when we look at a man full in the face we are looking down at his feet!) But, as no observer in the clouds, or upon any eminence on the earth, has ever had to do so, it follows that the diagrams spoken of are imaginary and false; that the theory which requires such things to prop it up is equally airy and untrue; and that we have a substantial proof that Earth is not a globe.


Can someone make me understand of Curvature feet calculation which is mentioned in several proofs. As in 71 number proof ( or several other distanced based proofs ) That the Observer distance is 60 miles sea-level from Chicago buildings which should be 2,400 feet below the horizon. As per Nasa earth curvature goes down 8 inches per mile. 72 inches(6 feet) and 60 miles contain 60 x 8 = (480 inches) that is equal to (480/12) = 40 feet. How does it count to 2,400 feet?
The first verse in Genesis chapter 1 are about the water on the earth before God spoke land or life into existence. Genesis 1:1 Verse 1 says, “darkness was on the face of the deep.” First of all the word “face” means a flat surface, like the face of a clock or the face of a building. Interesting that a clock has a circular, flat face under a dome of glass. The flat earth works in perfect precision like a clock.
It is a well-known fact that clouds are continually seen moving in all manner of directions - yes, and frequently, in different directions at the same time - from west to east being as frequent a direction as any other. . Now, if the Earth were a globe, revolving through space from west to east at the rate of nineteen miles in a second, the clouds appearing to us to move towards the east would have to move quicker than nineteen miles in a second to be thus seen; whilst those which appear to be moving in the opposite direction would have no necessity to be moving at all, since the motion of the Earth would be more than sufficient to cause the appearance. But it only takes a little common sense to show us that it is the clouds that move just as they appear to do, and that, therefore, the Earth is motionless. We have, then a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
As to the supposed "motion of the whole Solar system in space," the Astronomer Royal of England once said: "The matter is left in a most delightful state of uncertainty, and I Shall be very glad if anyone can help us out of it." But, since the whole Newtonian scheme is, today, in a most deplorable state of uncertainty - for, whether the Moon goes round the Earth or the Earth round the Moon has, for years, been a matter of "raging" controversy it follows that, root and branch, the whole thing, is wrong; and, all hot from the furnace of philosophical phrensy, we find a glowing proof that the Earth is not a globe.
79.) The remark is common enough that we can see the circle of the Earth if we cross the ocean, and that this proves it to be round. Now, if we tie a donkey to a stake on a level common, and he eats the grass all around him, it is only a circular disc that he has to do with, not a spherical mass. Since, then, circular discs may be seen anywhere – as well from a balloon in the air as from the deck of a ship, or from the standpoint of the donkey, it is a proof that the surface of the Earth is a plane surface, and, therefore, a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
The amazing thing is that we can truly find God when we discover His true creation. There is no longer a false foundation for Atheism and Evolution. God’s Flat Earth can only exist by design, and knowing the reality of His creation leads us to the Bible and salvation in Jesus! The sun is IN THE FIRMAMENT as described in Genesis 1! As you can see in the picture below, the sun is small and close, in the firmament, just as the Bible describes. You can see the sun’s hot spot directly underneath the sun on the clouds, proving it is very close.
170) People even claim to see satellites with their naked eyes, but this is ridiculous considering they are smaller than a bus and allegedly 100+ miles away; It is impossible to see anything so small that far away. Even using telescopes, no one claims to discern the shape of satellites but rather describes seeing passing moving lights, which could easily be any number of things from airplanes to drones to shooting stars or other unidentified flying objects.
50) If the Earth were truly a globe, the Arctic and Antarctic polar regions and areas of comparable latitude North and South of the equator should share similar conditions and characteristics such as comparable temperatures, seasonal changes, length of daylight, plant and animal life. In reality, however, the Arctic/Antarctic regions and areas of comparable latitude North/South of the equator differ greatly in many ways entirely inconsistent with the ball model and entirely consistent with the flat model.
Consider a sphere. Since a sphere has a consistent shape, no matter where on it you stand, you have exactly the same amount of sphere under you. (Imagine an ant walking around on a crystal ball. From the insect's point of view, the only indication of movement would be the fact the ant is moving its feet—the shape of the surface would not change at all.) A sphere's center of mass is in the center of the sphere, which means gravity will pull anything on the surface of the sphere straight down toward the center of the sphere. This will occur no matter where on the surface the object is located.

69.) Mr. Lockyer says: "The appearances connected with the rising and setting of the Sun and stars may be due either to our earth being at rest and the Sun and stars traveling round it, or the earth itself turning round, while the Sun and stars are at rest." Now, since true science does not allow of any such beggarly alternatives as these, it is plain that modern theoretical astronomy is not true science, and that its leading dogma is a fallacy. We have, then, a plain proof that the Earth is not a globe.
The songs Roger Hodgson sings that are often referred to as “Supertramp songs” are songs that Roger wrote and composed alone - that is how he creates music. He will often hear the musical composition first, then the lyrics come. Sometimes he will hear the whole song complete inside himself before he puts it down on paper and records it. When he was with Supertramp, he would make a demo of the song and bring it to the band for them to learn their parts. So Supertramp as a band never wrote and composed together, there were only two songwriters for the band. The songs Roger sings lead vocals on are the ones he composed the music and lyrics for, and the songs Rick sings lead vocals on are the ones that he wrote.
Music fans love when their favorite band stays together for the long haul. In a perfect world this would be the ideal dream, however, bands evolve artistically, experience personality conflicts, and other bumps in the road. Evolution typically means changes in music style, and unfortunately, member changes. Like all bands, Supertramp experienced its own evolution along the way. The band first came on the music scene in 1969 and had multiple member changes until 1973. The 1973 lineup would last for the next ten years and prove to be successful, but success could not keep the lineup together forever. After Roger Hodgson departed for a simpler life and solo career, Supertramp vowed to stay together and continue their success. They experienced this success in 1985 with their album Brother Where You Bound which reached the Top 40 in the U.S., however, subsequent worldwide success dwindled with their later albums and the band was not the same. Throughout the years, fans hoped for a reunion of Supertramp with both Rick Davies and Roger Hodgson at the wheel. As time went on, it became more and more clear that Supertramp would not reunite due to various reasons.
While it's true that unipolar magnets can't exist, this isn't a problem for the Flat Earth. This is because ring magnets, which are shaped like (you guessed it!) a flat disk, are capable of having radial magnetization. In a radial magnet, one magnetic pole is at the center and other is at all points on the edge of the magnet. A magnet like this can be found in loudspeakers, and perfectly replicates what is found on the Earth.
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.
Can someone make me understand of Curvature feet calculation which is mentioned in several proofs. As in 71 number proof ( or several other distanced based proofs ) That the Observer distance is 60 miles sea-level from Chicago buildings which should be 2,400 feet below the horizon. As per Nasa earth curvature goes down 8 inches per mile. 72 inches(6 feet) and 60 miles contain 60 x 8 = (480 inches) that is equal to (480/12) = 40 feet. How does it count to 2,400 feet?
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.
×