107) Ring magnets of the kind found in loudspeakers have a central North pole with the opposite “South” pole actually being all points along the outer circumference. This perfectly demonstrates the magnetism of our flat Earth, whereas the alleged source of magnetism in the ball-Earth model is emitted from a hypothetical molten magnetic core in the center of the ball which they claim conveniently causes both poles to constantly move thus evading independent verification at their two “ceremonial poles.” In reality the deepest drilling operation in history, the Russian Kola Ultradeep, managed to get only 8 miles down, so the entire ball-Earth model taught in schools showing a crust, outer-mantle, inner-mantle, outer-core and inner-core layers are all purely speculation as we have never penetrated through beyond the crust.
The higher up you climb, the farther you will see. Usually, we tend to relate this to Earthly obstacles—like the fact we have houses or other trees obstructing our vision on the ground, and climbing upwards we have a clear view—but that’s not the true reason. Even if you stood on a completely clear plateau with no obstacles between you and the horizon, you would see much farther from the greater height than you would on the ground.

178) People claim Google Earth somehow proves the ball model without realizing that Google Earth is simply a composite program of images taken from high-altitude planes and street-level car-cameras superimposed onto a CGI model of a ball Earth. The same could be just as easily modeled onto a square Earth or any other shape and therefore cannot be used as proof of Earth’s rotundity.


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?
It is a well-known and indisputable fact that there is a far greater accumulation of ice south of the equator than is to be found at an equal latitude north: and it is said that at Kerguelen, 50 degrees south, 18 kinds of plants exist, whilst, in Iceland, 15 degrees nearer the northern centre, there are 870 species; and, indeed, all the facts in the case show that the Sun's power is less intense at places in the southern region than it is in corresponding latitudes north. Now, on the Newtonian hypothesis, all this is inexplicable, whilst it is strictly in accordance with the facts brought to light by the carrying out of the principles involved in the Zetetic Philosophy of "Parallax." This is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
56.) 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.
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.
78) From Anchorage, Alaska at an elevation of 102 feet, on clear days Mount Foraker can be seen with the naked eye 120 miles away. If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, Mount Foraker’s 17,400 summit should be leaning back away from the observer covered by 7,719 feet of curved Earth. In reality, however, the entire mountain can be quite easily seen standing straight from base to summit.
×