# #22 Is The Earth a Sphere? Lighthouses and Distant Lands

****

“The distance at which lights can be seen at sea entirely disposes of the idea that we are living on a huge ball.” -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (58)

The Isle of Wight lighthouse in England is 180 feet high and can be seen up to 42 miles away, a distance at which modern astronomers say the light should fall 996 feet below line of sight.

The Cape L’Agulhas lighthouse in South Africa is 33 feet high, 238 feet above sea level, and can be seen for over 50 miles. If the world was a globe, this light would fall 1,400 feet below an observer’s line of sight!

The Statue of Liberty in New York stands 326 feet above sea level and on a clear day can be seen as far as 60 miles away. If the Earth was a globe, that would put Lady Liberty at an impossible 2,074 feet below the horizon!

The lighthouse at Port Said, Egypt, at an elevation of only 60 feet has been seen an astonishing 58 miles away, where, according to modern astronomy it should be 2,182 feet below the line of sight!

Another great example is the Notre Dame Antwerp spire standing 403 feet high from the foot of the tower with Strasburg measuring 468 feet above sea level. With the aid of a telescope, ships can be distinguished on the horizon and captains declare they can see the cathedral spire from an amazing 150 miles away. If the Earth were a globe, however, at that distance the spire should be an entire mile, 5,280 feet below the horizon!

This is probably the most famous argument made for a ship disappearing on the horizon to convince all that the Earth is a globe. It also helps to explain why a ship could not possibly see a lighthouse at distance.

Not also, how the ship is drawn off center to make the mast appear more upright, yet it is tilted backward.  If it was a round ball we live on then the mast would be disappearing first off the horizon!

******

FIG. 1.

Let the distance from T to figure 1 represent 1 mile, and the fall from 1 to A, 8 inches; then the fall from 2 to B will be 32 inches, and from 3 to C, 72 inches. In every mile after the first, the curvature downwards from the point T increases as the square of the distance multiplied by 8 inches. The rule, however, requires to be modified after the first thousand miles.

 Curvature in 1 statute mile 8 inches. “ “ 2 “ “ 32 “ “ “ 3 “ “ 6 feet. “ “ 4 “ “ 10 “ “ “ 5 “ “ 16 “ “ “ 6 “ “ 24 “ “ “ 7 “ “ 32 “ “ “ 8 “ “ 42 “ “ “ 9 “ “ 54 “ “ “ 10 “ “ 66 “ “ “ 20 “ “ 266 “ “ “ 30 “ “ 600 “ “ “ 40 “ “ 1066 “ “ “ 50 “ “ 1666 “ “ “ 60 “ “ 2400 “ “ “ 70 “ “ 3266 “ “ “ 80 “ “ 4266 “ “ “ 90 “ “ 5400 “ “ “ 100 “ “ 6666 “ “ 120 “ “ 9600 ” 2

*****

****

Another great example is the Notre Dame Antwerp spire standing 403 feet high from the foot of the tower with Strasburg measuring 468 feet above sea level. With the aid of a telescope, ships can be distinguished on the horizon and captains declare they can see the cathedral spire from an amazing 150 miles away. If the Earth were a globe, however, at that distance the spire should be an entire mile, 5,280 feet below the horizon!

“In the account of the trigonometrical operations in France, by M. M. Biot and Arago, it is stated that the light of a powerful lamp, with good reflectors, was placed on a rocky summit, in Spain, called Desierto las Palmas, and was distinctly seen from Camprey, on the Island of Iviza. The elevation of the two points was nearly the same, and the distance between them nearly 100 miles. If the earth is a globe, the light on the rock in Spain would have been more than 6600 feet, or nearly one mile and a quarter, below the line of sight.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!” (59)

****

NO Curvature, No Matter How Far Away the Distant Object Is. This is Impossible if the Earth was Curved like Heliocentrist Theory requires us to believe.

****

(fake it ’til ya make it up)

Trigonometry Math for Curved Earth.  Miles X Miles X 8 inches equals drop of curve.

80 X 80 X 8 = 4,226 ft. or a drop of over 4/5th’s of a mile would have to occur, yet doesn’t because…wait or it…it’s all a mirage!

## Very Rare Mirage over Lake Michigan!

Heliocentrists are forced to tell us it is all in our heads and just a mirage…just like the Sun and Moon and Stars moving and rotating above us each day and night

Click on the picture from Tyler Folkert to really see it.   The lights look reddish because they are coming from over 80 miles away.  The red color (with the longest wavelength) is best able to survive the 80 miles through the air.  It’s the same reason the sun changes from white light during the day to yellow, orange or red at sunset.  I’ve had a  (now it’s up to) many calls and emails from viewers who have seen the lights of Milwaukee tonight at the Lake Michigan shoreline!  This is a VERY rare event, usually occurring from mid-April to mid-May on clear, calm nights.  Usually, of course, you can’ t see Milwaukee because the Earth is curved and Milwaukee’s tallest buildings are below the horizon.  However, once in a VERY great while, the lights of Milwaukee will bounce off a temperature inversion and then become visible along the lakeshore here in Michigan.  From the Minnesota Sea Grant website:  “In Rainbows, Haloes and Glories, author Robert Greenler reported that one April night the residents of Grand Haven, Mich. looked across Lake Michigan and saw city lights and a flashing red beacon. Their sightings were later confirmed to have been the city of Milwaukee, Wisc.

Earth is not a globe.

## 28 thoughts on “#22 Is The Earth a Sphere? Lighthouses and Distant Lands”

1. mahraiziller May 27, 2015 at 1:58 pm Reply

Nobody has ever seen Antwerp Cathedral from the English channel (150 miles away).
I notice none of the claims you make have ANY evidence to back them up.
You’ve just lifted them from the same stupid book that everyone does, and haven’t been bothered to provide any evidence to prove they are more than just stories.
Things aren’t true just because they appear in a book.
Tell me why neither I, or anybody else who regularly travels across the English channel, has EVER seen Antwerp Cathedral from the distance stated in this book.
I’ll tell you why – because like every claim this book makes, it’s pulled from the author’s arse, and you morons repeat it as if it’s true without providing ANY evidence.

Funny how you think that NASA fake photos, but don’t think people can make up stories.
Cognitive dissonance, anyone?

Like

• jwlpeace May 27, 2015 at 3:11 pm Reply

reversing the pt. can you tell me how the mighty rivers do not bend uphill and down hill over such vast distances of thousands of miles when basic spherical geometry says they should rise and fall tens of miles easy? here is the math.

Salar de Uyuni (or Salar de Tunupa). It is located in southwest Bolivia, near the crest of the Andes and is at an elevation of 3,656 meters (11,995 ft) above mean sea level. Salar de Uyuni spreads over 10,582 square kilometers (4,086 sq mi), which is roughly 100 times the size of the Bonneville Salt Flats in the United States.

The Salar was formed as a result of transformations between several prehistoric lakes. It is covered by a few meters of salt crust, which has an extraordinary flatness with the average altitude variations within one meter (3 1/4 ft.) over the entire area of the Salar. With the use of modern GPS technology, it can now be proved that the Salar de Uyuni is not perfectly flat. New measurements revealed previously missed features resembling ridges, hills, and valleys only millimeters in height.

#2 Is the Earth a Sphere? The Great Rivers
1 Comment

Basic Geometry and a Round Sphere

The Global Earth theorists for 500 years have been telling us the Earth is a sphere. IF the earth is a globe, and is 25,000 English statute miles in circumference, the surface of all standing water must have a certain degree of convexity–every part must be an arc of a circle. From the summit of any such arc there will exist a curvature or declination of 8 inches in the first statute mile. In the second mile the fall will be 32 inches; in the third mile, 72 inches, or 6 feet, as shown in the following diagram:

Measurements are quite easy to determine the angles of curvature based on 360 degrees and the number of feet of change per number of miles along a curved path. To determine how much the Earth falls away on the curve you take miles squared X eight inches. This is an inverse relationship so the farther one travels the greater the distance of feet or miles the Earth will fall away.

Let the distance from T to figure 1 represent 1 mile, and the fall from 1 to A, 8 inches; then the fall from 2 to B will be 32 inches, and from 3 to C, 72 inches. In every mile after the first, the curvature downwards from the point T increases as the square of the distance multiplied by 8 inches. The rule, however, requires to be modified after the first thousand miles. 1

Miles squared X 8 inches
one foot = .000189394 miles

Curvature of Earth
1 mile 5.33 ft. or .12626 mile

10 miles 66.666 ft. or 1.2626 miles

100 miles 6,666.66 ft. or 12.626 miles

So the farther one travels the greater the drop (or rise) in distance.

so not needing to discuss lighthouses, how is this even possible on a round ball Earth?

The salt flats are 100 miles long by 84 miles wide yet is near perfectly flat when it should have a drop of some 12 miles in length if the Earth was a sphere.

Which it doesn’t, so it cannot be a sphere.
https://aplanetruth.info/2-is-the-earth-a-sphere-the-great-rivers/

Like

• mahraiziller September 14, 2015 at 6:18 pm

“reversing the pt.”
What? Because you can’t answer the fact that this dishonest shit streak has lied through their teeth about being able to see Antwerp cathedral from 150 miles away?

“can you tell me how the mighty rivers do not bend uphill and down hill”
Water follows the curve of the Earth – that’s why the middle pole rose UP from the sight line from first to last pole in the Wallace Bedford level experiment, you retarded cunt.

It’s really very simple. When you have 3 poles spaced 3 miles apart each, all at THE EXACT SAME HEIGHT ABOVE THE SURFACE OF THE WATER, then if the Earth was flat, ALL 3 POLES WOULD LIE LEVEL WITH EACH OTHER WHEN YOU LOOK DOWN THE SIGHT LINE.
So it’s SUCH a shame that every experiment has shown the middle pole rising UP from that sight line, proving that the water follows the curve of the Earth, you fucking retard.

“here is the math.”
Oh joy. I love watching you geometrically illiterate cunttards fail at basic geometry.
This should be fun.

“Salar de Uyuni (or Salar de Tunupa).”
Literally NOTHING in your hilarious comment linked this to any evidence for a flat Earth.
What a fucking loser.
There wasn’t even any MATHS in there.
You don’t seem to even understand what mathematics is. That’s fucking hilarious.

“IF the earth is a globe, and is 25,000 English statute miles in circumference, the surface of all standing water must have a certain degree of convexity–every part must be an arc of a circle.”
Which is why that middle pole always rises UP from the sight line by about 32 inches.
WHOOPSIE.

“From the summit of any such arc there will exist a curvature or declination of 8 inches in the first statute mile. In the second mile the fall will be 32 inches; in the third mile, 72 inches, or 6 feet, as shown in the following diagram”
Wrong, you fucking moron.
That equation is an approximation for the height an object must be, in order to lie level with the horizon.
This is NOT the same as the amount the Earth curves away from you.
But do tell me why the fuck geometrically illiterate cunts like you think that the amount the Earth curves away from you, and the amount an object is hidden by the horizon are MAGICALLY the same?
Because you’re a bunch of gullible, geometrically illiterate fucktards.

The amount the Earth curves away from you is very simply:
sqrt((2*sin(360(c)/(2pi*r)/2)r)^2-(sin(360(c)/(2pi*r))*r)^2)

Where c is the ground distance to the target and r is the radius of the Earth.

The amount an object is hidden by the horizon is:
sin(90-(360*(c/(2pi*r))-arcsin(sqrt((r+x)^2-r^2)/(r+x))))*((((r+x)sin(90-arcsin(sqrt((r+x)^2-r^2)/(r+x))))/(sin(90-(360*(c/(2pi*r))-arcsin(sqrt((r+x)^2-r^2)/(r+x))))))-r)

Where again, c is the ground distance to the target, r is the radius of the Earth and x is your height above sea level.

The geometry is fucking simple, and explained here:
https://chizzlewit.wordpress.com/2015/05/13/working-with-the-curvaure-of-a-spherical-earth/

Funnily enough, you dipshits run screaming from it, because you desperately want to believe your geometrically illiterate bullshit that the amount something is hidden by the horizon is magically the same as the amount the Earth curves away from you.
Shame basic geometry – and even just THINKING about it – proves this is full of shit.

Your maths is fucking hilarious – you can’t even call it maths, it’s such bullshit.

“he salt flats are 100 miles long by 84 miles wide yet is near perfectly flat when it should have a drop of some 12 miles in length if the Earth was a sphere.”
Moron doesn’t understand the difference between something being geographically flat – having no bumps and hills, which is perfectly fine for a round object, which can be smooth and curved, you moron – and an object actually being flat as in not curved at all.
There’s a surprise.

But let’s have a look at all the things that you worthless cunts perpetually fail to answer, which all prove you’re full of shit:
﻿
Do please tell me how a flat Earth can fail to conform to euclidean geometry, like ours fails to do.
Explain to me why the distances between degrees of latitude are pretty uniform and DON’T increase by (tan(x)-tan(x-1))_/tan(1) away from the equator.
Do please explain to me why I was able to measure arc lengths of longitude DECREASING further south of the equator – something that is IMPOSSIBLE on a flat Earth.
Do please explain to me why the difference in the elevation of the sun at midday between Stalybridge and Bowes is ALWAYS one degree, when on a flat Earth it would have to be smaller in the summer and larger in the winter.
Do please explain to me how the sun can possibly rise and set in the southeast and southwest, south of the tropic of Capricorn, AS I’VE SEEN WITH MY OWN EYES, when on a flat Earth it is ALWAYS North of the East-West tangent line.
Do please explain to me how the length of day can EVER be longer for those south of the equator on a flat Earth, when this is fucking impossible, and yet it is every fucking winter.
Do please explain to me why the sun’s angular size is ALWAYS the same throughout the day and year, when this is impossible on your stupid flat Earth.
Do please explain to me how the sun can set at all, when the law of perspective says that this is impossible, because the apparent altitude of an object approaches zero as your distance to it approaches infinity – meaning not only does the sun have to be an infinite distance from you before it even appears to TOUCH the horizon, but because angular size can NEVER become negative (rail tracks don’t appear to cross over in the distance, you fucking retard), the sun can NEVER set on your idiotic flat Earth.
Do please explain to me how I managed to see the stars due south of me, when I was south of the equator, rotating around a fixed central point in the sky – in the complete opposite direction to the north circumpolar stars.
And do please explain how I saw this from EVERYWHERE south of the equator I traveled, which is impossible on your flat Earth.

DO YOU HONESTLY THINK THAT A GROUP OF PEOPLE STANDING IN A CIRCLE AND ALL LOOKING OUTWARDS, AWAY FROM THE CENTER, CAN MAGI8CALLY SEE THE EXACT SAME THING IN FRONT OF THEM, YOU FUCKING RETARD?

The Earth isn’t flat. Basic fucking geometry tells you that, you moronic cunt.

Cue the desperate evasion, because you can’t answer anything, proving you’re full of crap….

Like

• Paul Schober November 17, 2015 at 9:44 pm

That’s ridiculous. The Earth being a sphere does not mean that there can be no relatively flat surface features.

Like

• brett September 24, 2015 at 1:13 pm Reply

I am not a flat earther because I haven’t looked into it enough…but you seem fully on the side of believing the earth is a sphere…so maybe you can answer me this and if you can’t then you need to ask yourself why you can’t…but I don’t care either way so I am not afraid to be wrong either way, but if the world is a sphere then answer me this…

How come there is NO FOOTAGE of the earth that looks like it does from modern satellite feeds today from the 60’s and 70’s and even 80’s? Look at the JAW DROPPING and AMAZING footage from satellites of the earth and tell me why that same type of amazing footage was never seen back in the 60’s and 70’s? Film is incredibly light sensitive and they have had very powerful telescopic lenses for a long time and film could easily pick up the same images you see today decades ago…but yet there is NOTHING that was shown for decades that matches or even comes close to the type of footage we see today!

So what is our government truly so fucking retarded that they never put a camera on a satellite for like 30 some years? I mean come on clearly that would of happened like immediately…so my question to you is where is the footage and why wasn’t it widely seen?

Everyone has seen that crappy looking image of earth from the moon or space for decades and decades and that was always thrown around…but they wouldn’t share the beautiful footage of earth for decades because…????

So yea, please please please show me where I can view this old footage of the earth that looks even remotely similar to the amazing views we see nowaday (where we have the technology to easily create/similute/fake it)

If you can’t answer this then stop acting like you are 100% right about the earth being a sphere because that is a giant hole that needs to be answered. Where is that footage and why wasn’t it widely shown and seen for decades if the world is a sphere…if it all a big lie then that perfectly explains why we have never seen it til recently!

Like I said I don’t really care either way, but til I see this old footage or hear a damn good answer why it was never shown or able to be captured up until recently then I say that’s pretty damning evidence against the world is as we are told.

Like

• mahraiziller October 17, 2015 at 2:17 pm

I’m fully on the side of geometry, and what geometry tells us. That’s all.
All the facts I’ve presented above, which EVERYONE can verify for themselves, prove that the Earth isn’t flat, but is a spheroid.
It’s literally that simple.

We’ve known the Earth is a spheroid for a good 2,500 years at least – long before the invention of the camera or space flight – simply because GEOMETRY WORKS, YOU FUCKING RETARDED CUNT.

If you think that it doesn’t, then go ahead and DEFINE the shape of any object without using geometry.
The fact that you can’t do this is proof that your idiotic claim that I have to rely on any photorgaphs or videos (which you’ve failed to prove are not authentic as it is), is complete bullshit, and you’re just a geometrically illiterate cunt, trying desperately to make up for the fact that you’re obviously a fucking retard.

Come on, if you think that I can’t use geometry to determine the shape of the Earth, then define the shape of ANY object without using geometry.
If you think I have to SEE an object in order to determine its shape, then explain why BLIND PEOPLE can tell what a square or a ball are.
That’s right, by using GEOMETRY, you fucking moron.

And so it’s a fact that I don’t have to leave the Earth’s surface, or even see the Earth from space to know what shape it is. I can use BASIC FUCKING GEOMETRY to find it out – and every geometric fact proves that the Earth isn’t flat.
Deal with it, you worthless, remedial, waste of existence cuntwit.
Just because you’re a fucking special needs cunt who doesn’t understand basic geometry and who can’t be arsed to test the claims put to them, doesn’t mean that everyone else is. It does mean that the day you die, the world will only GAIN in its average intelligence.

So, I’ll be waiting for you to continually prove you’re full of shit by failing to define the shape of any object without using geometry, and by failing to explain why blind people can tell what shape objects are despite being incapable of seeing them.

Like

2. Rowie June 15, 2015 at 4:05 pm Reply

”The salt flats are 100 miles long by 84 miles wide yet is near perfectly flat when it should have a drop of some 12 miles in length if the Earth was a sphere”

???

Earth curves at 8 inches per mile, so that would be 800 inches instead of 12 miles..

Like

• jwlpeace June 15, 2015 at 4:33 pm Reply

thanx Rowie, my mistake, good catch. should be 1.2 miles not 12 mile drop, still significant though as a ball earth should not have these kind of elevation changes.

Like

• Leonardo Della Pietra August 5, 2015 at 8:21 am

Earth is round => gravity field equipotential surfaces are round.
In your language Earth bends => gravity bends => water surfaces bends.
Locally Earth has ups (hills) and downs (valleys), water flows to downs, ’till it finds an equilibrium point (lake, see) where its surface is in equilibrium with the local gravity field and its surface mirrors the local gravity equipotential surface.
Is it that difficult?
It’s called physics.
From how much you’re convinced of what you say, either you do not understand anything of physics and then we can stop the conversation here, or you are an expert and you can convince me. So, please tell me how you would explain these things (just a short list which comes to my mind now):

1) How are Moon eclipses possible in a flat Earth?

2) If the Sun moves above a flat Earth at 4000km (or miles or whatever) and moves northward and southward to account for seasonal changes in the north and south hemisphere, does it mean that it rotates faster when it’s summer in Argentina/SouthAfrica/Australia (the circumference of the flat Earth is bigger there, but it must still be covered in 24hrs)

3) According to which forces does the Sun change its path? Is there a kind of special gravity which makes it spiral north-south-north during the year and change its velocity as seen in point 2 above?

4) Everybody sees the solar disk is flattened on the horizon at sunset. From what I know this is due to the curvature of the Earth and to the different density of the atmosphere close to ground (higher pressure), which acts like a lens. Do you have pictures of the Liberty Statue, Antwerp Cathedral or whatever which do not show this effect? Can you provide calculations that can rule out this density change as the cause of objects on the horizon being visible even if they should not. Can you provide pictures at all?

5) Shouldn’t the Sun be always visible above the horizon, exactly as the Liberty Statue & Antwerp Cathedral if it’s rotating above the Earth?

6) How do you explain the paths of the ISS or of other satellites? It’s quite easy to reconstruct their path by using earth-based observations of flat-Earth-believers. Or else check if what you see in the sky is what a round Earth situation would tell us, as calculated in the website http://heavens-above.com

If you have convincing answers for these points I and the other round-earth-conspirators would have surely many more questions. At the end the flat-Earth may still be worth considering.

Leo

Liked by 1 person

• jwlpeace August 5, 2015 at 2:46 pm

We in Flat Earth theory don’t have all the answers.
I’m sorry, but I don’t have time to answer most of your ????, but most answers can be found on my blog or check out Eric Dubay’s latest ebook “200 proofs the earth is not a round globe” which i just posted. thank you.

Like

• mahraiziller September 14, 2015 at 6:21 pm

No, you don’t have ANY answers.
Let’s look again at all the facts you fucktards fail to address:

Do please tell me how a flat Earth can fail to conform to euclidean geometry, like ours fails to do.
Explain to me why the distances between degrees of latitude are pretty uniform and DON’T increase by (tan(x)-tan(x-1))_/tan(1) away from the equator.
Do please explain to me why I was able to measure arc lengths of longitude DECREASING further south of the equator – something that is IMPOSSIBLE on a flat Earth.
Do please explain to me why the difference in the elevation of the sun at midday between Stalybridge and Bowes is ALWAYS one degree, when on a flat Earth it would have to be smaller in the summer and larger in the winter.
Do please explain to me how the sun can possibly rise and set in the southeast and southwest, south of the tropic of Capricorn, AS I’VE SEEN WITH MY OWN EYES, when on a flat Earth it is ALWAYS North of the East-West tangent line.
Do please explain to me how the length of day can EVER be longer for those south of the equator on a flat Earth, when this is fucking impossible, and yet it is every fucking winter.
Do please explain to me why the sun’s angular size is ALWAYS the same throughout the day and year, when this is impossible on your stupid flat Earth.
Do please explain to me how the sun can set at all, when the law of perspective says that this is impossible, because the apparent altitude of an object approaches zero as your distance to it approaches infinity – meaning not only does the sun have to be an infinite distance from you before it even appears to TOUCH the horizon, but because angular size can NEVER become negative (rail tracks don’t appear to cross over in the distance, you fucking retard), the sun can NEVER set on your idiotic flat Earth.
Do please explain to me how I managed to see the stars due south of me, when I was south of the equator, rotating around a fixed central point in the sky – in the complete opposite direction to the north circumpolar stars.
And do please explain how I saw this from EVERYWHERE south of the equator I traveled, which is impossible on your flat Earth.

DO YOU HONESTLY THINK THAT A GROUP OF PEOPLE STANDING IN A CIRCLE AND ALL LOOKING OUTWARDS, AWAY FROM THE CENTER, CAN MAGI8CALLY SEE THE EXACT SAME THING IN FRONT OF THEM, YOU FUCKING RETARD?

The Earth isn’t flat. Basic fucking geometry tells you that, you moronic cunt.

And we can laugh heartily at your bullshit maths, where you’re such a geometrically illiterate cunt that you think the amount the Earth curves away from you and the amount something is hidden by the horizon are MAGICALLY the same thing – when basic geometry can show you that this is bollocks.
What a special little retard you are.

Big tip: Don’t go arguing geometry with someone who REALLY knows their stuff – you just come off as the fucking retarded cunt you obviously are.

Cue the desperate evasion, because you can’t answer anything, proving you’re full of shit….

Like

3. wade cooper June 19, 2015 at 12:44 pm Reply

The first video of the light house about 7.71 miles away does show the curve of the water. The rocks at the base are missing and only the white wall and up are visible, meaning that about 20 feet of land disappeared. That is not the curve the video projected. And here is why. First of all, the camera is NOT 2 feet off the water, it is up on a tripod for stability about 5 feet, if I had my guess, and several feet upshore from the water so it may be as high as 7 feet off the water. But let’s say just 6 feet for easy math. So looking across the water from a height of 6 feet that would put the horizon at 3 miles away. Subtract 3 miles from 7.71 and you get 4.71. square it, multiply by 8 and divide by 12 inches and you get 14.789 feet of missing shore line, rocks and people. This fits the video. Your claims are now proven false and erroneous.

Like

4. Malise October 20, 2015 at 8:45 pm Reply

We looked into it and makes sense if you start doing own experiments and look at all the evidence but this is just to show it was important to God otherwise there would not have been so many scriptures or even this scripture as well.
2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water…

75 Scriptures proving earth is not round and spinning

These are other videos

Like

• Bob Senior November 21, 2016 at 9:03 pm Reply

I don’t know anything about trigonometry or the like, I failed maths at school. But I travelled from England to Australia when I was ten years lox. What an adventure for a boy to run around an ocean liner exploring and seeing the wide blue ocean with nothing else in sight. One niche while approaching our next port of call I was amazed to see a light in the sky slowly rotating from somewhere ahead of the ship it was like the old pictures of searchlights in war movies when I asked one of the crew what it was he told me it was a lighthouse beyond the horizon and the light was in the sky because the earth was curved. Sure the lighthouse was out of sight but not the very direct beam of light coming from it. If the earth was flat I would have been able to see it’s source as a tiny bright dot. Eventually the light got lower and we could see the actual light on the horizon come into view. I don’t give a rats about trig I prefer to experience things for myself. Take a sea voyage one day and wake up

Like

5. Zippy the Pinhead November 20, 2015 at 12:36 am Reply

I love the use of blisteringly foul name calling to bolster a position that in the end is a theory. How cheap, disingenuous, and deliberately intimidating from supposedly educated person. A flat earth or round earth should only really matter to the person trying to figure it out and not cause anyone to get so insultingly passionate about what someone else wishes to think. Here are things I find which none of you seem to be able to clear up satisfactorily:

1. If a picture is worth a thousand words and then you have to fake it to make your case, shouldn’t there have to be a thousand words to replace it? Not seeing any NASA explanations for the Photoshop space pics or explanations for the Al Gore satellite images of the rotating earth with stagnant cloud formations.
2. Mathematical formulas are nice for the schooled, but they are not self-realized and are rather taught by those who learned them from their respective teachers. If these formulas were original thinking then we would all have been certain from the beginning in which shape the earth exists. They only are accurate if the values are genuine and the theories they attempt to prove are valid. If my starting theory is wrong I can build all the math around it necessary to give it fact when it ultimately remains a theory.
3. Gravity is still a theory after all this time. Before Newton had his “ahha!” moment the round and spinning earth theory had a major problem explaining the resultant centrifugal force the model would exhibit. Gravity is only necessary in order to explain how we can live on a spinning ball. Without the need to explain why things don’t go flying off the earth, weight and buoyancy become provable experiments as we can all see a feather and a rock fall to the ground without an equation. Therefore fact.
4. Between rotating at 1034 mph at the equator, hurtling around the Sun at 66,000 mph, and screaming through the galaxy at 600,000 mph it never ceases to amaze me how I can toss a ball in the air and catch it. Good thing the air around the earth spins as fast as we do and can handle the velocity of zipping through the universe. Even planes can travel east and west and arrive within the same time frames. If they go north or south they travel in a straight line as well. When a spaceship leaves our protected airspace, why isn’t it shredded when they encounter the force of movement at 666,000 mph which it was being protecting from. It is after all escape velocity right? It can also maintain the same 666,000 and even orbit the planet if they want it too. Does the vacuum of space allow them to continue to hurtle through space with us? Maybe, what do I know… If so what keeps the fuel in the tanks exempt from the absolute vacuum of space? Wouldn’t it be sucked out right through the fuel lines?
5. The earth also has to wobble on it’s access for it to be an accurate model. Why doesn’t the north star wobble when the earth does. For thousands of years it’s been in the same spot. Apparently it didn’t get the memo.
6. Why do the astronauts on the space shuttle wear harnesses and wires? Is it for their safety? Why does the one female wear the obviously computer generated dog tag around her neck which always hits her but she seems unaware of it even being there and never tucks it back inside her shirt? I watched the astronauts fall on the moon and against the laws of religion called science end up back on his feet without any balance to his body at all.
7. I want to believe in a ball earth but let’s face it calling people c***s and f***ing a******es and drawing mathematical equations only the brilliant priests of the scientific religion can understand doesn’t convince me. I sailed the seas for 20 years and to this day I can only take someones word for the earth being flat or round. And quite frankly everyone else posting here is doing the same thing. You never went out there and saw it for yourself so you have no choice. Face it we all lose when we stop being able to communicate in a civil manner folks. Thanks for hearing my point of view and it was a please reading yours as well except for Mr Foul mouth shill from the religion of science.

Like

6. Zippy the Pinhead November 21, 2015 at 5:49 am Reply

Thanks my friend. I probably won’t get around to watching the video but I know the Jesuit history and in spite of the things I mention that I don’t know, I actually know quite a bit. Have you been able to examine some of the ancient pre-flood artifacts depicting a solar system? The Jesuits brought the idea back they didn’t come up with it their master did. Before the flood people were told the same thing. Today we have TV. If you still turn one one you’ll never see everything. Turn if off pull the plug and put it on the curb. You have internet for keeping up topically if you want, but the TV? God is good; then he’s merciful; then he’s instructive. Keep plugging away my friend.

Like

7. Andrew A Nyberg December 15, 2015 at 12:53 am Reply

The bible was written by people in a time period without advanced mathematics, astronomy or geometry to be able to account for the idea of a round earth. So naturally any writings they made would reflect their understanding of the environment around them. So naturally the Bible would reflect that exact thing. The proven existence of the earth being a sphere disproves the 2000 year old sheep herders stories. Not the other way around.

Like

• jwlpeace December 15, 2015 at 1:19 am Reply

Then how do you explain the fact that the Giza Pyramids could not be replicated today, All 2.3 million perfectly carved solid blocks of stone, in perfect alignment with Leo the Lion in Orions belt, on 13 acres wereinafter some 10,000 years, that what was built on landfill, is still some 8 inches off level?
and Balbek, and Chichinicha and the Toltec temple, and the Nazca lines in Peru, yada, yada, yada…since we are so superior in knowledge with advanced tech and all…yet somehow we cannot figure it out…so what gives you belief that we have the way the Cosmos works correct?

Like

8. Shterrin February 25, 2016 at 12:44 pm Reply

Hi there, My sister went to a place called Commonwealth Bay in the Antarctic. She went there to study the effects of climate change on the penguin population there as part of her PHD. The penguins were particularly affected in this part of the Antarctic due to recent glacial activity.

She happened to be there in the month of December where she witnessed 24 hours of sunshine as the sun went a full 360 degrees AROUND her without dipping below the horizon.

I have experienced the same thing in Tromso, Norway when I stayed with my cousins husbands family.

You cannot get 24 hours of summer sun in the north and then 6 months later in the south on a flat earth. There is no flat earth model whatsoever that explains this. You do not need a degree in mathematics to understand this, all you need are a good set of eyes and you can observe this yourself, not that you may get a chance to travel that far south as it is mostly reserved for academics and tourists with money to burn. I am not a mathematician and have absolutely no interest in watching how both sides of this argument put forward different equations to prove how the other is wrong. I have found my proof, I totally trust my sources and my own observations and i have the added bonus that there is not a single flat earth believer that can explain how this can be so.

They can come back at me with faux science with confusing formulas. They can come back with stories from sailors that lived almost 200 years ago. They can come back with nothing more than insults and they can come back with idiotic and irrelevant questions in return. But what they cannot do, or at least have not done so far is to explain why we have watched the sun circle us through a 24 hour period at both ends of this earth. The sunrise and sunset times from around the world are sooooo easy to look up and verify and we all know the sunlight hours get longer and shorter through the seasons, and the pattern of daylight hours across the GLOBE can be used to prove that you would expect there to be 24 hours of summer sun, at least for a few days of the year at both of the arctic regions.

Watch and see for yourself as they either ignore this unarguable observation, just try to change the subject or just become reduced to name calling. After all, the Earth is a globe, simple as that, saying that it is flat does not make it so and neither does ignoring visual confirmations in favour of questionable and confusing faux science.

Like

• jwlpeace February 25, 2016 at 4:40 pm Reply

This is a very important question for the FE community to resolve.
With all due respect, I do not begin to profess the answer to this question yet I also do not know you or your sister, that has claims of a 24 hr. sun in Antartica, nor this person posting the validation.

1) DON’T Ask/Don’t Tell. I do know that the secret missions in the late 1940’s of OP’s Highjump and Deep Freeze were conducted post haste by massive military OP’s and then, in 1958, the Anarctic Treaty System involving over 20 countries was created where the Antarctic was declared “OFF LIMITS” and 71 ASPA, or Antarctic Special Protection Areas were created, so no one is allowed on Antarctica without express approval of this NWO Org, so the entire Antarctic is a controlled OP since 1958

2) Por Que no Reports of 24 Sun? Back in the early days of discovery in Antarctica we find zero reference to Midnight Sun (get it NIGHT) in antarctica either:
“I posted scans from books of Antarctica explorers, such as Shackelton and Edward Wilson, who mention night time in Antarctica around December 22 when there should be a “midnight sun”. I can’t find any writings from Antarctica explorers such as Cook, Weddell, and Ross of seeing a “midnight sun”.
Conversely people who have been there write about 4 months of darkness starting in April!
This does not fit the globe model at all but instead the flat earth model.

3)Eric Dubay’s take:

The establishment claims the Midnight Sun IS experienced in Antarctica but they conveniently do not have any uncut videos showing this, nor do they allow independent explorers to travel to Antarctica during the winter solstice to verify or refute these claims. Conversely, there are dozens of uncut videos publicly available showing the Arctic Midnight Sun and it has been verified beyond any shadow of a doubt.

58) The Royal Belgian Geographical Society in their “Expedition Antarctique Belge,” recorded that during the most severe part of the Antarctic winter, from 71 degrees South latitude onwards, the sun sets on May 17th and is not seen above the horizon again until July 21st! This is completely at odds with the ball-Earth theory, but easily explained by the flat-Earth model. The Midnight Sun is seen from high altitudes in extreme Northern latitudes during Arctic summer because the Sun, at its inner-most cycle, is circling tightly enough around the polar center that it remains visible above the horizon for someone at such a vantage point. Likewise, in extreme Southern latitudes during Arctic summer, the Sun completely disappears from view for over 2 months because there at the Northern Tropic, at the inner-most arc of its boomerang journey, the Sun is circling the Northern center too tightly to be seen from the Southern circumference.

55) If the Sun circles over and around the Earth every 24 hours, steadily travelling from Tropic to Tropic every 6 months, it follows that the Northern, central region would annually receive far more heat and sunlight than the Southern circumferential region. Since the Sun must sweep over the larger Southern region in the same 24 hours it has to pass over the smaller Northern region, its passage must necessarily be proportionally faster as well. This perfectly explains the differences in Arctic/Antarctic temperatures, seasons, length of daylight, plant and animal life; this is why the Antarctic morning dawn and evening twilight are very abrupt compared with the North; and this explains why many midsummer Arctic nights the Sun does not set at all!

52) Iceland at 65 degrees North latitude is home to 870 species of native plants and abundant various animal life. Compare this with the Isle of Georgia at just 54 degrees South latitude where there are only 18 species of native plants and animal life is almost non-existent. The same latitude as Canada or England in the North where dense forests of various tall trees abound, the infamous Captain Cook wrote of Georgia that he was unable to find a single shrub large enough to make a toothpick! Cook wrote, “Not a tree was to be seen. The lands which lie to the south are doomed by nature to perpetual frigidness – never to feel the warmth of the sun’s rays; whose horrible and savage aspect I have not words to describe. Even marine life is sparse in certain tracts of vast extent, and the sea-bird is seldom observed flying over such lonely wastes. The contrasts between the limits of organic life in Arctic and Antarctic zones is very remarkable and significant.”

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.

54) At places of comparable latitude North and South, dawn and dusk happen very differently than they would on a spinning ball, but precisely how they should on a flat Earth. In the North dawn and dusk come slowly and last far longer than in the South where they come and go very quickly. Certain places in the North twilight can last for over an hour while at comparable Southern latitudes within a few minutes the sunlight completely disappears. This is inexplicable on a uniformly spinning, wobbling ball Earth but is exactly what is expected on a flat Earth with the Sun traveling faster, wider circles over the South and slower, narrower circles over the North.

4) Other speculations:

Here is the key:
The sun’s orbit above-and-around the One Pole varies in 3 ways.
1) it rotates from east to west or clockwise looking down
2) its orbit widens towards the perimeter for half of the year and shrinks towards the Pole in the other half of the year
and most relevent to this thread
3) it moves up and down.

Again, I do not have satisfactory to me answers on this question. However, can you tell me why we still call it a Sunrise and Sunset for centuries, when heliocentric theory is the exact opposite?

Why did they close off Antarctica for the past 60 years to the public, except on specially approved excursions?

If in the closest point of travel to Antarctica in SA, Puentas Arenas, they receive 8 hrs of sunlight in the Winter Solstace, yet total darkness, just a 2 1/2 hour plane flight away? hmmm.

Why is Antarctica so different than the Arctic when heliocentric models show the exact same axis tilt models and how can the coldest places on Earth (Vostok Station, ANT) and the next closest land masses are some of the warmest places on Earth (S. America, Australia, S. Africa) ?

Finally, we do not have billions and billions of research dollars, or hundreds of scientists run by Rockefeller Universities at our disposal, or high altitude testing equipment, or…..

We’re all just trying to figure it out, yet to disprove heliocentrism is the key. Once that has been disproven, then all other explanations and theories become relevant…and I think we’ve debunked Heliocentrism quite well on this blog.
u

Like

9. Araw March 6, 2016 at 10:16 am Reply

If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.
why Does the Water finds its level and sits flat on a globe. Even in the smallest pond, there should be measurable curvature, after all it’s being pulled in by curved ball, it should never find a flat level..,
I’m not a fan of flat or round,Earth, but I wonder about lack of pictures and the horizon moving up to my eye level on the mountains of Malibu, or even on my flights to Seattle from the plain before it hits the clouds. And you can ask anyone who takes a direct flight from Los Angeles to Turkey on Turkish airline that it passes over Iceland, every year for the past five years I go back and forth. I’ve even asked the Captain he acted dumb and didn’t know the map distance and told me he has a straight route to Istambul/ Check your globe map and do some math and geometry and explain!!

Like

• Dark Star (@ColdDimSum) December 9, 2016 at 4:22 pm Reply

Araw – Please show me how you measured a small body of water as being flat.

Let’s say you have a 30 foot long pool that gives you curvature of:

R/cos(o/R)-R, R=3959*5280*12,o=30*12 ≈ 0.000258328 inch

Please show me you measuring water levels to within 100,000th of an inch over a 30 foot distance. That is SOME feat, it would win you a Nobel prize!

Meanwhile, Peter here:

Measured it very carefully over a small lake and found significant curvature.

Please also share with us your evidence of this horizon “moving up to my eye level”. Because I did that experiment using a Theodolite app which marks out level and I found exactly the horizon dip angle expected on a globe of radius ≈ 3959 miles

http://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com/2016/08/flat-earth-folloies-horizon-always.html

How did you measure it? Do you have evidence?

As for your flight from LA to Turkey why would it NOT go over Iceland? It’s the most direct route on a Globe. Get a physical Globe and a piece of string — stretch the string from LA to Turkey — here I plotted it on Google Earth (I don’t know where in Turkey you fly but it doesn’t matter much as you can see).

Look — it goes right over iceland. I bet that’s pretty close to the route your flight takes unless you fly to a Hub in the middle.

Now — there are REASONS that planes do not always fly DIRECTLY from point A to point B. They might be flying to a Hub, they have to honor the airspace of other countries and may have to pay taxes to fly through it, they might want to stay closer to land in case of emergency, they can avoid weather or controlled airspace (military especially), etc

So your flight makes perfect sense on a Globe. Do not confuse a Globe with the Mercator flat PROJECTION from that Globe that things like Google Maps uses. Plot it on Google Earth.

But, can you explain Qantas Flight 27 to me?

http://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com/2016/11/flat-earth-follies-flight-times-versus.html

Sorry — but, as you can see in my post, the typical flat map just creates impossible flights — there is no way it could fly THAT far in the amount of time it does.

Here is another one I would like answered:

What is the distance from the North Pole to the Equator?

What is the distance around the Equator?

Do you have any idea how big of a fail that is for Flat Earth?

https://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com/2016/12/no-more-excuses-flat-earth-fails.html

I’ve driven VERY long distances and flown to many places around the Globe — the distances on the Globe are fairly accurate. There is NO way these distances work on ANY flat map. YOu can get a FEW to work but that just utterly distorts others. That’s because, even mathematically, you CANNOT flatten a sphere into a flat map without these distortions.

Cheers! contact me on twitter: @ColdDimSum or just read & comment on my blog – I’ve covered a large number of the common objections and doing more as I have time.

Like

• jwlpeace December 9, 2016 at 5:51 pm

Dude,

measure the Amazon River, Nile, Mississipi, not 30ft. you moron
should be over 12 miles of curve and there is less than 240 ft. of elev. change on the last 2,000 of the Nile alone, proving heliohead theory false
Also, why do they call it Sea LEvel?
Because it IS~
aero PLANE
PlaTE tectonics
GEt it?
of course not,
you don’t want to get it

Like

10. Rick Scramstad September 17, 2017 at 12:46 am Reply

What I don’t get is why anyone with half a brain even bothers to engage with these moron’s. What a waste of time.

Like

11. Adigo May 17, 2018 at 6:40 pm Reply

That’s such a bullshit. Humanity knows that Earth is a sphere since Ptolemay at least. The geocentric model (Described by Aristotle 2300 years ago in De Caelo) was the official doctrine adopted by Church in year 350 cca) The arabian polymaths also adopted Aristotles view. So pretty much everybody knew the Earth is a ball at last since 2000 years.The difference of sight for some objects is caused by REFRACTION (athospherical) and can be calculated exactly.Do the math and you get the same curvature as stated!

Like

12. Brian Lonergan April 2, 2019 at 2:47 pm Reply

There is a lot of comments from Globers here from 2015, being very arrogant and asserting all kinds of BS, that now in 2019 they still have not produced physical demonstration of ?
I see in this thread all kinds of put downs by Globers ( one in particular ) a lot of arrogance, asking stupid questions and calling Flat Earth people retarded sever times ?
Well if this person would care to make a bullet points board here of these 90 questions now, and we will see what is what, but they should bring their evidence for their Globe, because they are going to need it ? I wonder if they have such cocky arrogance now ?

Like

13. ghjio April 20, 2020 at 11:16 pm Reply

Its very simple, There are two suns. The sun at the bottom of the arctic are from the next world below it, hence you ain`t allowed there.

Like

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.