Star Trails Prove Earth is the Center of the Universe

credit to Eric Dubay.  This is so self explanatory that it boggles the mind how anyone could think otherwise that we are stationary, the stars revolve in the firmament above and the round ball, globe theory is utter and completer nonsense.

“Star trail time-lapse photography is absolute proof that Earth is the stationary center of the universe around which everything in the sky revolves. If the Earth’s supposed motion was what caused the star trail effect, Earth would have to be performing daily 360 loop-de-loops, inverting upside down, coming back around, and NOT rotating on an axis, otherwise the same stars would not remain visible in the sky for well over 12 hours (as they do), and would all move across the sky horizontally! The fact that we can see the same stars all night long revolving perfect circles around Polaris proves it is the stars moving relative to a fixed.”



25 thoughts on “Star Trails Prove Earth is the Center of the Universe

  1. justsaying April 27, 2015 at 4:19 pm Reply

    Interesting. By the way, why can’t we see Polaris from the Southern hemisphere? I guess it’s because it’s very close to the horizon? But then, how is it possible to see nice circular star trails in the sky in the Southern hemisphere too (example: Oh, and did you notice how the star trails filmed in the North hemisphere rotate counter-clockwise, while star trails filmed in the South hemisphere rotate clockwise? I’m confused, shouldn’t the stars rotate in the same direction no matter were you are on the flat Earth?


    • jwlpeace April 27, 2015 at 6:21 pm Reply

      Interesting is right. I’ve just begun to look into the whole Southern stars theory(s). How can stars rotate in different directions on a flat earth model? The cannot, yet could be due to the perspective viewpoints. One thing for sure is that the round spinning ball theory cannot be. If we travel halfway around the Sun, in 6 months our perspective of how we view the stars would be completely different since we are now some 216.5 million miles away looking at the Sun.

      look at this thread and see what you can glean.

      according to Eric Dubay, the reason we see it appear to circle is due to where we are viewing. Also similar to perspective about us seeing the Sun go down in the West, yet it is really just continuing on its circular path above us just a few thousand miles above.

      “Which direction is the camera facing exactly? And what do the star trails to the North look like from there? I would like to see some independent astrophotographers in the Southern hemi-flat film star trails simultaneously North and South (and East and West too, if possible). I would also like to know the inclination of the camera. How high in the sky is the center of this rotation? Does it get higher and higher the further South you travel? And at the fake South Pole, is fake Sigma Octantis exactly overhead as it should be? Do ALL the visible stars in the sky there rotate around this central point as they do around Polaris? All of these must happen to fit the ball model. The burden of proof is completely on the ballers. ”

      This also explains why we cannot see all stars in the sky. They are too close and when we go south we see those stars but not northern. If things are closer to Earth we would not see them all. The fact that telescopes never have to move at night except for ‘drift’ is another argument for FE. If we are spinning at 1,000 mph, going around the Sun at 1,000 mpSECOND, then going around the Milky Way at some 500,000mph all the while still accelerating a the speed of light from the Big Bang…and the no adjustment of your telescope is needed…WTF?

      Interestingly, the whole 23.5 degree tilt of the Earth was created because down at the Tropic of Cancer, (which just happens to be 23.5 degree) they reported being able to see the North pole star. If on a globe, you should not of been able to see the North star past the Equator, so they just tilted the Earth and made up “processional axis rotation”.

      Also, according to current legend, the South pole star is not visible by the naked eye, or even with a store bought telescope, so once again we have to take the scientists, err storytellers word for it.

      hope this helps a little


      • globalfoolingTim January 15, 2017 at 11:56 am

        Note that the southern tropic is Capricorn, not Cancer.

        But the answer to this conundrum, whereby star trails in the north travel ACW, but those in the south appear to travel CW, lies in the determination of the centre of rotation.
        Clearly, in the north, the COR is Polaris.
        But in the south, the COR is not defined.
        We are told that it is sigma octantis; but this star and its associated Southern Cross, rise and set in the same way as other star groups; ie they are peripheral stars in a great wheel, and do not define a COR.
        Thus, we cannot define a directionality without knowing a COR; for example, if the COR is above the line of stars tracking L-R in the sky, then these stars are rotating ACW, which fits the FE hypothesis.
        However, if the COR is below the line of stars, then these stars are rotating CW, which we are told is the case; but illogically, for the reasons given.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Caleb January 16, 2017 at 4:24 am

        I lost at least 120 IQ points reading this bullshit.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Wojtek Duniec October 9, 2016 at 3:36 am Reply

      I haven’t thought this through fully, so forgive me if I’m ignorant, but I don’t understand how the position of the stars can vary depending on the time of year. For instance, Alpha Centauri is apparently visible in the Northern Hemisphere in May, but heads South after that. So on the flat earth model wherein the firmament spins around the North Star, how does one allow for the shifting position of some stars throughout the year? The stars are meant to be fixed in the firmament, so could there be another movement of ‘the dome’, ie like a rocking motion, not just a spin around a disc? And if that’s the case, then the cosmos is a place of rock n roll 😉


  2. justsaying April 27, 2015 at 8:17 pm Reply

    Thx for your answer and for the link. In the thread you linked I found this link, apparently showing what you see at the Equator:
    It seems like the stars rotate around 2 fixed points, not one???


  3. Steve September 8, 2015 at 12:44 am Reply

    If the earth was flat the star trails would be in the same direction anywhere on earth. Obviously in the Southern Hemisphere the trails orbit the South Pole. Point your finger away from your face and rotate it clockwise and and continue rotating clockwise as you point it toward your face…magically you’re now rotating your finger counter clockwise. Before you try to figure things out ask me ..I’m a Mechanical Engineer but you should be able to figure these things out on your own


  4. Firestarter May 16, 2016 at 9:13 am Reply

    The polestar (polaris) of course proves that the story is wrong (and humanity is effectively braindead). The star trails do NOT prove that the earth is the center of the universe.
    Since the 1970’s the government can send images to our eyes. The stars we “see” are not reality. Here’s the report from 1968 about an experiment where pigeons were sent visual images to their eye – Siegel “A Device for Chronically Controlled Visual Input”:
    This is also the explanation for seeing a “rainbow” which is just as ridiculous as the polestar (is it possible that no painter before WW II has ever painted a rainbow?).


    • Hugh Mungus September 9, 2016 at 2:32 am Reply

      How retarded are you? They show up countless times in classical art pieces. They have also been documented innumerable times.


    • Harmony September 9, 2016 at 5:55 pm Reply

      “Landscape with Rainbow” by Reubens in 1636:

      Therefore your statement that there had never been a rainbow depicted before WWII is clearly wrong.


    • SG Today September 9, 2016 at 11:00 pm Reply


      You seem to like to bluster, and leave it at that. It is generally useful to support an “assertion” with details sufficient to begin to let your readers understand what supports the claim(s) you make.

      It would be rather comical if you thought you could just make such “unique” claims and stop speaking; after which you believe you were convincing anyone of you ideas.


  5. jim May 23, 2016 at 6:10 am Reply this link cannot be viewed? do you have other link?


    • jwlpeace May 23, 2016 at 2:16 pm Reply

      Ifers was shut down a few months ago.


  6. Russell Stall January 11, 2017 at 2:18 am Reply

    False, this long exspore is aimed at a circumpolar star and proves that the earth rotates. Now, point the camera and in a direction that is not toward a circumpolar star and watch your theory fall apart. Take care.


  7. globalfooling January 15, 2017 at 12:16 pm Reply

    The answer to this longstanding conflict about the directionality of stars south and north of the equator is resolved with reference to the concept of the centre of rotation.
    Clearly, there is one in the north; it is called Polaris, and all stars revolve around it ACW.
    However, in the south, there is no analogous star; Sigma Octantis cannot be seen until one is anything up to 16′ south, ( contrast this with the visibility of Polaris in the northern region of earth ) and it is known to rise and set alongside its associated constellation, the Southern Cross.
    So these stars are simply members of the peripheral ring of stars.
    So there is no clearly observable COR in the south.
    These southern stars travel L-R through the heavens when looking southwards, ie from E-W.
    Now if their COR is above this line of moving stars, then their direction is ACW, which fits the FE model.
    However, if the COR is below the line, then their rotation is CW, as the globe earth proponents aver.
    But if the COR is below the line, then clearly, the alleged pivotal star cannot be analogous to Polaris, which is visible to everyone at all times in earth’s northern skies.
    The balance of evidence therefore fits the FE model.


    • Matt March 3, 2017 at 2:53 pm Reply

      Christ I can’t believe how many stupid people still exist in the world to this extent. Not understanding the intricacies of physics is one thing, making a decision to continue to be willfully ignorant is another thing. There is absolutely zero visible evidence how the Earth being flat, and abundant evidence, including our own observation of the Earth from space, that verifies that his round. It doesn’t matter, even before we were in space, people much smarter than anyone here figured that out.

      If any of you Fe folks have children, I feel really really bad for their lot in life.


  8. niva ruvio March 17, 2017 at 2:11 pm Reply

    you have observed earth from space?? Please tell us all how because presently humans have not be able to go to space even Nasa accidentally admitted they cannot get through the van allen belts which contain our atmosphere so its pretty safe to assume they damn sure are not observing anything from there either. Its alright it takes a bit sometimes for folks to accepts reality I know I went through it myself.


    • Tom March 18, 2017 at 4:13 am Reply


      The van allen belts are a product of a globe earth. You claim their existence prevents us from going into space.

      I’m curious; in your understanding: what is the nature of the van allen belts in relation to a flat earth, and what is the nature of space in relation to a flat earth? I sense a contradiction.


      • Tom March 19, 2017 at 8:04 pm

        Sorry – niva!


    • John Sims October 11, 2017 at 8:18 pm Reply

      When a well packaged web of lies is gradually sold to the masses, generation after generation. The truth seems uderly preposterous and it’s speaker , a raving lunatic.


  9. J Peterman June 1, 2017 at 3:20 am Reply

    What the hell did I stumble on… this is like the Twilight Zone… and you guys really believe this nonsense?? Well I say salut and good luck.


  10. Tom June 7, 2017 at 3:06 am Reply

    Well, its finally clear you really can’t even believe your own messaging, or you prefer to be dishonest to your loyal readers.

    You don’t think by deceiving them that they recognize ti themselves? Sometimes? Lack of honesty and admitting something is not totally correct is a sign of disrespect towards others.

    If this was a big deal for you, you should have jumped at the chance to answer some very specific questions as to HOW the FE system works. Never happened. All other voices are shills or being paid. How ridiculous or preposterous that sounds.

    You may wonder why anyone would make these kind of posts. It is a profound sense of reality and a bit of knowledge, as well as comfort in offering explanations or ideas to help others see the cracks in a proposed world view. And not by using obtuse videos or smart-aleck kids talking back to their teachers, ad nauseum, but by using reasoning and research about facts and reality.

    Science works, because bad science is always replaced by real science eventually, The process is self-correcting. Not that there aren’t powerful forces that can shape public perception, but you need real money to spin a false narrative over the long haul.

    Science has been doing its thing for millennia, and will be working long after we’re gone. You nor I amount to much of anything in all of this; but a few people that might learn something is a worthwhile cause.

    I hope you take this to heart, as there is no ill will towards you personally. I’m for better information, and have pushed back on non-FE posts when they had the wrong information. Stopping voices cold is not a viable choice, as do-gooders with a curiosity and support of reality will try to make a difference.

    Maybe we’ll touch base again after a break if an interesting post comes along. I’m very likely to continue watching to see how the public relates to the topics here.

    Till then.


  11. John Sims October 11, 2017 at 8:56 pm Reply

    I’ve studied the RE vs FE for several years. I could care less one way or the other. Neither effects my life style, paycheck or christian values. I only seek the truth. I do know that I don’t trust the government. They’re all about money greed and power. Global warming cost tax payers billions per year. It was all about a way to deceive and scare the public in an effort to milk them of their money. Once it was disproved, they didn’t scrap the idea and give up billions. They changed the name to Climate Change and it now cost more money. NASA has an annual budget of roughly 19 bil.. and for that we get what ? CGI photos ? In my opinion, it’s just another money maker. A scheme of lies and deception. Most wars have been based on lies… Bottom line… They can’t be trusted.. My hang up with FE is the fact that Polaris can’t be seen from the southern most areas of the southern hem. I’ve read all perspective stuff and just not sold. Good quality high powered telescope and it should be seen. I’m certain they have observatories down under… Now RE.. curvature of the earth. Based on the number 25, curvature can be calculated by a .318 factor. In miles, 1 mile has .318 miles curve. I live on the other side of the lake from New Orleans. Roughly 25 miles. N.O. should be 7.95 miles down ( curvature ). On a very very clear day. I can see the city.. And math doesn’t lie. Numbers are numbers. I think we all can at least agree on that.. So on a globe with a roughly 25,000 miles circumference. There is no way in hell I should be able to see the city.. I’m not asking for anyone to believe me. Do the calculations yourself.. So.. the debate continues.. I’m leaning more FE than RE but aren’t totally sold either way.


  12. Glenn S. December 31, 2017 at 5:54 pm Reply

    John Sims, thank you. This is where I’m at, as well. Yours is the first logical and genuine seeking of the truth I have seen in any of these discussions. The R.E. proponents call the flat earthers crazy, and moronic. The F.E. proponents call the round earthers stupid and idiot. Neither side however, seems able to PROVE their theory. Oh sure, each side can sway your viewpoint with supporting evidence, but evidence is not proof! Both sides have good arguments. I’m surprised to be saying that, as I always found flat earth theory to be pretty out there. However, as I force myself to listen more and more, they do make some pretty compelling and valid points. So, you have my attention. I just need a little more, either way. I absolutely do not trust ANYTHING government or NASA. I want to see some amateur star trail pics from each hemisphere. Some pointing north, some south. I want them all taken from known locations for my own verification. I want the pictures raw, and unedited and able to be dissected to prove they’re legit. If I had the money, I would go out and do it myself, but it’s quite an undertaking to travel around (errrr across?) the world taking pics of stars. I would also love ancient calculations by Eratosthenes “proving” round earth to be picked apart and show me why he was wrong. But like John said above, it doesn’t affect my life, one way or the other. I’m still a slave to the government and the Rothschilds system. I just want the truth. There is no reason for the powers that be to lie to everyone, and yet… Here we are.

    Sorry for the double post. Site needs an edit button.


  13. jtb2017 February 7, 2018 at 9:55 pm Reply

    Justsaying, We don’t see light: we see color, or a resonant frequency in the visual spectrum. A telescope magnifies: makes things look bigger; it doesn’t amplify the magnitude of frequencies producing color. With distance, the magnitude of frequencies producing color diminish. That may be why Polaris and the Southern Cross are not visible from long distances.

    To see Polaris we face north and stars appear to rotate CCW. To see the Southern Cross we do an about face and stars appear to rotate CW. If we observed the Southern Cross while still facing north, stars would continue to rotate CCW.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: