10 Flat Earth Facts to Tell Your Friends
Here are 10 easy to understand facts that might work well as a conversation starter to anyone who you think could be interested in this, one of the biggest conspiracies of all time. However, if you tell your friends these facts, they might not want to be friends anymore.
But in my opinion, anyone who already believes that the moon landings were fake are very good candidates for being able to at least listen to flat earth ideas. That said, I do have friends who believe the moon landings were a hoax, and that NASA is a complete joke, but yet would have a very hard time taking-in flat earth information. So just imagine how hard it is to talk to someone who thinks we did land on the moon and that NASA is great!
When I say “Flat Earth Facts,” this includes facts about the real nature of the Sun, the Moon, and the Stars, as well as pointing out the non-sensical absurdities of the globe-earth theory and the lies we have been told, all for the purpose of deceiving us about the nature of the Earth.
Anyway, here are 10 irrefutable facts that should at least make people think…
- Moonlight is a cooling light, and is therefore must be some kind of light source of its own. If the Moon is not giving off its own light, then why does its fullness or lack thereof affect people? Why do Moon phases affect crops and farming? Why does Moonlight affect fire differently than Sunlight?
- The North Star Polaris has never moved from it’s position above the North Pole, and it never will. And all of the other stars in the sky revolve around the North Star. How is this possible if everything in the (so called) universe is forever rotating, orbiting, and constantly moving further out into space in different directions?
- We never see the so-called “dark side of the moon.” Why? Because a dark side does not exist because it is not a ball in so-called “space.” If you want a laugh, look up for yourself “science’s” explanation for why we never see the “dark side.”
- To the naked eye, the Sun and the Moon are the same size.
- As you increase in altitude in an airplane, a hot air balloon, or some other aircraft, the distant horizon always stays at eye level no matter how high you go. Not only that, it stays at eye level in all 360-degrees around you! Think about it.
- The official United Nations logo is a Flat Earth map. Also using flat earth maps as their logo are the International Civil Aviation Organization, The International Maritime Organization, and The World Meteorological Organization.
- There has never been a North-South circumnavigation of the “globe”? Why? It is not possible because the Earth is not a ball, and therefore there is no such thing as a “south pole.”
- Space shuttle and satellite launches always make giant parabolas in the sky, and even appear to the naked eye to come back down to the earth.
- The Northern Latitudes and the Southern Latitudes have drastically different kinds of animal and plant life. If the Earth were a ball, then the Northern and Southern Latitudes would have similar amounts of life. The fact is that Southern Latitudes have surprisingly little life, while the North is surprisingly lush.
- Neil Armstrong’s strange behavior and lack of willingness to do interviews for most of his life following his “One small step for man…” If he’s so interested in this “giant leap for mankind,” then why wouldn’t he do interviews? Being one in a handful of people to have ever stepped foot on the Moon, shouldn’t he feel compelled to make himself available for questions? He never stepped on the Moon. He knew his life was one gigantic lie, and he knew the lie couldn’t hold up to scrutiny. Therefore, avoid interviews. I would guess that his guilty conscience at being part of the deception ate away at him until the day he died.
Aplanetruth.info 
#1 – without a link, i searched and found a video on my own. A non-controlled “test” claimed about 2 deg F cooler in the light. I could have produced the same result with a warm cookie-sheet under the testing surface, which would proved nothing about moonlight.
There may be a controlled test out there, but this video’s claim was insufficiently proven.:(
LikeLike
Then if #1 on my list is ultimately incorrect, it can replaced with any one of a hundred other easily observable facts. How about the fact that a vacuum of space cannot exist against an atmosphere? Or how about the fact of Stanley Kubrick meeting with NASA officials and the very convenient timing of 2001: A Space Odyssey being released in 1968 (beta test of special effects) followed by the ‘moon landing’ in 1969? Or how about, related to #2, the fact that all of the stars in the constellations have stayed in their same positions relative to each other throughout the history of humanity?
LikeLike
I’m confused, so this is not a list of “10 irrefutable facts”?
LikeLike
Are you really that confused? Or are you just being a dick?
LikeLike
flatearthperspectives – easily observable facts?
“How about the fact that a vacuum of space cannot exist against an atmosphere?” – I have explained elsewhere on this site that no such condition exists. Atmospheric pressure drops with increasing altitude (like on Mt. Everest): eventually it is so low that only a very few gas particles are left – effectively a vacuum.
“Or how about the fact of Stanley Kubrick meeting with NASA officials and the very convenient timing of 2001: A Space Odyssey being released in 1968 (beta test of special effects) followed by the ‘moon landing’ in 1969?” How did he do effects such as dust moving exactly as you would expect in 1) a near vacuum, and 2) with 1/6 Earth’s gravity?
“Or how about, related to #2, the fact that all of the stars in the constellations have stayed in their same positions relative to each other throughout the history of humanity.” That is simply not true. Nearly 300 years ago, the astronomer Edmond Halley “…discovered the proper motion of the “fixed” stars by comparing his astrometric measurements with those given in Ptolemy’s Almagest. Arcturus and Sirius were two noted to have moved significantly, the latter having progressed 30 arc minutes (about the diameter of the moon) southwards in 1800 years.” (Wikipedia)
Any more “easily observable facts”?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lame. Lame. Lame. Your attempts at debunking haven’t swayed me, or anyone else I imagine, in the least. I really like the “effects such as dust” thing. Good one. And did you talk to Edmond Halley personally and apparently believe everything you read in your Rockefeller-sanctioned textbooks… for that matter, have you yourself observed any stars in the constellations move? I thought not. And right on… “atmospheric pressure”…*wink* *wink* Keep shillin, my friend.
LikeLike
Nothing will convince you, your mind is closed! BUT, hopefully some people looking here may have minds which are open to EVIDENCE!
LikeLike
And with that statement, you just proved that you’re a shill. Are they paying you double-time this week? First, it is the people who prefer the Geocentric model who are “open to EVIDENCE!”, as you say. Second, you hinted in your previous comment, the one about Stanley Kubrick, that you actually believe that people landed and walked on the moon… well, I’m afraid that if you believe that, there’s not much hope for you here, and there’s really not much point talking to you. Third, you say that “nothing will convince you”… just so you know, I was an oblivious NASA-believing ball-earther like yourself (although we know you’re not a real ball-earther… you’re a shill) until about 10 months ago, and so I was “convinced” (again, your words) of lies until that time… so it appears that with my willingness to consider new evidence, and the flat earth is the paradigm that actually HAS evidence, my mind is more open than yours. Imagine for a moment that you are wrong. Impossible, right? Finally, I’m going to give a more thoughtful answer to your lame three points above since I now have more time: #1… I’m not buying for a second your answer of “atmospheric pressure dropping.” If all that science says were true, then the vacuum of so-called space would suck out the atmosphere of Earth in order to create equilibrium. You can keep your “science,” and I’ll stick with God-given common sense. #2… Well, I already covered this a little bit, but you basically ask (and I know you’re not really asking, you’re just shilling in order to plant seeds of doubt) “How could they fake dust and people moving around at 1/6 of the Earth’s gravity?” Are you serious about that (again, I know you’re not)? Stanley and his crew faked that EASILY. Simply film everything at regular speed, and then slow it down for broadcast. Yes, it really was that simple. I suppose you believe that they actually took car parts up there and assembled a car-like vehicle to drive around on the Moon? #3… Regarding the movement of the parallax of stars in the constellations: you say that Edmond Halley, who lived around the 1700’s, discovered that TWO stars had moved as compared to some ancient astronomer’s measurements. Holy cow, that is quite lame. First, you’re quoting Wikipedia… the bastion of integrity. Second, even if this were true, which I highly doubt, you’re saying that Halley observed TWO stars move… and that’s out of how many total stars? And finally, apparently it’s just you and Halley who have observed these measly two stars moving their parallax. Funny that you had to go back 300 years to find someone who CLAIMED to have seen movement. And not only did you have to go back three centuries, but you are citing a so-called “scientist” who was most likely part of the heliocentric deception himself. He’s got a freaking comet named after him for God’s sake. So don’t give me no “Edmond Halley” said so crap. You can keep him, Tyson, Bill Nye, Cox and like. Again, I’ll stick to my own observations.
LikeLike
So I’m a shill! Is that, “an accomplice of a confidence trickster or swindler who poses as a genuine customer to entice or encourage others”, or the FE version, “someone with a little scientific knowledge which makes FE theory look stupid”?
I am indeed open to evidence. You say it is “the flat earth is the paradigm that actually HAS evidence”. Well why does no one ever give the evidence? Or by evidence do you mean science and logic free YouTube videos, which can be debunked in less time than it takes to watch them? Is there REAL evidence?
Your comments about the vacuum of space show that you have more “God-given ignorance” than “God-given common sense”. The good bit for you is that if you want to you CAN learn! Vacuums “suck” do they? What is a vacuum? Literally nothing! Nothing can “do” nothing! Vacuums do not “suck”, regions of higher pressure “blow” into regions of lower pressure. By your logic there should be no pressure difference as you move up through the Earth’s atmosphere, as the lower pressure should “suck” air up to equalise the pressures. Gravity holds the atmosphere in place with no abrupt cut-off point, but a gradual decrease of pressure as you move further out.
For your “dust” comment to be valid, Kubrick must have also used a vast vacuum chamber, as the dust shows that it is NOT slowed down by air resistance as it is on Earth. Have you ever seen EXTENDED scenes from the moon speeded up, rather than a few seconds selected here and there? Most of the time it is quite obvious that there is NO WAY that they could have moved like that. I’m not going to answer your question as to how the rover was taken to the Moon, if you can’t even be bothered to check that out then it is clear you only want to believe things which confirm your error.
Finally, there are many other examples of stars moving over time, my point was that this has been known for centuries. Once again, FE proponents are quite happy to state complete lies in support of their case!
Stick to your own observations, by all means, just don’t force your false conclusions on others.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Look everyone! “Bob” just clocked in.
LikeLike
Look everyone! flateaerthperspectives can’t answer any of Bob’s points. (No surprise there!)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Look everyone! They’re paying “Bob” double-time. (No surprise there!) Dear Mr. Wizard, you actually believe that a few people traveled to a large rock 238,000 miles away in space in 1969, walked on it, swung a golf club, and then drove around for a while…. So what’s the point in arguing with a “scientist” such as yourself? You’ve exposed yourself just with that, so I can just stop there. And why, Mr. Wizard, are you spending so much time hanging around a flat earth website if it’s so insane? If I created a website claiming that the Moon was made out of “bullshit” — kind of like your pseudo-science — would you spend so much time on that website as well trying to debunk such a crazy idea?
LikeLike
That’s something I have never understood. I think they faked the moon landing (with or without Kubrick, it doesn’t matter), but how does that say anything about the earth being flat?
NASA isn’t trustworthy, but the idea that earth is round predates NASA by a lot. So just saying “NASA lies” doesn’t really say anything about flat earth.
What I am interested in is EVIDENCE. Here’s a forum thread where people are posting pictures of very long lines of sight – almost 200 miles! How could that be possible if the earth is round? This is the sort of thing that is most interesting about flat earth – EVIDENCE that does not fit the globe model: http://www.summitpost.org/phpBB3/longest-lines-of-sight-photographed-t44409.html
LikeLike
Harmony, the fact that they faked the moon landing(s), which means that NASA lies, says a lot towards flat earth. The reason is that the only so-called visual “evidence” you, I, or anyone else has ever seen of a globe earth comes from either NASA or Hollywood fakery. A lot of people’s first reaction to the idea of a flat earth is “But I’ve seen the photos.” Well, no they haven’t. The idea of a globe earth may predate NASA by a lot, but only NASA and the like has produced so-called visual evidence. If you establish that the moon landing was a hoax, it also discredits just about everything that NASA has ever said.
LikeLike
Harmony, there are some amazing photographs at that site. There is one of Mount Rainier from Mount Brunswick nearly 200 miles away! That doesn’t sound possible on a globe earth.
However, Mount Brunswick is 5,866 feet tall and Rainier 14,410 feet tall. The “hidden height” at 200 miles from an elevation of 5,866 feet is only 7,520 feet, so you would expect nearly half of it to be visible, which seems pretty consistent with the image.
So isn’t the REAL question here, if the Earth was flat wouldn’t it be common place to see objects over 100 miles away? After all, the photographs show that the atmosphere is still reasonably clear even at 200 miles. What is hiding mountain ranges from 100+ miles?
LikeLike
Bob, At 200 miles, the drop due to curvature should be about 5 miles. Mt. Rainier is less than three miles high, so I don’t get how those photos could be taken unless the earth was either flat, or round and way bigger than we’re told.
I think it probably is commonplace to see 100 miles away. You just have to get high enough.
f.e.p., even if NASA was lying about everything, it isn’t a proof that the earth is flat. there could be a zillion different reason why they are lying: covering up aliens or maybe that the earth is shaped like a butt – who knows? my point is that, while debunking NASA is interesting, i’m more interested in things that prove (or disprove) that the earth is flat.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Harmony, you are failing to take into account the fact that the photo was taken at the TOP of Mount Brunswick which is at an elevation of 5,866. From that height you are looking over all but less than 1.5 miles of that 5 mile drop. Put the figures in yourself at https://www.metabunk.org/curve/. The only visual evidence of lack of curve comes when objects are seen “too far away”, usually over water. This would be a REAL problem if light always travelled in straight lines, but atmospheric refraction can cause light to nearly follow the curvature of the Earth. This effect is called “looming” and there is a nice image illustrating the effect at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Looming_and_similar_refraction_phenomena#/media/File:Looming_with_towering_and_mirage_of_Farallon_Islands.jpg.
You are clearly still questioning the facts, which is always good to do, rather than being so committed to CT’s that you won’t listen to anyone else. Why do you think the Apollo landings were faked? Not one single piece of evidence stands up to scrutiny. Look at the so-called proofs one at a time, rather than being overwhelmed by all of the claims at one time.
Please come back to me on what your big problems with Apollo are or any other questions you have.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ok, the height thing makes sense – the diagram made it a lot more clear. So I guess FE people should be out there looking for lines of sight which don’t make sense on a globe Earth. Seems like this one is consistent with globe earth.
You ask “Why do you think the Apollo landings were faked?” I would say that I suspect/am willing to believe they were faked based on certain circumstances.
The cold war. Imagine it’s 1961 and Kennedy just told you that you are in charge of putting men on the moon. Best to have a plan B, yes?
-US history. I’m sure some will find this offensive, but the factual history shows that the US lies – a lot – about almost everything.
-No repeat. After Apollo 17 in 1972, no one has mounted a moon mission. In 45 years no one has wanted to go? Just seems weird.
-Missing telemetry. The data tapes from Apollo 11 – something you would think would be preserved – are actually missing.
-Nazis. NASA was full of them. This is another reason to doubt anything they say.
I’ve looked at the evidence that some people have put out. A lot of it is utter nonsense – like the people who complain there’s no stars in the pictures but fail to notice that anytime you take a picture of something bright, the tiny stars in the background won’t show up. However, I think some of this might be an attempt to ‘poison the well’ with misinformation.
JFK, Johnson, and Nixon were all criminal maniacs who had no problem murdering people all over the globe. I could easily see any of them order a fake moon landing.
So, like I said, all circumstantial. That’s why I “suspect” rather than “believe.”
LikeLike
Have I been blocked again?
LikeLike
Harmony,
I checked out that sight, and as far as I could tell, they were describing pictures within a curved earth perspective. There were no claims I saw of distances beyond that calculated from a curved earth.
Is that your experience as well? Or are there certain posts with longer ranges that you
found (do you have a link to share)?
BTW, your comment on (im)possible distances (almost 200 miles); the photographers seemed to think these were at or near the limits of their line of sight. Is there a distance limit you know of that supports only one side of this question?
Now I have to go back and look at their pictures (didn’t take the time yet).
LikeLike
Well, I’m getting less confused. You are apparently someone who makes false claims, and instead of simply acknowledging them, uses crude name calling as a sign of your character.
Yes, things are getting clearer.
LikeLike
WE ask that you, and all other new visitors to this site, to do your homework before throwing out the many many questions on questioning pretty much everything. Thats in a nutshell what we are saying. The answers are here, there are over 600 posts and videos. It takes time, just like the rest of us have put in.
LikeLike
I did my homework, as explained above.
The response was “if #1 on my list is ultimately incorrect”, which AFAIK sounds a lot like it is incorrect. For then pointing out that there might be only 9 “facts”, I get called a crude name.
What exactly did I do that was inappropriate?
LikeLike
Here is some more homework on #9.
Different life North and South – OK -why would a globe have to be different? There is also great diversity across just the northern latitude as well; NBD. Life is primarily based on local conditions, afaik.
Actually, now that you mention North and South, what about the great differences in their sky views? What about inverse curving of star trails near the equator (N vs. S)?
What we see in the sky, are, of course, direct observational facts. If there is an FE explanation for this, are you telling the public to go thru 600 posts w/videos to find the answer?
LikeLike
reply to: flatearthperspectives August 25, 2016 at 4:51 pm
A comment or two on a vacuum (#1), as defined by Merriam/Webster: “an empty space in which there is no air or other gas: a space from which all or most of the air has been removed”.
In the case of a famous experiment with “Magdeburg hemispheres” and horses in the 17th century, a (partial) vacuum withstood the pull of teams of horses. The only force stopping the pulling pressure was that of normal air pressure outside the hemispheres.
Now, consider what would happen if a valve on the hemispheres existed, and was suddenly opened. One might describe this as the vacuum sucking air inside the chamber. Another perspective is that the already demonstrated (and powerful) air pressure outside the chamber actually pushed air inside.
And this is how a vacuum works; at ground-level, the air pressure (differential) pushes air inside an object that that had been evacuated (a vacuum) until pressure is equalized. At higher altitudes, with decreasing air pressure, the energy to separate the hemispheres would naturally decrease, as would the pressure to fill the chamber.
As you reach higher and higher altitudes; eventually, air pressure disappears, along with the air, as your reach the (near) vacuum of space (as the definition above describes).
The hemisphere test can’t be repeated since the inside and outside pressures have equalized, and there is nothing to hold the halves together. Similarly, there is no pressure to “suck” the atmosphere away from earth, since a vacuum doesn’t actually suck, it just equalizes air pressure.
LikeLike
[…] https://aplanetruth.info/2016/08/19/1… Chemtrails – Polymer-Fasern (Engels Haare) in Deutschland gefilmt https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1Hjv… „Living“ Fibers Fell From The Sky In Germany https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFeAf… Globus Briefmarken https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43iCy… Willkommen auf der Erde Teil 3. Die flachsten Orte der Welt https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2asW… https://aplanetruth.info/ […]
LikeLike
No.9 southern latitudes have surprising amounts of life, but it’s different. The southern hemisphere is mostly ocean. Most life there is marine.
LikeLike
No.5, exactly what we’d expect of a balloon trip upwards from a globe earth.
LikeLike
No.3, look at the moon’s edge through binoculars at different times of the year. Sometimes craters appear as an oval, sometimes a silhouette. The moon shows slightly more of the far side each month. It’s easiest to do this by viewing the full moon each month over the year, near sun rise, and again near sunset.
The shapes of the craters are exactly consistent with a spheroid moon.
You can easily see this for yourself in ordinary binoculars.
LikeLike
What is a ‘cooling light’?
LikeLike
Only one of those (Number 4) is a fact. The rest are not facts.
LikeLike
The simple truth is really had to see in a world of so much half truths and pseudo science. If I was NASA I would have deployed a high definition camera on the moon looking back at earth which would provide valuable data for everyone to study….but alas they even haven’t thought of the idea (which screams ignorance to me) or they cannot do it for the obvious reasons we know. The earth is flat and we cannot escape through the dome. But they send a rover to Mars…..! Its all “fake facts” for the ignorant brainwashed masses to believe. NASA….we have a problem!
LikeLike
Nature abhors a vacuum. Think about it.
LikeLike