Prévia do material em texto
<p>A Logical Response to Eric Dubay’s 200 Proofs</p><p>J.W. Adam s</p><p>FlatG l O bPenSpin Press</p><p>Fort Mohave, Arizon a</p><p>ISBN: 9781983190728</p><p>Copyright © 2018 by John Wesley Adams</p><p>All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means,</p><p>including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the</p><p>publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by</p><p>copyright law.</p><p>Dedication</p><p>To Mr. Dubay</p><p>Independent thinkers are not common enough.</p><p>Table of Contents</p><p>Examining Eric Dubay’s 200 Proofs</p><p>1-50</p><p>51-100</p><p>101-150</p><p>151-200</p><p>Examining Eric Dubay’s 200 Proofs</p><p>The most interesting flat-Earther I have found on YouTube so far is Eric</p><p>Dubay. I love the sound of his voice, especially when he says the word</p><p>“Moon” with a stuffy nose. Unfortunately, his research is critically flawed.</p><p>His claims leave out a lot of important facts, yet they sound so irresistibly</p><p>cohesive and easy to follow .</p><p>Since Mr. Dubay is a current leading authority of the flat-Earth</p><p>movement, I will reference his main work, 200 Proofs Earth Is Not a</p><p>Spinning Ball . In the two-hour YouTube documentary of the same name,</p><p>Dubay gives his reasons for believing that the globe-Earth concept is</p><p>ridiculous, and that it can be traced back to the Freemasons. He explains</p><p>that those who believe in a globular Earth are being fooled.</p><p>This section is not a traditional debunking. I do not wish to insult Mr.</p><p>Dubay either. I will summarize each of his “proofs,” in my own words.</p><p>Then I will give the most common-sense answer I can think of, trying to put</p><p>it into terms that fit the flat-Earth schema .</p><p>By using this approach, I hope to avoid the stalemate that occurs when</p><p>ballers try to use the wrong science to prove a point. Don’t forget to check</p><p>out the hyperlinks .</p><p>The following list refers to::</p><p>200 Proofs the Earth is Not a Spinning Ball</p><p>by Eric Dubay</p><p>1. The horizon always appears flat to any observer.</p><p>Yes, why wouldn’t it? We are like tiny ants on a gigantic</p><p>ball; it is too big to see it curving up ahead. I would expect</p><p>it to seem flat.</p><p>http://www.ericdubay.com/</p><p>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ax_YpQsy88</p><p>https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5Dy_Ci78cCvazRqdFZoTUVyN2M/preview</p><p>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ax_YpQsy88&t=1618s</p><p>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ax_YpQsy88&t=1618s</p><p>http://www.ericdubay.com/</p><p>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzeXFGgCMFI</p><p>2. When rising in elevation, the horizon always rises to meet</p><p>the observer.</p><p>It might seem that way because you remain in the</p><p>atmosphere, even in high altitude. You can’t see what the</p><p>Earth looks like from space while you are still in the</p><p>atmosphere.</p><p>3. Since water is always level, it could not possibly curve with</p><p>a ball-Earth.</p><p>Level does not mean the same thing as flat . When</p><p>something is level, it means it is positioned perpendicular</p><p>to the center of the Earth. There is a sea level that remains</p><p>level but still curves with the Earth.</p><p>Despite the claims of flat-Earthers, water can be observed to curve in nature everywhere you</p><p>look.</p><p>4. If the Earth is a sphere, then rivers would have to run</p><p>uphill.</p><p>This shows a grave misunderstanding of the basics in</p><p>the globe model. It’s not true at all, and wouldn’t be true</p><p>on either a globe Earth or a flat Earth. Going around the</p><p>Earth is not at all similar to climbing a hill. It’s more like</p><p>always descending slightly from anyone’s relative point-of-</p><p>view.</p><p>5. Since long rivers often drop very little in elevation, the</p><p>curvature of the Earth would mean that they are running</p><p>uphill for long stretches.</p><p>Please see my previous comment. As long as the river</p><p>stays the same distance from the center of the Earth, it</p><p>remains level.</p><p>6. The equation for the curvature of the Earth comes from the</p><p>Pythagorean Theorem and equates to approximately 8</p><p>inches per mile squared. This means that large lakes should</p><p>have a peak in the middle.</p><p>Again, like with the rivers running “uphill,” there would</p><p>be no peak. If the lake is big enough, you will be able to see</p><p>it curve down, as long as you have a level frame of</p><p>reference with which you would be able to notice a curve.</p><p>Pythagoras did more than change the world of mathematics, he also started the Pythagorean</p><p>Brotherhood, which was religious in nature.</p><p>7. Surveyors do not take the curvature of the Earth into</p><p>consideration; therefore, there must not be any curvature.</p><p>Surveyors wouldn’t need to take the Earth’s curvature</p><p>into consideration. As long as the project is level , which</p><p>means something slightly different from flat , then there is</p><p>technically no incline or descent.</p><p>Curvature can be seen when there is a long enough point-of-reference.</p><p>8. The engineers of the Suez Canal did not take the curvature</p><p>of the Earth into consideration.</p><p>Again, as long as you remain level with the center of the</p><p>globe Earth, it registers as level . If it is remaining</p><p>equidistant from the center of Earth, it is registering as flat</p><p>.</p><p>9. A quote published in Earth Review from an engineer about</p><p>how engineers do not factor the curvature of the Earth into</p><p>any of their calculations.</p><p>I’m not sure about Earth Review’s sources on this one.</p><p>For the record, the majority of Earth Review’s readers</p><p>were flat-Earthers. According to the quote, a 30-mile long</p><p>canal should show 600 feet of Earth curvature. This does</p><p>not even resonate with my personal observations of Earth.</p><p>At that rate of curvature, the Earth would be barely big</p><p>enough to have the United States on it! Is it possible that</p><p>your understanding of spherical trigonometry is</p><p>incomplete? There is no way Earth could curve 600 feet in</p><p>30 miles. At that rate, I’d be on the other side of the globe</p><p>in about five hours!</p><p>10.</p><p>The London and Northwestern Railway is 180 miles long,</p><p>meaning it should form an arc along with the curvature of</p><p>the Earth.</p><p>A slight arc would form, yes, but it would be</p><p>undetectable to even an engineer as long as everything</p><p>remained level.</p><p>11.</p><p>A surveyor and engineer give a long quote to the Birmingham</p><p>Weekly Mercury explaining why railways only travel on flat</p><p>land.</p><p>This isn’t true at all. I grew up along a railroad track</p><p>and I have seen its route for over a hundred miles.</p><p>Sometimes it has to go uphill or downhill. Granted,</p><p>railways are designed to have a minimal incline, but they</p><p>do not require perfectly flat land.</p><p>12.</p><p>A ship company published in Earth Review states that</p><p>“Public Works” do not make allowances for the curvature</p><p>of the Earth. In light of what I’ve already said, why</p><p>would they?</p><p>13.</p><p>In the 1800s, a French experiment conducted in Spain proved</p><p>that a very powerful light with reflectors can be seen from</p><p>as far as 100 miles away.</p><p>I am going to make a point here at number 13 that I will</p><p>reference multiple times. The “trigonometry” behind the</p><p>flat-Earthers’ curvature equation is way off. Notice how</p><p>the equation they use is 8 inches x miles squared. It is well-</p><p>documented that this formula is used only for estimating</p><p>over short distances. Actually, Earth’s curvature never</p><p>https://medium.com/@trtf4006/the-math-of-the-flat-earth-dfaadba0409f</p><p>really gets factored-in. This isn’t because of an absence of</p><p>curvature, but simply because even on a sphere, you can</p><p>still find level . It is all about being perpendicular to the</p><p>center of gravity; but flat-Earthers don’t believe in gravity.</p><p>14.</p><p>The “Lieutenant-Colonel Port-lock Experiment”</p><p>demonstrated that the Sun’s rays could be reflected across</p><p>the Earth’s surface up to 108 miles away.</p><p>Again, this is because the flat-Earther’s curvature</p><p>formula was designed for estimating very short distances</p><p>only, and is only ever accurate at zero inches above the</p><p>ground.</p><p>15.</p><p>If the Earth were actually a sphere, airplane pilots would</p><p>constantly have to point their plane downward slightly, in</p><p>order to maintain a regular altitude.</p><p>Actually, based on what I said about staying level , the</p><p>pilot would simply have to remain perpendicular to the</p><p>center</p><p>observe the</p><p>spinning. The way everything passes over us in the sky</p><p>makes perfect sense in the heliocentric model, including a</p><p>spinning and revolving Earth.</p><p>http://blair.pha.jhu.edu/scale.html</p><p>http://solar-center.stanford.edu/FAQ/Qsunasstar.html</p><p>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_and_exploration_of_the_Solar_System</p><p>To get a real handle on curvature equations, check online</p><p>at Math Central .</p><p>It doesn’t help that NASA releases such blatant</p><p>counterfeit images. For example, in 1990, NASA’s Galileo</p><p>supposedly filmed the Earth rotating. It’s not real, and you</p><p>can tell by the lighting glare near the center of the globe.</p><p>The Sun would not make such a glare on a surface like</p><p>Earth’s, but artificial lighting would do it on a motorized</p><p>globe with a black backdrop. Oh, again, like during the fake</p><p>Moon landings, there isn’t a single star to be seen.</p><p>123.</p><p>Ballers can’t make up their mind on how far away the Sun</p><p>is. Throughout history, the calculations of this distance have</p><p>varied by tens of millions of miles. Flat-Earthers, on the</p><p>other hand, have believed from the beginning that the Sun is</p><p>about 32 miles in diameter and only a few thousand miles</p><p>away.</p><p>If science is continually changing its conclusions in light</p><p>of new evidence, it would seem that gives them even more</p><p>credibility. If the distance to the Sun were decided by some</p><p>historical leader of the Freemasons, then it would most</p><p>likely never change. What would the need be?</p><p>124.</p><p>If the Sun is millions of miles away, then bursts of</p><p>sunshine should always be uni-directional.</p><p>http://mathcentral.uregina.ca/QQ/database/QQ.09.02/shirley3.html</p><p>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceJOBFj3hKs</p><p>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceJOBFj3hKs</p><p>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceJOBFj3hKs</p><p>Sunlight always hits Earth in even, parallel waves. It will</p><p>reach the ground that way too if it is left unbent by the</p><p>atmosphere. Water vapor and clouds act like magnifying</p><p>glasses. They can redirect sunlight in all sorts of ways. It has</p><p>nothing to do with the Sun being a close-up part of a dome.</p><p>Water, like a prism, scatters light in many different directions. This does not tell us anything</p><p>about the nearness of the Sun.</p><p>125.</p><p>By tracing the angles of the Sun’s rays backward, simple</p><p>convergence will give you an idea of how far away the Sun</p><p>is.</p><p>Tracing the angles of the Sun’s rays backward will lead</p><p>you to the point at which the light starts to bend in the</p><p>atmosphere, not to the actual Sun itself.</p><p>126.</p><p>Using the axial tilt to explain the seasons is ridiculous. If</p><p>the tilt of the Earth creates seasons, then why does the</p><p>northern hemisphere experience Winter Solstice when the</p><p>Earth is closest to the Sun? The rotating Earth is an</p><p>inherently-flawed model.</p><p>If there is an axial tilt, the Solstice comment would</p><p>actually be proof for the heliocentric model. If the northern</p><p>hemisphere experiences winter soltice when the Earth is</p><p>closest to the Sun, then it would account for the milder</p><p>annual weather in the northern hemisphere. I am not sure</p><p>this is correct, but it doesn’t matter. When the Earth is</p><p>closest to the Sun, it is only closer by a small fraction. The</p><p>differences between the polar climates have more to do</p><p>with the ocean and ice build-up over time on a</p><p>geographically-isolated continent.</p><p>The Earth’s tilt, rotation, and revolution, give a perfect model for explaining days, years, and</p><p>seasons.</p><p>127.</p><p>The Sun and the Moon reflect over the ocean in a straight</p><p>line, disproving a ball-Earth.</p><p>Reflections always depend on the position of the observer.</p><p>128.</p><p>There are sundials around today that were made hundreds</p><p>of years ago, and they tell the time with precise accuracy</p><p>even after all these centuries. If there are so many factors of</p><p>outer space bodies moving away from each other or falling</p><p>toward each other, then why hasn’t this caused a single</p><p>heavenly body to move from our perspective in hundreds of</p><p>years? Moon dials even work with the same accuracy they</p><p>did when they were first designed.</p><p>According to modern cosmology, it has taken billions of</p><p>years for the Solar System to form and eventually to settle</p><p>down. Bodies still collide occasionally, but there is general</p><p>homeostasis at this point in its history. Since it took so long</p><p>to reach these fairly-peaceful orbits, we would expect very</p><p>little change in the Sun or Moon’s position in only a few</p><p>hundred years.</p><p>129.</p><p>Dubay now quotes a man by the name of William</p><p>Carpenter . Here’s an excerpt:</p><p>“Why, in the name of common sense, should observers have</p><p>to fix their telescopes onto solid stone bases so that they</p><p>should not move a hair's breadth, if the Earth on which they fix</p><p>them moves at the rate of nineteen miles in a second?”</p><p>Mr. Carpenter is putting forward a concept that Mr.</p><p>Dubay has already talked about. Flat-Earthers frequently</p><p>repeat that we should feel the movement of the Earth</p><p>spinning and charging through space. I have explained how</p><p>we are connected to the Earth by gravity. This creates the</p><p>illusion that we are still (motionless) and everything else is</p><p>moving around us. Therefore, fixing a telescope into a solid</p><p>stone base is a good way to stabilize it. Everything we do is</p><p>from the vantage point of our place on this moving planet.</p><p>130.</p><p>An experiment using metal tubes is described. The</p><p>conclusion is that the stars do not move, so how is</p><p>everything zooming away from everything else at millions</p><p>of miles per second?</p><p>This might be a good argument for proving that the</p><p>Universe is not expanding. It says nothing about whether or</p><p>not the Earth is spinning or what shape it is.</p><p>131.</p><p>The Moon is not a sphere, and it makes its own light.</p><p>The Moon looks exactly like a sphere. Even the edges</p><p>curve just like a ball. The Moon’s curvature is visible from</p><p>this far away. The claim is that the Moon is a transparent</p><p>disk that makes its own light. This is a magical theory, albeit</p><p>all the way at the top of the ridiculous scale. Let’s leave this</p><p>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Carpenter_(flat_Earth_theorist)</p><p>one alone. If the Moon makes its own light, that would be</p><p>very cool. Unfortunately, this entire Moon tangent does</p><p>nothing to prove a flat Earth or disprove a spherical Earth.</p><p>132.</p><p>The Sun radiates golden, warm rays of light and the Moon</p><p>radiates silver, cool rays of light.</p><p>If that were true, it would make a beautiful backdrop for</p><p>a sci-fi movie. In reality, this is one of those experiments that</p><p>is easy to fudge. If you put a thermometer in the shade of</p><p>moonlight but are closer to the ground, you will get a higher</p><p>temperature than if you put the thermometer in direct</p><p>moonlight, but higher off of the ground. It might look as if it</p><p>is changing due to the moonlight, but in reality, it is</p><p>changing due to how high you are holding the thermometer</p><p>off the ground. There are also countless other factors that</p><p>could confuse the result, such as wind chill and</p><p>precipitation.</p><p>133.</p><p>Sunlight makes things warmer, and moonlight makes</p><p>things colder .</p><p>Moonlight does not make things colder . These types of</p><p>statements are based on flimsy observations. As I’ve stated</p><p>already, there are many variables that can affect</p><p>temperature. Such an experiment would need to be in a</p><p>controlled environment.</p><p>134.</p><p>To be such a reflective surface, the Moon couldn’t be</p><p>spherical anyway. Spheres do not reflect light.</p><p>Spheres do reflect light . There is not some sort of rule</p><p>that says spheres don’t reflect light.</p><p>https://www.metabunk.org/claim-water-in-moonlight-cools-faster-than-water-not-in-moonlight-false.t8161/</p><p>https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69539.0</p><p>https://www.metabunk.org/claim-water-in-moonlight-cools-faster-than-water-not-in-moonlight-false.t8161/</p><p>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Hz0UAMIV-U</p><p>White and gray spheres are</p><p>excellent at reflecting light.</p><p>135.</p><p>Not only is the Moon not reflective, but it produces its own</p><p>light. It is also somewhat transparent since stars have been</p><p>observed through</p><p>the Moon.</p><p>I have never heard of being able to see stars through the</p><p>Moon. The Moon does not seem transparent whatsoever. If</p><p>there is a reflection, or an airplane, or something causing an</p><p>optical illusion, I’m sure it’s fascinating. You cannot see</p><p>stars through the Moon.</p><p>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCLT4i76Tfs</p><p>Supposedly, we sometimes see stars in front of the Moon.</p><p>136.</p><p>Predicting eclipses does not prove that the Earth revolves</p><p>around the Sun. Ancient cultures have been predicting lunar</p><p>and solar eclipses for thousands of years, with no need for</p><p>the globe-Earth theory.</p><p>Predicting when astro-nomical events will happen is</p><p>completely different from understanding how they happen.</p><p>The way the Sun, Moon, and stars interact is very</p><p>predictable. It fits perfectly with the globe-Earth model.</p><p>137.</p><p>How can the Moon be half-covered by the Earth’s shadow</p><p>and yet both the Sun and the Moon are high in the daytime</p><p>sky? This happens every month.</p><p>If you look at the Moon while the Sun is in the sky, you</p><p>will see how the shadow on the Moon is angled perfectly</p><p>with the Sun’s reflection. Also, the shadow on the moon is</p><p>not from the Earth. That would be an eclipse. The shadow</p><p>that we see during a partial Moon is simply the Moon’s day</p><p>side and night side. The Moon has days like we do, and</p><p>during the day, the other half of its sphere is in shadow.</p><p>138.</p><p>The fact that a ship’s hull disappears before the mast is not</p><p>proof of a globe Earth. This would happen on a flat Earth</p><p>too.</p><p>In this point, Eric Dubay is admitting that the hull of a</p><p>ship will disappear before the mast. I thought we were told</p><p>that didn’t happen on a flat Earth. This seems to contradict</p><p>several other points in Dubay’s 200 Proofs .</p><p>139.</p><p>If a ship seems to disappear hull-first, you need only get</p><p>out your telescope. The entire ship will come back into</p><p>view, hull and all.</p><p>That might be true if you were first sitting on the beach</p><p>when you saw the hull disappear. Then you get out your</p><p>telescope and stand up. Now, through the telescope, you can</p><p>see the hull, but if you were to sit back down, it would</p><p>disappear again, with or without a telescope.</p><p>The view while sitting. Water is blocking the hull.</p><p>The view while standing. Water no longer hides the hull.</p><p>140.</p><p>A Foucault Pendulum (featured below) does not prove a</p><p>spinning earth. The supposed rotation of the Earth has</p><p>nothing to do with how a Foucault pendulum works.</p><p>Whether or not Foucault Pendulums prove a spinning</p><p>Earth is irrelevant. It wouldn’t prove a flat Earth either.</p><p>Foucault Pendulums seem more like a giant parlor trick to</p><p>me anyway.</p><p>Focault pendulums make one full rotation in 24 hours.</p><p>141.</p><p>The Coriolis Effect refers to how toilets flush in the</p><p>opposite direction below the equator. This “effect” is a total</p><p>lie, and water will go down a drain in whatever direction</p><p>has the least resistance.</p><p>I unplugged my sink the other day and watched the water</p><p>make a little whirlpool. It was spinning clockwise. Do it</p><p>yourself! Is that the right direction? It doesn’t really matter</p><p>because I am not even sure the Coriolis effect would be</p><p>noticeable in my kitchen sink.</p><p>142.</p><p>In response to those who say that on a flat Earth you</p><p>should be able to use a telescope to look out at anywhere</p><p>else in the world, Eric Dubay says that is absurd. There is</p><p>far too much humidity and haze to allow for that.</p><p>What about high-altitude flights? Wouldn’t they have a</p><p>view an expansive stretch of flat Earth? I have heard it said</p><p>that people just can’t see that far, but this is not true. The</p><p>naked eye can see the Andromeda Galaxy , and it’s two</p><p>million light-years from Earth. Then again, flat-Earthers do</p><p>not believe in space. Or gravity. Or evolution. Or many</p><p>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum</p><p>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uzc1tY1StvY</p><p>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPsLanVS1Q8</p><p>https://www.livescience.com/33895-human-eye.html</p><p>significant points of recorded history. In fact, they throw out</p><p>just about everything that disagrees with their model.</p><p>143.</p><p>Flat-Earthers realize that it is nighttime on one half of the</p><p>Earth while it is daytime on the other half. The</p><p>disagreement is about how this happens. Since flat-Earthers</p><p>believe that the Sun is much smaller than astronomical</p><p>authorities tell us, it only lights-up half of the disc-shaped</p><p>flat Earth at a time.</p><p>This comment isn’t even pretending to help develop an</p><p>explanation for Dubay’s model. We already know that flat-</p><p>Earthers believe in a dome and that the moon and sun are</p><p>being dangled above us like mobiles on a string.</p><p>144.</p><p>The Moon changes angles depending on where and when it</p><p>is being viewed. Dubay presents the idea that the Moon is</p><p>turning around clockwise and counter-clockwise, like a dial.</p><p>Perhaps it is like a lens focusing in on a certain part of the</p><p>Earth?</p><p>This would mean that in addition to going across the</p><p>night sky, it is also spinning like a ball, kind of rolling</p><p>forward. That is an interesting thought, but it would seem to</p><p>prove a globe Earth. Either way, I can safely say that this</p><p>“proof” just complicates the flat-Earth model and offers no</p><p>explanation.</p><p>145.</p><p>If the Moon is a sphere orbiting the Earth, the view of it</p><p>would be slightly different depending on where you live.</p><p>Since everyone’s view of the Moon is identical, then it is</p><p>not a sphere at all.</p><p>Everyone on Earth sees the same Moon because it is</p><p>locked in an orbit where it’s facing us all of the time. There’s</p><p>so much magic in wondering how that came to be. But, once</p><p>again, it does make sense within the current globe-Earth-</p><p>with-an- orbiting-Moon model .</p><p>The moon clearly looks</p><p>like a sphere—edges curving around and everything.</p><p>146.</p><p>The Moon doesn’t orbit around the Earth every 28 days,</p><p>but every single day. The same is true for the Sun.</p><p>The Moon orbits the Earth every 28 days. The reason you</p><p>still see the Moon every night is that we are spinning. We see</p><p>the Moon almost every night because we make one full</p><p>rotation every 24 hours.</p><p>If the Earth were motionless, we would see the moon for</p><p>about 14 days at a time. Then it would set, and not come</p><p>back for another 14 days. Once again, here is a point that</p><p>shows that the flat-Earth is an impossible model.</p><p>147.</p><p>Supposedly, the Moon is 400 times closer to the Earth but</p><p>yet it is 400 times smaller. Actually, they are both an equal</p><p>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uzc1tY1StvY</p><p>distance from the Earth. Flat Earthers believe this is by</p><p>design, and this is how the dome operates.</p><p>We addressed this already. I admit that their sizes are</p><p>amazingly perfect. It’s a great argument for proving</p><p>Intelligent Design. This point is not a “proof.” It is at best a</p><p>conjecture.</p><p>148.</p><p>Another quote from Sam Rowbotham is included here, but</p><p>this time I can’t even make out what he’s saying. I will just</p><p>include the quote here, and please feel free to send me an</p><p>email explaining what he is trying to say:</p><p>“It is found by observation that the stars come to the</p><p>meridian about four minutes earlier every twenty-four hours</p><p>than the sun, taking the solar time as the standard. This</p><p>makes 120 minutes every thirty days, and twenty-four hours</p><p>in the year. Hence all the constellations have passed before</p><p>or in advance of the sun in that time. This is the simple fact</p><p>as observed in nature, but the theory of rotundity and motion</p><p>on axes and in an orbit has no place for it. Visible truth must</p><p>be ignored, because this theory stands in the way, and</p><p>prevents its votaries from understanding it.”</p><p>149.</p><p>Constellations have remained in the same position for</p><p>thousands of years.</p><p>No, constellations change. In a million years, the sky will</p><p>look completely different. Since they are so far away, their</p><p>relative motion would be almost undetectable, even over</p><p>hundreds of years. And whether the stars are stationery in</p><p>space or expanding is irrelevant to the flat-Earth issue.</p><p>The Constellation Scorpius is one of the zodiac constellations</p><p>, first cataloged by the Greek</p><p>astronomer Ptolemy in the 2nd century.</p><p>150.</p><p>If the Earth were a globe, you would not be able to watch</p><p>the time-lapsed circulation of the stars around Polaris in the</p><p>North unless you were very close to the North Pole. In</p><p>reality, places even as far south as the Tropic of Capricorn</p><p>can watch the stars rotate around Polaris.</p><p>Polaris is 433 light years away. At that distance, the star</p><p>would be visible from many places on Earth.</p><p>Polaris is far enough away to be seen from anywhere in the northern hemisphere, and quite far</p><p>into the southern hemisphere.</p><p>151.</p><p>The night sky shouldn’t even make that kind of star circle</p><p>at the North Pole. Since we are also allegedly pummeling</p><p>through space at millions of miles per hour, then the time-</p><p>lapsed sky should be a jumble of stars among various</p><p>streaks in many directions.</p><p>All of those things are happening and do happen. In fact,</p><p>a few billion years ago, there was quite a show to see out</p><p>https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/review/dr-marc-space/constellations.html</p><p>http://www.constellation-guide.com/constellation-map/zodiac-constellations/</p><p>there. Humans didn’t come along until the planets were</p><p>settled in their orbits.</p><p>And the excitement is still there, such as when that comet</p><p>hit Jupiter in 1993. We operate on a much slower time scale</p><p>than the events in the Universe. Mayflies, for example, live</p><p>for 24 hours. That’s their whole life span. I bet that from</p><p>their perspective, nothing in his environment ever seems to</p><p>change. Perspective plays a significant role in understanding</p><p>why outer space seems not ever to change.</p><p>152.</p><p>In 2003, three professors proved that Kansas is indeed</p><p>flatter than a pancake. Not globe-shaped!</p><p>Ok, this is a charming light-hearted point. Kansas is</p><p>very flat. And the people of Kansas love pancakes. It’s a</p><p>cute story, but brings nothing to the debate.</p><p>153.</p><p>There are vast areas in the world where the landscape is</p><p>very flat.</p><p>I used to live in Lubbock, Texas, and it is very flat. Of</p><p>course, the Great Plains are vast. Geologists have explained</p><p>this, and they all agree that West Texas used to be a shallow</p><p>body of water. The evidence is everywhere for this.</p><p>The fact that there are so many areas of flat land on</p><p>Earth is a silly argument for the whole Earth being flat. I</p><p>seriously think the Earth is bigger than flat-Earthers realize.</p><p>http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/comet-shoemaker-levy-9-20-years-later-07162014/</p><p>https://sciencing.com/great-plains-were-formed-5260966.html</p><p>Felix Baumgartner is best known for jumping to Earth from a helium balloon in the stratosphere on</p><p>14 October, 2012.</p><p>154.</p><p>Felix Baumgartner ’s epic dive seemed to show</p><p>curvature, but he was only using a fish-eye lens. Fish-eye</p><p>lenses, technically called wide-angle lenses, always give a</p><p>sense of curvature to otherwise perfectly straight features.</p><p>Yes, a fish-eye lens would distort a flat horizon. It will also</p><p>straighten a curved horizon, or even make it look more</p><p>curved than it is, depending on where the camera is</p><p>pointing. This one you can watch for yourself on YouTube.</p><p>Click here .</p><p>155.</p><p>Airplanes only use slightly-curved windows, which can</p><p>cause the illusion that the Earth is curved. In fact, from high</p><p>altitude, you can prove the Earth is flat by observing how</p><p>the horizon rises to meet you no matter how high your plane</p><p>goes.</p><p>There are some important reasons for the windows of</p><p>airplanes to be designed the way they are. The truth is,</p><p>however, that not all airplane windows are made using wide-</p><p>angle glass distortion. Those aircraft that have regular non-</p><p>distortion windows will go high enough to show the curve of</p><p>the earth.</p><p>156.</p><p>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7f-K-XnHi9I</p><p>https://gopro.com/help/articles/How_To/How-Can-I-Remove-the-Distortion-Fisheye-Effect-in-GoPro-Studio</p><p>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7f-K-XnHi9I</p><p>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rXGRPMD-GQ</p><p>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlBGTSG230Q</p><p>To those who capture the curvature of the Earth from your</p><p>GoPro, you’ll have to prove to flat-Earthers that you</p><p>weren’t using a wide-angle lens.</p><p>For flat-Earthers, skepticism is sometimes thicker than</p><p>blood. Dubay claims, “In … footage taken without wide-</p><p>angle technology, all amateur high-altitude horizon shots</p><p>appear perfectly flat.” (from the 200 Proofs #156 )</p><p>157.</p><p>If the Earth is spinning, the atmosphere around the equator</p><p>should be affected more than at the Poles. Instead, the entire</p><p>surface of the Earth remains unaffected by any supposed</p><p>“spinning.”</p><p>Imagine the world is a foot, and the atmosphere is a sock.</p><p>Tiny people live on the foot world. Once that sock is on,</p><p>there isn’t anywhere you can go without being held down by</p><p>the sock. The atmosphere is connected to the Earth, literally.</p><p>158.</p><p>If the Earth were really spinning, the higher levels of the</p><p>atmosphere would be subjected to more force, and weather</p><p>patterns would be completely different. The fact that Earth’s</p><p>atmosphere is so calm is proof that we are in a dome.</p><p>This same point keeps getting brought up. Mr. Eric</p><p>Dubay said he was giving 200 proofs. I guess he was counting</p><p>these reruns. I will bring in a quote from an expert about the</p><p>nature of Earth’s atmosphere.</p><p>“Our atmosphere is a mixture of gases that surround Earth. It</p><p>is kept in place by the pull of Earth's gravity. If Earth was a</p><p>much smaller planet, like Mercury or Pluto, its gravity would be</p><p>too weak to hold a large atmosphere.” Prof. Cool Cosmos</p><p>159.</p><p>An atmosphere cannot exist anywhere near a vacuum. The</p><p>vacuum of space must not be real, or it would completely</p><p>suck away our atmosphere.</p><p>There is a difference between the vacuum of space and a</p><p>vacuum cleaner. Vacuum cleaners suck, yes. They create a</p><p>vacuum when they suck, and it sucks things in. But the</p><p>vacuum of space has always been there. It’s not sucking on</p><p>things, it is simply nothingness. That’s why our atmosphere</p><p>glides right past it with no drag. There is nothing in our</p><p>solar system that would affect our planet in that way.</p><p>160.</p><p>Jets and rockets and compressed air do not offer a realistic</p><p>way to maneuver satellites or other craft through a vacuum.</p><p>Propulsion requires air against which to push. There is not a</p><p>particle of air in a pure vacuum.</p><p>This has always boggled my mind. What could they be</p><p>thrusting against ? NASA says that space rockets have to</p><p>carry their fuel along with the air it has to burn. Was this</p><p>the rocket propulsion used by Apollo to launch back off</p><p>from the Moon ? If you watch the footage, the rockets look</p><p>more like a few soda cans being popped open at the same</p><p>time.</p><p>http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/65-What-keeps-our-atmosphere-attached-to-Earth-</p><p>https://www.quora.com/How-does-jet-propulsion-in-space-work</p><p>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Obd_jTO66-0</p><p>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Obd_jTO66-0</p><p>161.</p><p>The whole show of blasting a rocket off from the Jet</p><p>Propulsion Laboratory or wherever is ridiculous. If it were</p><p>really possible to go into space, why wouldn’t high altitude</p><p>planes be a better way to go? As soon as you have reached</p><p>high enough, you could engage your rocket engine on the</p><p>space shuttle and then just keep going up. You can’t because</p><p>it’s impossible.</p><p>I tend to agree with Mr. Dubay on this point. The whole</p><p>NASA rocket show is a display, and I don’t believe anyone is</p><p>in those rockets when they take-off. America will discover</p><p>this truth soon, and it will be a sad day.</p><p>162.</p><p>When a rocket is launched, it always curves. Why</p><p>wouldn’t the fastest way to escape Earth’s gravity be a</p><p>straight line? Straight up, not at an arc that falls back down</p><p>to Earth.</p><p>NASA rockets are launched the same way. It makes no</p><p>sense. The rocket’s path curves until it’s almost out of sight.</p><p>It’s too far away for anyone to see it pop the space hole.</p><p>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sj6a0Wrrh1g&t=224s</p><p>163.</p><p>NASA footage is notoriously full of fakery. One really has</p><p>to be in denial not to see it.</p><p>This is Dubay’s point, and I agree. Yes, NASA is doing</p><p>some deceptive things.</p><p>For one example, an official NASA photo of the surface</p><p>of Mars shows a Mohave ground squirrel. They say it’s just</p><p>a rock, but you see for yourself.</p><p>I find it interesting that I live in the Mohave Desert.</p><p>NASA also does their rover “practicing” in the expanse of</p><p>the Arizona desert. Through a window next to my desk,</p><p>there sometimes visits a friendly Mohave ground squirrel.</p><p>Zhanne named him “Chippy.” Someone should tell Chippy</p><p>that he has cousins on Mars!</p><p>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1tPOEBUAs8</p><p>Can you see the ground squirrel in this photo of Mars?</p><p>Is there really a need for a green-screen at NASA? Why would they have one at all?</p><p>164.</p><p>The International Space Station is a fake also.</p><p>I won’t say I know for sure that the ISS is fake, but I have</p><p>strong suspicions. Other than watching the official NASA</p><p>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJhL7y0ahUE</p><p>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1tPOEBUAs8</p><p>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJhL7y0ahUE</p><p>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJhL7y0ahUE</p><p>footage itself , can you really come to an informed</p><p>conclusion? I mean, one astronaut even got water in his</p><p>helmet while doing a “spacewalk.” I think they’re filming</p><p>that stuff in a swimming pool.</p><p>165.</p><p>NASA claims that you can see the ISS with the naked eye.</p><p>This is supposedly proof that it exists. How can a person</p><p>possibly see something the size of a football field from 254</p><p>miles away?</p><p>No, it should be impossible to see the ISS with the naked</p><p>eye. It is hundreds of miles away, and it’s only the size of a</p><p>jumbo jet. Whatever we think we’re seeing, you can</p><p>guarantee it has something to do with the military.</p><p>166.</p><p>Satellites are the product of a science fiction writer. They</p><p>are not real and never have been. There are high-altitude</p><p>drones and balloons, but nothing in perpetual orbit around</p><p>Earth in space.</p><p>Flat-Earthers do not believe in satellites. I have doubts</p><p>myself. It would not prove or disprove the globe Earth</p><p>anyway.</p><p>167.</p><p>The thermosphere heats up to 4,500+ degrees Fahrenheit,</p><p>far higher than the melting point of all of the metals used in</p><p>satellites.</p><p>Allow me to point out that we have gone on a major</p><p>detour away from the flat Earth topic. Whether satellites</p><p>are real or not does not make or break the globe Earth</p><p>model.</p><p>168.</p><p>Satellite phones still require a tower nearby, proving that</p><p>they do not get their reception directly from a satellite.</p><p>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlVqdIymC0s</p><p>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddj1s9rvSeA</p><p>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2qwvAivfGM</p><p>I might one day agree with this one. Satellites are very</p><p>suspicious, starting with Sputnik. However, I don’t want to</p><p>catch Flat-Earth Syndrome, so I am being cautious. I will let</p><p>you decide for yourself. Watch Satellites are Fake by</p><p>Respice Finem , “A Fantastic Breakdown.”</p><p>169.</p><p>Satellite dishes are installed to point toward a certain</p><p>direction at a particular angle. The tilt is always down, so I</p><p>wonder if they could possibly be receiving information</p><p>from the nearest tower.</p><p>Maybe you’re onto something. Satellites are really</p><p>interesting, and I would support future investigation to find</p><p>better proof as to whether or not they exist. Still, have we</p><p>completely changed the subject?</p><p>170.</p><p>Many people have seen what they are told is a satellite. If</p><p>it were really a satellite, it would be smaller than a bus and</p><p>hundreds of miles away.</p><p>I have seen those little white dots crawling very slowly</p><p>across the sky, like a baby firefly slowly walking across a</p><p>ceiling. I was told they are satellites too. Are they? Seems</p><p>like we will be talking about satellites now.</p><p>171.</p><p>According to NASA, there are about 20,000 satellites</p><p>circling the Earth. All of those satellites and not one that</p><p>can catch a photo of Earth from space without having to</p><p>Photoshop it?</p><p>I find it hard to believe that there are that many satellites</p><p>out there. Some are stationary and some go around and</p><p>around. Yet after launching tens of thousands of them into</p><p>orbit, there is not a single believable video from space of a</p><p>satellite orbiting our planet.</p><p>172.</p><p>If you watch clouds, you notice they change shape within a</p><p>few minutes. Why, in all of NASA’s “live feeds” of Earth</p><p>from space do the clouds never change?</p><p>Because the only way NASA can produce images of Earth</p><p>from space is by using NASA’s favorite tool, Photo Shop.</p><p>Now, using more CGI, they’re stepping-up their scam. Not</p><p>as many people are fooled anymore these days.</p><p>That said, I wouldn’t expect that this directly affects the</p><p>round Earth model. It doesn’t at all, as is the case for most</p><p>of these “proofs.” Also, are you sure they don’t change?</p><p>173.</p><p>In NASA’s “photos” of Earth, cloud patterns are regularly</p><p>copied and pasted.</p><p>This could be explained by the fact that they are</p><p>composites made from separate scans from a camera. Such</p><p>manipulation would not be necessary for a simple</p><p>photograph of the Earth, which should not be that hard to</p><p>come by.</p><p>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1tPOEBUAs8</p><p>Cloud patterns have been clearly stamped in multiple places on NASA’s Earth images, using</p><p>digital manipulation.</p><p>174.</p><p>There are so many Photoshop clues hidden in plain sight</p><p>within NASA “photos.” In one photo of “Earth” the word</p><p>“sex” appears, Pluto the dog appears on “Pluto,” and a</p><p>moon has even been “discovered” that looks just like the</p><p>Death Star of Star Wars!</p><p>This may be true, but it does not disprove a globe.</p><p>Notice how many of these “proofs” actually don’t prove</p><p>anything. How many of them are simply throwing doubt on</p><p>everything we know to be true?</p><p>175.</p><p>Photo analysts have determined that NASA’s photos of</p><p>Earth from space are not real. Click on the video below. Do</p><p>you think it looks real?</p><p>176.</p><p>NASA’s images of the ball-Earth are so disproportionate</p><p>that it seems as if all of them are doctored photos.</p><p>According to flat-Earthers, we don’t know exactly what</p><p>Earth looks like from space, because it’s just too damn</p><p>dangerous. You can watch the evidence yourself. It’s not</p><p>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2qwvAivfGM</p><p>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCLT4i76Tfs</p><p>going to prove or disprove the globe, but it is a fascinating</p><p>detour.</p><p>A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon is a 2001 film written,</p><p>produced and directed by filmmaker Bart Sibrel . Sibrel is a critic of the Apollo</p><p>program and proponent of the conspiracy theory that the six Apollo Moon landing</p><p>missions between 1969 and 1972 were elaborate hoaxes perpetrated by the United</p><p>States government , including NASA .</p><p>177.</p><p>The film A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the</p><p>Moon is recommended here. This movie will tear apart</p><p>most peoples’ view of NASA.</p><p>I consider this required watching for anyone who is ready</p><p>to take a trip outside of the Matrix. Watch out!</p><p>178.</p><p>Google Earth even requires low-altitude aircraft for its</p><p>aerial images. Why not satellites?</p><p>Because there probably really aren’t any. Satellite</p><p>phones suck anyway, right Jeff? If the International Space</p><p>Station is actually a high-altitude aircraft, then NASA has</p><p>apparently perfected high-altitude flight to the point that it</p><p>might as well be in orbit.</p><p>179.</p><p>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xciCJfbTvE4&t=43s</p><p>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film</p><p>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filmmaking</p><p>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_Sibrel</p><p>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program</p><p>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory</p><p>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing</p><p>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories</p><p>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_government</p><p>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA</p><p>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xciCJfbTvE4&t=43s</p><p>This same point was made closer to the beginning of the</p><p>list, but I guess since the proof is running thin, it requires</p><p>repeating. Flights going East should arrive at their</p><p>destination much later than flights</p><p>going West.</p><p>In a pressurized plane, you can run from one end to the</p><p>other and then go the other way. You will get to the other</p><p>side of the plane in about the same time both times. All the</p><p>while, the plane is going 542 miles-per-hour!</p><p>On the way up the aisle, you should have to fight all the</p><p>resistance from the plane going so fast. Running toward the</p><p>back of the plane, you should get there instantly… well, at</p><p>542 miles-per-hour. At that speed, there may not be much</p><p>left of you .</p><p>It really is the same thing for planes, kites, clouds, wind</p><p>and people. We don’t feel the spin because we evolved with a</p><p>spin. Or, perhaps an Intelligent Designer wanted to see his</p><p>blue/green masterpiece spin forever like a ballerina. We</p><p>have been at a consistent speed since the day mankind</p><p>stepped onto the stage.</p><p>180.</p><p>Again, the same point is made. This time, specific</p><p>examples of flights from Los Angeles to New York and</p><p>back. Same flight durations; shouldn’t be on a spinning</p><p>globe.</p><p>181.</p><p>More flight examples, reinforcing the point repeated in</p><p>numbers 179 and 180.</p><p>182.</p><p>Ditto.</p><p>183.</p><p>Ditto</p><p>184.</p><p>Ditto.</p><p>185.</p><p>It has been said that we can’t feel the velocity of the Earth</p><p>because a person can only feel velocity during acceleration</p><p>or deceleration. You will not get used to the velocity, just</p><p>like you will always be able to feel yourself riding in a car</p><p>down the highway.</p><p>I have ridden in some very nice cars. On a smooth</p><p>highway, at a consistent speed and with your eyes off the</p><p>road, you would never know that you were in a car doing 75</p><p>mph. According to the round-Earth model, there is no</p><p>friction in space. There are no bumps and turns (at least not</p><p>frequently). It’s smooth spinning in a vacuum. In space,</p><p>there is just a steady pace of revolving and rotating, and</p><p>friction-free spinning through space under the influence of</p><p>gravity’s consistent, even pull.</p><p>186.</p><p>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1tPOEBUAs8</p><p>If the Earth is already spinning at 1,000 miles per hour,</p><p>then why doesn’t anyone get motion sickness from the spin?</p><p>Motion sickness comes from a disconnect between the</p><p>inner ear and the brain. The inner ear is very sensitive to</p><p>gravity. It tells you whether you are right-side-up or upside-</p><p>down, on a bumpy road or bobbing with the waves.</p><p>187.</p><p>The Law of Entropy should be affecting the rotation and</p><p>revolution of the Earth. Days and years should get</p><p>noticeably longer over a period of time.</p><p>Entropy is happening. Everywhere. Days used to be much</p><p>shorter on Earth. But it takes a lot longer than a few</p><p>philosophers’ lifetimes to notice such a change .</p><p>Could this be what the Earth</p><p>actually looks like from space?</p><p>188.</p><p>Neil Degrasse-Tyson has been on television saying that the</p><p>Earth is an “oblate spheroid” and “pear-shaped.” If this is</p><p>true, then why do all of NASA’s photos show Earth as a</p><p>perfect sphere?</p><p>Yeah, I would love to see an un-doctored photo of Earth</p><p>from space one day. Even if it is a pear.</p><p>189.</p><p>The Bible, the Koran, and many other sacred texts say that</p><p>the Earth is flat.</p><p>https://www.webmd.com/cold-and-flu/ear-infection/motion-sickness#1</p><p>“[God] sits above the circle of the Earth.” Isaiah 40:22—But that</p><p>might not mean sphere .</p><p>“He spreads out the Northern skies over empty space; he suspends</p><p>the earth over nothing.” Job 26:7</p><p>“And the earth We have spread out (like a carpet); set thereon</p><p>mountains firm and immovable; and produced therein all kinds of</p><p>things in due balance.” Koran 15:1 9</p><p>“And the Earth, We have spread it out, set thereon mountains</p><p>standing firm, producing therein every kind of beautiful growth (in</p><p>pairs)” Koran 50:7</p><p>190.</p><p>Ancient cultures, such as the Egyptians and the Maya, also</p><p>taught a flat Earth.</p><p>I’m sure all of that is true, but this offers no proof that we</p><p>live on a motionless, flat Earth. Ancient tribes and</p><p>civilizations believed a lot of strange things, so I don’t think</p><p>their history is a reliable source for proving anything.</p><p>191.</p><p>Pythagoras was a Freemason, as were Neil Armstrong and</p><p>Isaac Newton.</p><p>So was my grandpa, and most man who wanted</p><p>connections back in the day. It is a secretive fraternity, but</p><p>not in charge of hiding the shape of the Earth.</p><p>192.</p><p>A quote from the book Terra Firma, by David Wardlaw</p><p>Scott. Here is a short snippet:</p><p>“Copernicus himself, who revived the theory of the heathen</p><p>philosopher Pythagoras, and his great exponent Sir Isaac</p><p>Newton, confessed that their system of a revolving Earth was</p><p>only a possibility, and could not be proved by facts. It is only</p><p>their followers who have decorated it with the name of an ‘exact</p><p>http://www.crivoice.org/circle.html</p><p>science,’ yea, according to them, ‘the most exact of all the</p><p>sciences.’”</p><p>According to this quote, I believe that David Wardlaw</p><p>Scott, a flat-Earther, is admitting that those who applied</p><p>Newton’s laws had found them to be measurable and</p><p>predictable.</p><p>193.</p><p>A reiteration of the point that no one could possibly</p><p>believe in a spinning globe-Earth.</p><p>So I guess we are wrapping up, because that seems less</p><p>like new proof and more like hyperbolic filler.</p><p>194.</p><p>A quote by a flat-Earther explaining that centrifugal force</p><p>does not hold the ocean to a sphere.</p><p>Yes, this is true. Centrifugal force is not like gravity at all.</p><p>Centrifugal force is an apparent force that acts outward on a body moving around a center, arising</p><p>from the body's inertia.</p><p>195.</p><p>If gravity is such a weak force, then centrifugal force</p><p>should fling everything into outer space that isn’t nailed</p><p>down. We are spinning at 1,000 miles per hour, don’t forget.</p><p>Yes, Earth is spinning, very fast, but it has been spinning</p><p>since the moment you were conceived. We are all tiny little</p><p>beings enveloped in an atmosphere thick with oxygen and</p><p>water vapor. We are connected to this giant Earth somehow,</p><p>because things don’t float away like that. Maybe it’s because</p><p>gravity is really a thing?</p><p>If we weren’t being held down by gravity, everything would scatter into the atmosphere and</p><p>eventually drift away into space.</p><p>196.</p><p>A quote from Marshall Hall summarizing every argument</p><p>for a flat Earth. They have all been covered, some multiple</p><p>times.</p><p>It is important to remember that even though NASA is a</p><p>rip-off, there is still a mysterious universe out there!</p><p>197.</p><p>The motivation for a secret society to perpetrate this hoax</p><p>all boils down to Sun-worship.</p><p>If people want to worship the Sun, they can do it all they</p><p>want. The idea, however, that the shape of the Earth is</p><p>critically important to a secret group of sun-worshipping</p><p>Freemasons is not a motive I find compelling.</p><p>198.</p><p>Masons have an ultimate goal of world domination.</p><p>This seems like yet another completely separate issue, but</p><p>let’s assume for a moment that the Masons do want to</p><p>dominate the world. Are all of them part of the Illuminati or</p><p>just the rich ones? My grandpa was a Master Freemason.</p><p>Would he have been one of the guys dominating the world?</p><p>199.</p><p>A quote likening modern cosmology to a monstrous lie,</p><p>tearing mankind from his Creator. It’s a little melodramatic,</p><p>but since I believe it has poetic value, I will include it here:</p><p>“The one thing the fable of the revolving Earth has done, it</p><p>has shown the terrible power of a lie, a lie has the power to</p><p>make a man a mental slave, so that he dares not back the</p><p>evidence of his own senses. To deny the plain and obvious</p><p>movement of the Sun he sees before him. When he feels</p><p>himself standing on an Earth utterly devoid of motion, at the</p><p>suggestion of someone else he is prepared to accept that he is</p><p>spinning furiously round. When he sees a bird flying, and</p><p>gaining over the ground, he is prepared to believe that the</p><p>ground is really travelling a great number of times faster than</p><p>the bird, finally, in order to uphold the imagination of a</p><p>madman, he is prepared to accuse his Maker of forming him a</p><p>sensiferous lie.” I could not find the source in Mr. Dubay’s</p><p>book .</p><p>The list concludes with a dry summary of the flat-Earther’s</p><p>complete distrust of Newtonian-based science, in the form of yet</p><p>another Rowbotham quote. It claims that Newtonian physics is</p><p>inconsistent, relying more on assumptions than on concrete fact.</p><p>This last point does as much to reinforce my theory of Flat-</p><p>Earth Syndrome as it does the flat Earth theory. It is also terribly</p><p>ironic, since the entire flat-Earth argument relies on more</p><p>assumptions than Newton ever did .</p><p>Also check out my other book , Moon Truth: The Truth Behind</p><p>the Moon Landing Conspiracy Theory</p><p>Available on iTunes, Amazon Paperback, Kindle Unlimited, the Kindle Store, and Audible.co m</p><p>https://www.amazon.com/Moon-Truth-Behind-Landing-Conspiracy/dp/1980374597/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1529174644&sr=8-1&keywords=moon+truth+adams</p><p>Content</p><p>of the Earth. The curve of the Earth wouldn’t be</p><p>noticeable for the pilot because they would simply have to</p><p>remain level if they want to go smoothly with the curvature</p><p>of the Earth.</p><p>Regardless of the shape of the Earth, I have made the</p><p>personal observation that flights still get where they need</p><p>to go. No pilot on Earth is worried about not getting</p><p>around on a world that the vast majority of them believe is</p><p>a globe, and they certainly don’t seem worried about</p><p>hitting a dome.</p><p>16.</p><p>The Airy’s Failure experiment proved that the stars move</p><p>around the Earth, rather than the Earth moving around the</p><p>stars.</p><p>The stars do appear as though they are stationary and</p><p>we are spinning. No doubt an uninformed person would</p><p>probably come to the same conclusion. I don’t know</p><p>anyone who thinks that Earth is orbiting around all of the</p><p>stars in the universe. Either the stars are going around us</p><p>in conjunction with a dome, or we are spinning in space</p><p>like the astronomers say. Those are your only choices.</p><p>The stars in the South Pole sky all revolve around a central point. This would be impossible in</p><p>the dome hypothesis. If the dome were slowly turning around a central point, then the South Pole</p><p>would show stars trailing along the horizon. See the full video at https://youtu.be/RYmI-wh_R24</p><p>17.</p><p>“Olber’s Paradox” says that if there were billions of suns in</p><p>the universe, then there would be no darkness in space.</p><p>Therefore, there would really be no dark night at all.</p><p>That would be the case if those billions of suns were</p><p>closer to us. They’re not, so that would be the globe-</p><p>Earther’s explanation. There are endless numbers of suns</p><p>in the universe, and they are all very, very far away.</p><p>18.</p><p>The Michelson-Morley and Sagnac experiments demon-</p><p>strated that despite traveling away from Earth at supposedly</p><p>millions of miles per hour, the light coming from distant</p><p>stars showed very little change over time.</p><p>Well, then maybe that would be a case for arguing that</p><p>the universe is not expanding. That has nothing to do with</p><p>the Earth being flat.</p><p>The Earth is spinning while revolving around a Sun that is hurdling through space. Why</p><p>don’t we feel any of this movement?</p><p>19.</p><p>In the late 1500s, Tycho Ottesen Brahe argued that 190</p><p>million miles of orbit around the Sun should result in an</p><p>observable parallax in the constellations. When no parallax</p><p>was noticed after a six-month observation period, Brahe</p><p>determined that the Earth must be motionless in relation to</p><p>all of the lights in the sky, no matter what time of year.</p><p>If the stars are actually gigantic suns trillions of miles</p><p>away, it would make perfect sense that the change in their</p><p>positions would be barely noticeable. Yes, ancient star</p><p>maps show that there has been very little change. Then</p><p>again, what’s a few thousand years compared to billions of</p><p>years of constellation changes? Besides, how do stationary</p><p>stars/lights prove a flat Earth anyway? Even if the stars</p><p>were just aliens holding flashlights, we might still be on a</p><p>spinning ball.</p><p>20.</p><p>If the Earth is spinning at approximately 1,000 miles per</p><p>hour, then objects such as cannonballs or bullets should go</p><p>farther when fired toward the west. Also, vertically-fired</p><p>cannonballs should always land to the west of the cannon</p><p>itself, which is not an observable occurrence.</p><p>Imagine you are on an airplane going 500 miles per</p><p>hour. You can take an object, such as a pen, and toss it into</p><p>the air. It will land right where you expect it to, without</p><p>any regard to the fact that the airplane is going 500 miles</p><p>per hour. Earth’s atmosphere is like a pressurized airplane.</p><p>The fact is that things can go very fast without it being</p><p>noticeable. In fact, nothing inside the pressurized cabin is</p><p>affected by the speed of the aircraft.</p><p>We can take a nap on an airplane and completely forget that we are moving at 500 miles per</p><p>hour.</p><p>21.</p><p>If the Earth is really a spinning globe, then hot air balloons</p><p>and helicopters should be able to hover in the air while the</p><p>ground moves below them at 1,000 miles per hour.</p><p>I will use the airplane illustration again. Let’s say you</p><p>were playing with a remote control helicopter during your</p><p>flight. If such a thing were allowed, you would notice that</p><p>the helicopter is also, like you, unaffected by the speed of</p><p>the aircraft. The same is true on Earth for helicopters,</p><p>balloons, butterflies, birds, drones, zeppelins, and</p><p>airplanes.</p><p>22.</p><p>When Felix Baumgartner dove from the stratosphere, he</p><p>should have landed far west from where he jumped.</p><p>Instead, he landed a few miles to the East.</p><p>Again, as long as you are in the atmosphere and</p><p>attached to the Earth by gravity (or “buoyancy”), then you</p><p>will notice no motion at all! Imagine a butterfly on that</p><p>same airplane with you, fluttering along so gently,</p><p>completely unaware that it is going 500 miles per hour.</p><p>We’re going to be on this airplane a lot I think, so let’s</p><p>imagine we’re going to Hawaii.</p><p>Flat-Earthers believe that we are covered by a giant dome. Estimates of the size of the dome range</p><p>from 30 to 620 miles high.</p><p>23.</p><p>The idea that the atmosphere is held to the earth by gravity in</p><p>the same way as heavy objects is too absurd to consider.</p><p>Clouds, fireworks, and birds are proof of this.</p><p>Well, something is holding us to Earth. If it’s not gravity,</p><p>then call it something else. What else are fireworks</p><p>supposed to do? Fall to the ground? Oh wait, they do . And</p><p>birds don’t float, they fly. Clouds and balloons do float, but</p><p>that is because helium and steam are lighter than the air in</p><p>the lower atmosphere where we are—where the heavy</p><p>things live. Think of a bubble floating to the top of the</p><p>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjFPWKgn-Gs</p><p>bathtub. It wouldn’t just stay suspended in the bathtub</p><p>water—it will always quickly rise to the top. This is</p><p>because air is lighter than water. Less dense things are less</p><p>affected by gravity, and that is why heavy things fall and</p><p>“lighter-than-air” stuff rises.</p><p>24.</p><p>Similar to number 20, this time it is pointed out that cannon</p><p>trajectories should be different depending on which</p><p>direction they are facing. Since they do not differ at all, this</p><p>fact supports a motionless Earth.</p><p>While you are on your way to Hawaii, stand in the</p><p>center of the cabin of the airplane. Throw a peanut down</p><p>the aisle in one direction, and then throw another peanut</p><p>down the aisle in the opposite direction. They will not be</p><p>affected by the speed of the plane. You have to remember</p><p>that Earth’s atmosphere is like a pressurized airplane</p><p>cabin—the air is being pushed along with everything else.</p><p>Like Velcro, the atmosphere sticks to the Earth, rotating</p><p>with it.</p><p>25.</p><p>Along the same lines, Dubay argues that airplanes should</p><p>have different arrival times based on which direction they</p><p>are flying. Since the arrival times don’t vary in this way,</p><p>this proves a motionless Earth.</p><p>Ok, maybe we need to talk about the fact that human</p><p>beings do not live in space directly, we live in the</p><p>atmosphere of Earth. If that’s a dome, or a sphere, or a</p><p>triangle, we are still surrounded by air. This is our</p><p>atmosphere. Air pressure keeps everything still and</p><p>uniform for air-breathers. We move around in the air the</p><p>way a fish moves in the water. There is air on every side of</p><p>you right now. If we are moving around in space, the</p><p>atmosphere (attached to Earth by “gravity”) is moving</p><p>along with us. It reminds me of the way a fish lives in the</p><p>water and goes along with the water. If we are living on the</p><p>surface of a sphere spinning in outer space, it would make</p><p>sense that we aren’t directly affected by its speed.</p><p>26.</p><p>A quote from Gabrielle Henriet’s Heaven and Earth , a</p><p>seminal reference work in the flat-Earth movement. As best</p><p>as I could find out, it was originally published in French in</p><p>the early 1900s. This quote re-iterates the point that aircraft</p><p>pilots never need to factor-in the rotation of the Earth when</p><p>it comes to their arrival times.</p><p>Yes, that is correct, they don’t. It will take you the same</p><p>amount of time to run down the aisle of an airplane going</p><p>with the direction of the plane</p><p>or against the direction of</p><p>the plane. This is why an understanding of gravity is</p><p>essential .</p><p>Henriet also had other interesting views of the nature of</p><p>the Earth. Not only is it flat, she believes, but it’s a living,</p><p>breathing, intelligent life form. Listen to a quote from her</p><p>book, Heaven and Earth (p. 44,45):</p><p>“The earth is not a cold mass without any reflexes. …</p><p>symptoms of animation, such as earthquakes, tides, and</p><p>winds. … it is only because it is part and parcel of the</p><p>living body of the earth itself… an organic one, a parallel</p><p>of which could be found in the human body.</p><p>“Under the circumstances the volcanic eruptions and the</p><p>earthquakes would appear to represent cardiac</p><p>phenomena … It is also almost certain that the loud</p><p>subterranean rumblings which accompany volcanic</p><p>eruptions and earthquakes correspond to the sounds which</p><p>are peculiar to the heart.”</p><p>https://www.globalgreyebooks.com/content/books/ebooks/heaven-and-earth.pdf</p><p>Gabrielle Henriet, an authority in the flat Earth movement, describes the dome and how it all</p><p>works in her 1958 book, Heaven and Earth .</p><p>27.</p><p>If the Earth is spinning at 1,000 miles per hour, then why isn’t</p><p>a moving runway ever a concern for a pilot landing a</p><p>plane?</p><p>When a plane is landing, it is not going from space to</p><p>Earth. The plane was already moving along with the Earth,</p><p>because everything in the atmosphere is moving along with</p><p>the Earth. Everything is held like glue to the Earth by</p><p>gravity, including the air. Without the presence of air</p><p>pressure, your frightening scenario of an airplane missing</p><p>a runway might be possible.</p><p>28.</p><p>If the globe is spinning in an Easterly direction, then the</p><p>cloud patterns should be uniformly pushed in the same</p><p>direction. Instead, they seem to operate independently from</p><p>any supposed rotation speed of the Earth.</p><p>I will just take this opportunity to say that I think the</p><p>flat-Earth model creates more questions than it answers. I</p><p>also think that’s the very thing that makes it attractive. It</p><p>brings wonder and mystery back to a universe that is too</p><p>coldly described by science.</p><p>29.</p><p>Since no eastward motion can be sensed by human beings,</p><p>whereas the slightest western breeze can be easily felt, then</p><p>even our normal senses testify to a motionless Earth.</p><p>This is probably why people believed for centuries that</p><p>the Earth was motionless. It feels motionless. I feel like I</p><p>described the reasons why our sense of motion is not a</p><p>good indicator. On the plane to Hawaii, probably snoozing</p><p>with your seat belt off and your ear buds in, it does not feel</p><p>like you are going 500 miles per hour.</p><p>30.</p><p>Explorer Sir James Clark Ross described times when the</p><p>highest clouds were moving in an opposite direction from</p><p>the wind in their sails. He concluded that this must be proof</p><p>of a motionless Earth.</p><p>Back in the old days, definitely in the era of Mad Men ,</p><p>they used to allow in-flight smoking. Passengers and pilots</p><p>would choke out everyone else in the cabin with second-</p><p>hand smoke. It was kind of hard to open a window . Why</p><p>they ever allowed that, I don’t know, but I do know that</p><p>the smoke from those cigarettes did not act like it was</p><p>flying along at 500 miles per hour. Similarly, the clouds in</p><p>Earth’s atmosphere are mostly doing their own thing,</p><p>regardless of the rotation of the Earth.</p><p>In 1956, Samuel Shenton set up the International Flat Earth Research Society (IFERS),</p><p>better known as the Flat Earth Society from Dover, UK, evolved out of Universal Zetetic</p><p>Society. This was just before the Soviet Union launched Sputnik .</p><p>31.</p><p>An Earth rotating at about 1,000 miles per hour should stir up</p><p>quite an extreme world-wide wind storm that would never</p><p>allow for a calm atmosphere. This is per a quote used by</p><p>Thomas Winships. The logical conclusion in light of this</p><p>perspective is that even kite flying proves that the Earth is</p><p>motionless. According to this logic, we should all be</p><p>getting thrown at 1,000 miles per hour toward the West.</p><p>This does not take into consideration that ballers not</p><p>only believe the Earth is spinning, but they also believe</p><p>that the atmosphere is spinning with the globe, held in</p><p>place by gravity. I would like to add that even if the</p><p>Earth were flat, something is still holding everything in</p><p>place.</p><p>You would expect the horizon to look straight, even on a globe. We aren’t tall enough to see</p><p>around it.</p><p>32.</p><p>If gravity is strong enough to hold the Earth’s people, oceans,</p><p>and atmosphere, then it should be too strong to allow bugs,</p><p>birds, and planes to zoom around freely. Up until 1903,</p><p>gravity was too strong for planes to fly. At the time,</p><p>most people thought the laws of physics made it</p><p>impossible to create a successful heavier-than-air craft.</p><p>As for bugs and birds, their complicated anatomy is a</p><p>wonder specifically because they are both perfectly</p><p>designed/ evolved to overcome gravity by manipulating</p><p>air pressure. If gravity were not as strong as it is, there</p><p>would be more than planes, bugs and birds flying</p><p>around.</p><p>33.</p><p>If gravity can pull on the ocean so hard as to cause it to curve,</p><p>then surely it would also put too much pressure on any</p><p>living creature of the depths. Despite such pressure, ocean</p><p>creatures move around freely. This disproves gravity.</p><p>The ocean’s deep-sea pressure is notoriously dangerous.</p><p>Every time creatures are discovered in the depths, more is</p><p>learned about the clever anatomy of deep-sea animals. On</p><p>a flat earth, is the ocean’s pressure not deadly?</p><p>34.</p><p>Since plane trigonometry is more accurate than spherical</p><p>trigonometry in calculating distances on Earth, then this</p><p>would prove a flat Earth.</p><p>I don’t know enough about trigonometry to counter that</p><p>point, but most people wouldn’t. I will assume you are</p><p>either wrong or once again exaggerating the effect that</p><p>curvature should have on tiny little ants living on a</p><p>gigantic globe Earth.</p><p>35.</p><p>Since latitudes get longer the farther south you go, then the</p><p>Earth could not possibly be a globe.</p><p>Well, if the Earth is pear-shaped, as Neil DeGrasse</p><p>claims, then latitude lines would get slightly longer in the</p><p>southern hemisphere verses the northern hemisphere. If,</p><p>however, the Earth is flat, then the length of latitude lines</p><p>would be exponentially longer in the southern hemisphere.</p><p>On a flat Earth, the length of latitudes in the southern</p><p>hemisphere should be so much longer that it would be very</p><p>obvious even to an untrained observer. I mean, a boat</p><p>would take forever to get from Australia to South Africa.</p><p>This is really one of the examples of where the burden of</p><p>proof is on the flat- Earther. Why aren’t these enormous</p><p>distances ever noticed?</p><p>Latitudes get longer at the equator, but then start to shrink again, the farther they move from</p><p>it.</p><p>On a flat Earth, the latitudes would keep getting longer and longer, until surely any</p><p>reasonable ship captain would have noticed by now.</p><p>36.</p><p>Aforementioned explorer James Clark Ross wrote in his</p><p>journal that his voyages in the southern hemisphere were</p><p>routinely off-course, sometimes by as much as twenty-nine</p><p>miles.</p><p>If the globe model is completely wrong, then every pilot</p><p>and captain since James Clark should have also had</p><p>problems navigating the Southern Hemisphere. That</p><p>hasn’t happened. I did find a first-hand account of</p><p>someone else’s South Pole excursion. Listen to his story :</p><p>“As it happens, I met a real live flat-earther just last week -</p><p>so I am a little more inclined to bother answering than I would</p><p>normally be.</p><p>“I have not crossed over the entirety of Antarctica or</p><p>circumnavigated it, though there are some people who have,</p><p>however I did spend three months at the South Pole and eight</p><p>months straight at McMurdo Station, and while I was there I</p><p>witnessed phenomena that are perfectly explained by the</p><p>standard theory but not by a rim theory.</p><p>https://www.quora.com/Has-anyone-crossed-flew-over-or-circumnavigated-Antarctica-so-that-the-Flat-Earthers-claims-are-disproved-that-Antarctica-is-not-a-pole-but-a-rim</p><p>“First of all, in the three months I was at the South Pole the</p><p>sun never went down. In fact, not only</p><p>did the sun never go</p><p>down, I never even noticed it dipping. From vernal equinox to</p><p>the autumnal equinox (southern hemisphere) I have been told</p><p>by those who witnessed it that the sun slowly spirals upward</p><p>until the summer solstice and then begins to spiral downward</p><p>again - which is to say, the sun appears to go around and</p><p>around, one circle per day, gradually getting a little higher</p><p>every day until it begins to get lower each day until it dips</p><p>below the horizon and stays below the horizon until the next</p><p>equinox. While I did not have instruments to take precise</p><p>measurements, I can attest that the sun appeared to be pretty</p><p>level as it went around and around, and that it never dipped</p><p>toward the horizon while I was at the geographic south pole. I</p><p>can also tell you that the moon was often visible, and</p><p>proceeded through three full moons while I was there, just as</p><p>would be expected.” Apr 11, 2016, Alan Light, (Alan worked the summer</p><p>of 2007-08 at the South Pole and the winter of 2009 at McMurdo).</p><p>37.</p><p>Lieutenant Charles Wilkes explored the Antarctic from 1838</p><p>to 1842. He also reported inconsistencies in his navigation.</p><p>Inconsistencies in navigation do not a flat Earth make.</p><p>Allow me to also point out that these explorers only had</p><p>access to 19 th -Century navigation technology.</p><p>https://www.quora.com/Has-anyone-crossed-flew-over-or-circumnavigated-Antarctica-so-that-the-Flat-Earthers-claims-are-disproved-that-Antarctica-is-not-a-pole-but-a-rim</p><p>https://www.quora.com/Has-anyone-crossed-flew-over-or-circumnavigated-Antarctica-so-that-the-Flat-Earthers-claims-are-disproved-that-Antarctica-is-not-a-pole-but-a-rim</p><p>https://www.quora.com/Has-anyone-crossed-flew-over-or-circumnavigated-Antarctica-so-that-the-Flat-Earthers-claims-are-disproved-that-Antarctica-is-not-a-pole-but-a-rim</p><p>The compass and telescope were like a sixth sense to early explorers. 99% of them came</p><p>back agreeing the Earth is round.</p><p>38.</p><p>Reverend Thomas Milner observed that the southern</p><p>hemisphere carries a particular danger. According to</p><p>Reverend Milner, ships in the southern hemisphere are</p><p>more likely to sink because of the danger of crashing on the</p><p>coast or on shallow rocks, due to incorrect navigation.</p><p>This story is according to Reverend Thomas Milner .</p><p>Secondly, the weather down there is much harsher than in</p><p>the Northern Hemisphere. Eric Dubay himself has</p><p>mentioned many times how much colder the South Pole is</p><p>than the North Pole. Harsh weather might be easy to</p><p>overcome in the modern world, but it could really ruin a</p><p>voyage like that in those days.</p><p>39.</p><p>The cities of Sydney and Nelson, Australia, are actually over</p><p>25,000 miles apart. This would make Australia as long</p><p>as the equator, and Mr. Dubay admits that fact. It seems</p><p>a bit extreme. Also, his point makes no sense</p><p>whatsoever. Read Proof #39 in its entirety for yourself:</p><p>“Practical distance measurements taken from ‘The</p><p>Australian Handbook, Almanack, Shippers’ and</p><p>Importers’ Directory’ state that the straight line distance</p><p>between Sydney and Nelson is 1550 statute miles. Their</p><p>given difference in longitude is 22 degrees 2’14”. Therefore</p><p>if 22 degrees 2’14” out of 360 is 1550 miles, the entirety</p><p>would measure 25,182 miles. This is not only larger than</p><p>the ball Earth is said to be at the equator, but a whole 4262</p><p>miles greater that it would be at Sydney’s southern latitude</p><p>on a globe of said proportions.”</p><p>200 Proofs</p><p>Eric Dubay</p><p>40.</p><p>If you factor the distance between Chile and Australia, you</p><p>will conclude that the latitude crossing Melbourne is over</p><p>1,500 miles longer than the latitude at the equator. Not only</p><p>that, but this would make it thousands of more miles longer</p><p>than it should be at that southern latitude.</p><p>At this point, I am beginning to wonder if Eric Dubay is</p><p>just doing some slight-of-hand here. What the heck do</p><p>these distances have to do with the spinning globe, and how</p><p>could such distances not be noticed by all of the people</p><p>living in Australia?</p><p>41.</p><p>If you factor the distance between South Africa and Australia,</p><p>you will conclude that the latitude at 35.5 degrees South is</p><p>longer than the latitude at the equator.</p><p>This would be consistent with what Dr. deGrasse Tyson</p><p>says, that the Earth is a pear-shaped oblate spheroid. If it</p><p>is flat, however, then the latitude measurements turn into</p><p>tens of thousands of extra “missing” miles.</p><p>42.</p><p>Captain Cook and James Clark Ross both measured the</p><p>circumnavigation of the South Pole at over 50,000 to</p><p>60,000 miles in circumference. This would not be</p><p>consistent with a globular Earth. It would be perfectly</p><p>consistent in the flat-Earth model.</p><p>https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5Dy_Ci78cCvazRqdFZoTUVyN2M/preview</p><p>https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5Dy_Ci78cCvazRqdFZoTUVyN2M/preview</p><p>Captain Cook did say it was about 60,000 miles for his</p><p>voyage, but he was including a bunch of other mileage,</p><p>including diversions, excursions, and even some back-</p><p>tracking. Look at this voyage of Cook’s on any map and</p><p>you will see why he logged 60,000 miles! As for James</p><p>Clark Ross, I assume it was a similar misunderstanding.</p><p>Perhaps these men were paid by the mile.</p><p>The coastline of Antarctica has been measured, and</p><p>comes-in at approximately 11,000 miles. If the Earth were</p><p>flat, the circumference would be approximately 78,000 miles</p><p>long. Such a difference would surely be noticeable to more</p><p>civilians than flat-Earthers will admit.</p><p>43.</p><p>There are no flights over Antarctica, which would be</p><p>impossible on a flat Earth. This is therefore proof that the</p><p>globe-Earth theory is wrong.</p><p>Again, we will have to rely on the simplest explanation</p><p>being closest to the truth. It’s true, there are no major</p><p>airlines that fly over Antarctica. They say it’s because</p><p>there is no way to safely land a plane over the entire span.</p><p>Navigation systems also start to go wonky at either of the</p><p>poles .</p><p>Privately-chartered flights can receive permits to fly</p><p>over Antarctica if they get through all of the red tape. This</p><p>would be along the lines of climbing Mount Everest, and is</p><p>still considered a risky undertaking even today.</p><p>https://www.metabunk.org/the-voyages-of-captain-cook.t8178/</p><p>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_route</p><p>According to flat-Earthers, the flight plans of major airlines prove that the Earth is actually</p><p>flat. On a round Earth, the routes would be much different.</p><p>44.</p><p>All flights in the southern hemisphere stop for refueling in the</p><p>northern hemisphere before returning to another southern-</p><p>hemisphere destination. For example, the flight from</p><p>Sydney to Santiago stops for refueling in Los Angeles and</p><p>other North American airports.</p><p>Considering that 88% of the world’s population live in</p><p>the Northern Hemisphere, it does not surprise me that they</p><p>follow flight paths that favor those above the equator.</p><p>45.</p><p>Similarly, flights from South Africa to Australia stopover in</p><p>Hong Kong or Malaysia. This would only make sense on a</p><p>flat Earth.</p><p>Are you saying that there would be no other reason to</p><p>stop in a world-population hub like Hong Kong? Also, a</p><p>quick search on a travel site, like Travelocity, will prove this</p><p>entire point wrong. There are some direct flights, and they</p><p>take the amount of time you would expect on a spherical</p><p>Earth.</p><p>46.</p><p>https://www.themarysue.com/world-population-latitude-longitude/</p><p>Again, flights from South Africa to Argentina always make</p><p>refueling stops in the northern hemisphere first.</p><p>And again, a point is being repeated. When you publish a</p><p>list of 200 proofs, readers expect 200 different proofs.</p><p>47.</p><p>In another example making the same point, flights from</p><p>South Africa to Brazil almost always stops in London along</p><p>the way. This would be far out of the way on a globe Earth</p><p>but makes perfect sense on a flat Earth.</p><p>Yes, Eric Dubay continues to make the same point here as</p><p>well.</p><p>48.</p><p>In yet another example making the very same point, flights</p><p>from Chile to South Africa always make stops in the</p><p>northern hemisphere on the way. Again, this only makes</p><p>sense in the flat-Earth model.</p><p>Since this is just a repeated point, and we are on the</p><p>subject</p><p>of flights, where are the first-hand accounts of pilots</p><p>agreeing the flat Earth makes sense? I have yet to find any.</p><p>49.</p><p>If the Sun is relatively the same distance from every spot on</p><p>Earth receiving daylight, then why are the temperatures so</p><p>extremely cold at each pole, and so much warmer at the</p><p>equator?</p><p>Leading weather expert, Marshall Shepherd, explains the</p><p>science behind the weather at the poles:</p><p>“Let's start with the climatology of the North Pole first.</p><p>Both Poles are relatively cold because they don't receive</p><p>direct sunlight. Even during the summer months, the Sun is</p><p>relatively low on the horizon. In winter months, the Sun</p><p>doesn't come up at all for much of the season. These factors</p><p>are caused by the axial tilt of the Earth. This same axial tilt</p><p>https://www.forbes.com/sites/marshallshepherd/2016/12/19/the-science-of-why-the-north-pole-is-cold/#6f47865457d9</p><p>helps define our seasons as well. In addition, the Sun's rays</p><p>have to travel through more of the Earth's atmosphere</p><p>because of the angle of incidence at the Poles. In the Tropics,</p><p>the Sun's rays travel through less of the atmosphere and is</p><p>more direct. If you want a visual example of this, take a</p><p>flashlight and hold it straight down (Tropics) and at an angle</p><p>(Poles). Did you notice how more broad the beam is for the</p><p>"angle" experiment. These factors provide a simple answer</p><p>to why it is cold at the North Pole.”</p><p>He then goes on to name other factors that have to be</p><p>considered when figuring out the Sun’s differing effects on</p><p>Earth’s poles.</p><p>50.</p><p>If the earth were a globe with two poles, then both the North</p><p>and South Poles should have very similar temperatures, and</p><p>similar weather. The truth is that the weather is drastically</p><p>different at each pole.</p><p>Since the Earth is tilted, and its revolution around the</p><p>Sun is elliptical, different parts of the globe will receive</p><p>varying amounts of sunlight throughout the year. When</p><p>sunlight comes in at an angle, it has to pass through more</p><p>atmosphere than if it is directly overhead. It makes sense to</p><p>me.</p><p>The problem is that the weather differences between the</p><p>North and South Poles do not have a one-sentence</p><p>https://www.forbes.com/sites/marshallshepherd/2016/12/19/the-science-of-why-the-north-pole-is-cold/#6f47865457d9</p><p>explanation. Anything longer is complex enough to declare a</p><p>conspiracy.</p><p>Also, If it requires reliance on anyone else’s science, you</p><p>might as well stop there. Unless it is directly observable, the</p><p>flat-Earther will shrug it off as gravity-thumping</p><p>propaganda.</p><p>51.</p><p>In making the same point, the South Pole has an average</p><p>annual temperature of -57 degrees Fahrenheit, while the</p><p>North Pole has an average annual temperature of +4</p><p>degrees Fahrenheit.</p><p>Antarctica differs from the North Pole in several ways.</p><p>Arctic (North) ice covers huge areas of deep ocean. The ice</p><p>in Antarctica (South) covers land. Not just any land. The</p><p>land gets higher and higher in elevation, with drier and</p><p>drier conditions .</p><p>Despite all the ice and snow, the air at the South Pole is</p><p>bone dry. In fact, it is the driest place on Earth . It receives</p><p>almost zero rain. Meanwhile, the North is gradually getting</p><p>more humid .</p><p>This is what the National Snow and Ice Data Center has</p><p>to say about Arctic temperatures: “Much of the Arctic</p><p>region stays warmer than scientists would expect based only</p><p>on latitude.</p><p>That unexpected warmth comes from the Arctic Ocean.</p><p>Water has a high heat capacity, meaning that it takes a lot</p><p>of energy to change its temperature. This is one reason that</p><p>coastal areas tend to have mild climates: the ocean keeps</p><p>them cool during the summer and warm during the winter.</p><p>Land, in contrast, has a lower heat capacity, so it heats up</p><p>quickly during the day and cools down as soon as the sun</p><p>goes down.”</p><p>https://www.universetoday.com/15031/driest-place-on-earth/</p><p>https://www.earthmagazine.org/article/arctic-humidity-rise</p><p>https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/arctic-meteorology/factors_affecting_climate_weather.html</p><p>The length of Antarctica’s coastline would be vastly longer if it is really a giant ice wall.</p><p>52.</p><p>The South Pole is home to very few living things. Foliage on</p><p>land is even sparse. This is evidence that the globe-Earth</p><p>model is flawed.</p><p>No, it’s evidence that the weather differences we just</p><p>discussed are correct. As I just said, Antarctica is the driest</p><p>place on Earth. That leads to some very desert-like</p><p>conditions. In fact, Antarctica is a desert as far as</p><p>classifications go.</p><p>53.</p><p>The longest summer days in the northern hemisphere are</p><p>much longer than the longest summer days in the southern</p><p>hemisphere. This is only consistent with the flat-Earth</p><p>model.</p><p>Actually, no. It is consistent with the globe-Earth model.</p><p>As for the length of days, Mr. Dubay says the</p><p>daylight hours are drastically different between the poles.</p><p>He never specifies how much time difference can be</p><p>observed.</p><p>54.</p><p>In the northern hemisphere, dawn and dusk are both longer-</p><p>lasting than their equivalent in the southern hemisphere.</p><p>This would be inconsistent with a globular Earth that is</p><p>spinning uniformly around the same Sun year after year.</p><p>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica</p><p>Dawn and dusk are not actually different lengths. The</p><p>daylight will linger in conditions where there is more</p><p>humidity and precipitation. The shortest twilights (dusk and</p><p>dawn) are found in equatorial regions. This fact would not</p><p>be consistent using Mr. Dubay’s reasoning.</p><p>55.</p><p>In the flat-Earth model, the southern hemisphere receives far</p><p>less sunlight throughout the year, easily explaining the</p><p>temperature variations at the poles.</p><p>The southern hemisphere does not receive far less</p><p>sunlight throughout the year. The flat-Earth model would</p><p>require much shorter days for the people of Australia than</p><p>the people in North America. That isn’t the case. Some</p><p>differences would be expected depending on the Earth’s</p><p>position in its rotation and revolution.</p><p>56.</p><p>Observers who are far enough north can see a phenomenon</p><p>where the Sun does not set for over 72 hours. This would</p><p>be impossible on a globe Earth.</p><p>The Sun does the same thing in the South. The fact that it</p><p>does the same thing in the South means the flat-Earth model</p><p>is impossible.</p><p>57.</p><p>There is no direct evidence of the “Midnight Sun”</p><p>phenomenon in Antarctica.</p><p>This is quite a claim. It happens to be completely false.</p><p>There is plenty of evidence that this phenomenon happens</p><p>at both poles.</p><p>58.</p><p>The opposite effect can be seen in Antarctica, where the</p><p>winter Sun disappears for almost two full months.</p><p>https://meteorologicalconsultant.wordpress.com/2017/10/10/twilight-dawn-and-dusk/</p><p>http://i.imgur.com/nS5HoH1.png</p><p>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQlr366eels</p><p>http://www.antarctica.gov.au/about-antarctica/environment/weather/sunlight-hours</p><p>The opposite effect can be seen at both poles, and that’s</p><p>backed-up by first-hand accounts of every single person</p><p>who lives or has lived near Antarctica, such as in Australia.</p><p>59.</p><p>Here, Dubay includes another quote from the Author of</p><p>Heaven and Earth , Gabrielle Henriet, this time explaining</p><p>that if the Earth is always spinning at a consistent rate, the</p><p>length of the days and nights should always be an even 12</p><p>hours and 12 hours, respectively.</p><p>The same lady, in the same book, also said that the Eiffel</p><p>Tower and the skyscrapers should lean to the left or right as</p><p>a natural result of being on a spherical incline. This was</p><p>from a chapter titled, “On the Non Revolution of the Earth</p><p>Round the Sun and on the Existence of a Summer and of a</p><p>Winter Cosmic Breath Stream” [sic x 3] I believe her words</p><p>speak for her better than I ever could.</p><p>On page 28 of the same book, Henriet actually says that</p><p>thunder is the sound of the dome cracking.</p><p>60.</p><p>A simple experiment can be performed to demonstrate the</p><p>flatness of the Earth. Rest a perfectly flat board so that you</p><p>can compare it to the distant horizon. Notice how no</p><p>curvature can be detected, no matter what angle you view</p><p>the horizon compared to the flat board.</p><p>I never thought I would have the need to even try to</p><p>understand spherical trigonometry, but I think I have found</p><p>a way of understanding the curvature formula that makes</p><p>sense to me. The flat-Earth formula of curvature does not</p><p>account for the fact that with every consecutive mile away</p><p>from the observer, a sphere is exponentially curving down.</p><p>Since it curves down exponentially, the real drop happens</p><p>after a few thousand miles. That’s how spheres work.</p><p>https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/library/books/Heaven%20and%20Earth%20(Gabrielle%20Henriet).pdf</p><p>Would you notice a curve, or would the horizon just drop off? Having a 360 degree view from the</p><p>surface of the Earth, it would look like one long, straight line. You’d have to be at least 1,000 miles</p><p>tall to see the kind of curvature that the flat-Earthers claim you should see.</p><p>61.</p><p>If the Earth is a ball, then why don’t objects at a great</p><p>distance appear to tilt away from one’s perspective? For</p><p>example, a hot air balloon should appear to tilt away from a</p><p>viewer at a certain distance.</p><p>This might be true on a much smaller sphere, but the</p><p>Earth is way too big to be able to see things tilting away</p><p>from you as they go away into the distance. They would</p><p>vanish from your sight by the time they tilted that much.</p><p>62.</p><p>Samuel Rowbotham performed an experiment in a perfectly-</p><p>level canal, six miles long. His telescope, only eight inches</p><p>from the water’s surface, could still make out his friend in a</p><p>boat at the other end, holding a 5-foot tall flag. This would</p><p>be impossible on a globe Earth.</p><p>Eric Dubay continues to claim these experiments would</p><p>only work this way on a flat Earth. To reach that</p><p>conclusion, you would need a way-oversimplified view of</p><p>spherical trigonometry . You would also need to believe Mr.</p><p>Dubay when he claims that something would be impossible</p><p>on a globe.</p><p>Spherical trigonometry is not for the faint of heart. I am</p><p>no mathematician, nor do I desire to wrap myself up in</p><p>equations in order to demonstrate the shape of the Earth. I</p><p>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcXbLRPq5vc</p><p>http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SphericalTrigonometry.html</p><p>will say that if you are calculating distances from the</p><p>perspective of a tiny ant on a giant globe, then it would</p><p>make sense to use a flat-Earth type of model. From our</p><p>perspective, it does look flat. This has never been a secret!</p><p>Earth’s curvature would be very difficult to notice from</p><p>the perspective of an observer as small as we are. If Earth’s</p><p>curvature were easy to see, we would probably have noticed</p><p>it more often.</p><p>On a sphere, curvature works in a strange way. What</p><p>distance are you measuring? When you look straight ahead,</p><p>are you looking into space, or around the curve? We are</p><p>such comparatively tiny creatures. Coming from our</p><p>perspective, the curve of the planet is hardly distinguishable</p><p>from a perfectly-straight line.</p><p>Sam Rowbotham (1816-1884) was the inventor of Zetetic Astronomy.</p><p>63.</p><p>In another experiment, Mr. Rowbotham lined up six flags</p><p>along the shore. Using his telescope, he discovered that all</p><p>six flags lined-up perfectly, with no visible curvature.</p><p>Mr. Rowbotham says he did not notice any visual proof of</p><p>the Earth’s curvature in just a few miles. I would not have</p><p>expected to notice the Earth’s curvature either. It was only</p><p>six miles!</p><p>Mr. Rowbotham, along with the other flat-Earthers, are</p><p>perpetuating such a gross oversimplification of the spherical</p><p>curve equation. Remember, we are talking about measuring</p><p>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9ksbh88OJs</p><p>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9ksbh88OJs</p><p>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_trigonometry</p><p>it from the viewpoint of an observer on the sphere.</p><p>According to the flat-Earthers, I should notice thousands of</p><p>feet of curvature by the time I look up to see fifty miles</p><p>away. This makes absolutely no sense to me.</p><p>I grew up in the American Southwest. In Arizona and</p><p>Southern California, you can easily see something that is</p><p>fifty miles away. The Earth does not curve in such an</p><p>obvious way, and we all inherently know it. From where you</p><p>are standing, the curve is very gradual. It then drops</p><p>drastically after a few thousand miles , eventually falling off</p><p>the edge completely. To be able to see far enough to notice a</p><p>curve in a sphere this large, you would have to be thousands</p><p>of feet tall.</p><p>64.</p><p>This number is composed of a quote from Samuel</p><p>Rowbotham. He wrote a book entitled, Earth Not A Globe!</p><p>, and it is a central work referred to by flat-Earthers.</p><p>Because Mr. Rowbotham’s explanation of the horizon</p><p>effectively captures the complex nature of flat-Earth logic, I</p><p>will include a large portion of the quote here:</p><p>“The following experiment has been tried in various parts of</p><p>the country. At Brighton, on a rising ground near the race</p><p>course, two poles were fixed in the earth six yards apart, and</p><p>directly opposite the sea. Between these poles a line was</p><p>tightly stretched parallel to the horizon. From the center of the</p><p>line the view embraced not less than 20 miles on each side</p><p>making a distance of 40 miles. A vessel was observed sailing</p><p>directly westwards; the line cut the rigging a little above the</p><p>bulwarks, which it did for several hours or until the vessel had</p><p>sailed the whole distance of 40 miles. The ship coming into</p><p>view from the east would have to ascend an inclined plane for</p><p>20 miles until it arrived at the center of the arc, whence it</p><p>would have to descend for the same distance. The square of 20</p><p>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYdSU-Shu0A</p><p>miles multiplied by 8 inches gives 266 feet as the amount the</p><p>vessel would be below the line at the beginning and at the end</p><p>of the forty miles.”</p><p>Mr. Rowbotham’s book must be hard to read. I don’t</p><p>understand what he is even talking about in this passage. I</p><p>know it does nothing to make me think I should be able to</p><p>notice the Earth’s curvature.</p><p>Since the sky is blue, many flat-Earthers believe that there is water above the dome. Or maybe the</p><p>dome is made of water. This is then connected to the two firmaments in Genesis 1:6-8.</p><p>“And God said, ‘Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water,’ So God</p><p>made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so.</p><p>God called the expanse ‘sky.’”</p><p>65.</p><p>Mr. Rowbotham is quoted again here. This time he describes</p><p>how the masts of ships become visible much sooner than</p><p>they should if you factor-in the curvature of the Earth.</p><p>Rowbotham famously ran away from a flat-</p><p>Earth/spherical-Earth debate when he couldn’t explain why</p><p>the masts became visible before the hull.</p><p>66.</p><p>Rowbotham conducted many more experiments in order to</p><p>prove the flatness of the Earth. These contributed greatly to</p><p>the flat-Earth movement’s wide-spread success during the</p><p>1800s. As the creator of Zetetic Astronomy, Sam</p><p>Rowbotham’s teachings were later adopted by the Christian</p><p>Catholic Apostolic Church in America.</p><p>Rowbotham sounds like he was certainly a zealot. He</p><p>may have had good intentions. Perhaps his efforts led to</p><p>religious conversions. The fact remains that it was not taken</p><p>seriously by science.</p><p>Why is the flat-Earth model not taken seriously by</p><p>science? It is either because they are all part of an</p><p>Illuminati-type conspiracy, or because they do not think the</p><p>flat-Earth model is correct at all. This would be a great spot</p><p>in the book to mention Okham’s Razor . Flat-Earthers</p><p>invoke this principle all of the time. If you use it here, the</p><p>Illuminati paranoia goes down the drain.</p><p>In brief, Occam’s Razor is a principle that says the</p><p>conclusion relying on the fewest assumptions is most likely</p><p>the correct one. An Illuminati connection to the shape of the</p><p>Earth relies on countless assumptions.</p><p>67.</p><p>The size of the Irish Sea should allow for a clear indication of</p><p>Earth’s curvature, but it is well-known that the span makes</p><p>for a clear view of the other side.</p><p>The Irish Sea is about 30-40 miles wide and I have</p><p>already stated that such a distance is easy to see across, even</p><p>on a spherical Earth. If you put your eye exactly flush with</p><p>sea level, I bet you’ll notice some curvature.</p><p>68.</p><p>Philadelphia’s skyline is visible from 40 miles away.</p><p>So?</p><p>69.</p><p>The New York City skyline is visible from 60 miles away.</p><p>So? The globe is really a lot bigger than you must be</p><p>thinking.</p><p>70.</p><p>From New Jersey, both the New York City and Philadelphia</p><p>skylines are visible at the same time.</p><p>https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor</p><p>Is it just me, or are all of these “proofs” just repeating the</p><p>same point over and over?</p><p>71.</p><p>The Chicago skyline is visible from 60 miles away.</p><p>Yes, these proofs are starting to sound like a broken</p><p>record.</p><p>72.</p><p>One time, in 1854, witnesses were able to see a 300-foot tall</p><p>dock tower from 70 miles away.</p><p>This circumstantial “evidence” based on the simplest</p><p>observation. observations is not scientific at all. At this</p><p>point, a more critical focus should be placed on the flat-</p><p>Earther’s “equation” for the Earth’s curvature.</p><p>According to mathematicians , the Earth curves about 8</p><p>inches every mile. This seems reasonable, until you get to 50</p><p>or 100 miles. By that distance, the flat-Earther thinks you</p><p>shouldn’t be able to see anything but sky.</p><p>73.</p><p>In 1872, Captain Gibson saw St. Helena Island from 75 miles</p><p>away. What about the stuff at the base of the mountain.</p><p>Did he see that ?</p><p>74.</p><p>From Italy, 81 miles away, the island of Gorgona can often be</p><p>seen. It’s also a very tall island.</p><p>75.</p><p>The island of Corsica can be seen from 99 miles away. It</p><p>also has an 8,800-foot mountain on it.</p><p>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kv_yOHAiv9M</p><p>http://mathcentral.uregina.ca/qq/database/qq.09.97/dyck2.html</p><p>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorgona_(Italy)</p><p>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corsica</p><p>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Cinto</p><p>76.</p><p>The island of Capraia can be seen from 102 miles away.</p><p>These should have been grouped together under one</p><p>“proof.”</p><p>77.</p><p>The island of Elba can be seen from 125 miles away. But</p><p>seriously, this is the same point over and over and</p><p>over…</p><p>78.</p><p>Mount Foraker in Alaska can be seen from 120 miles away.</p><p>…and over…</p><p>79.</p><p>Mt. McKinley (more correctly known as Denali) is the</p><p>highest mountain peak in North America. It can be seen</p><p>from 130 miles away. Mount Foraker and Denali are</p><p>two of the tallest mountains in North America! Denali</p><p>actually is the tallest mountain in North America. If the</p><p>Earth is flat, why do flat-Earth observations require</p><p>such high mountains?</p><p>80.</p><p>In 1895, an ocean vessel was seen from 200 miles away.</p><p>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kv_yOHAiv9M</p><p>Ok, that was pointless to include. Where is the data?</p><p>Why are there only scattered witnesses to these various</p><p>phenomena? There are far more credible UFO sightings</p><p>than there are predictable or scientific flat-Earth</p><p>observations.</p><p>81.</p><p>How can lighthouses be seen from over 28 miles away, when</p><p>even the tallest lighthouse should be hidden behind</p><p>hundreds of feet of Earth’s curvature?</p><p>A friend and I were driving through our hometown in</p><p>Arizona the other day. I asked her, “How far away are those</p><p>mountains over there?”</p><p>“About thirty miles or so,” she answered.</p><p>We were both looking at a mountain range straight ahead</p><p>that was easily 30 – 40 miles away. The mountain was very</p><p>easy to see—clear as a bell in the desert air. Curvature was</p><p>perhaps irrelevant since it was very uneven terrain, but</p><p>according to the flat-Earth theory, they should have been</p><p>tilting away from me. No curve, no tilt, and no haze to block</p><p>the view.</p><p>I could easily see a mountain forty miles away without</p><p>binoculars. If I could do that, then a sailor should be able to</p><p>see a mountainous island from a couple of hundred miles</p><p>away using a telescope, right? At least on a clear day. But</p><p>they can’t. Because the Earth is curved.</p><p>The farthest-away sighting Eric Dubay could produce</p><p>was a sea vessel—one time, long ago—seen from 200 miles</p><p>away. On a flat Earth, seeing large mountains from that far</p><p>off shore should be an everyday occurrence.</p><p>82.</p><p>to 95. Examples of lighthouses, statues, spires, and more</p><p>islands that should not be visible from more than a few</p><p>miles away.</p><p>Unless I, myself, were comfortable with spherical</p><p>trigonometry, which I am not, then I wouldn’t feel</p><p>comfortable offering mathematical prove. I don’t claim to</p><p>know enough to prove which theory is right mathematically.</p><p>I am pretty sure that I have not yet found a flat-Earther</p><p>proficient at spherical trigonometry. I don’t think most</p><p>people have that skill .</p><p>From one layman’s point-of-view it seems that applying a</p><p>single equation to the entire curve without regard for a</p><p>stationary visual perspective is a little too simple. From a</p><p>stationary position on a sphere, the curve eventually drops</p><p>off completely, so I am inclined to believe that spherical</p><p>trigonometry is being over-simplified here.</p><p>96.</p><p>Eric Dubay once again quotes a flat-Earth authority. His quote</p><p>here is taken from 100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe by</p><p>William Carpenter.</p><p>“If we take a journey down the Chesapeake Bay, by night,</p><p>we shall see the ‘light’ exhibited at Sharpe's Island for an hour</p><p>before the steamer gets to it. We may take up a position on the</p><p>deck so that the rail of the vessel's side will be in a line with</p><p>the ‘light’ and in the line of sight; and we shall find that in the</p><p>whole journey the light won't vary in the slightest degree in its</p><p>apparent elevation.</p><p>“But, say that a distance of thirteen miles has been</p><p>traversed, the astronomers' theory of ‘curvature’ demands a</p><p>difference (one way or the other!) in the apparent elevation of</p><p>the light, of 112 feet 8 inches! Since, however, there is not a</p><p>difference of 100 hair's breadths, we have plain proof that the</p><p>water of the Chesapeake Bay is not curved, which is proof that</p><p>the Earth is not a globe.”</p><p>The Chesapeake Bay is 30 miles wide . I have already</p><p>demonstrated how it is possible to see from this distance on a</p><p>clear day.</p><p>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesapeake_Bay</p><p>97.</p><p>If the Earth is spinning at 1,000 mph, traveling around the</p><p>Sun at 67,000 mph, moving with the Milky Way at 500,000</p><p>mph, and the galaxy as a whole is hurling through space at</p><p>670,000,000 mph, then how are we left without even one of</p><p>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJhL7y0ahUE</p><p>these movements ever being noticeable from our</p><p>perspective on Earth’s surface?</p><p>The globe-Earth model says that there is no drag from the</p><p>vacuum of space as the Earth spins. This would mean that</p><p>the atmosphere really might be stuck to the globe-Earth like</p><p>Velcro . In other words, there is nothing in the space directly</p><p>around Earth, so there’s absolutely nothing to drag the</p><p>atmosphere in any direction except to follow the gravity</p><p>below it.</p><p>98.</p><p>Scientists cannot agree upon how far away the North Star</p><p>(Polaris) is. Some scientists believe it’s 323 light years</p><p>away, while others say it’s 434 light years away. This is a</p><p>difference of more than a hundred trillion miles. If</p><p>professional astronomers cannot agree within a hundred</p><p>trillion miles of each other, then how precise is the method</p><p>of determining distances in outer space?</p><p>It seems like cosmology and astronomy are frequently</p><p>changing the ages and distances of things. I’ve noticed that</p><p>an evenly-expanding universe has its detractors among the</p><p>baller scientists.</p><p>In science, adjusting observed distances or restructuring</p><p>a timeline will be necessary from time to time. New</p><p>information might shed light on currently- accepted</p><p>measurements. This is all part of science. The aim is to get to</p><p>the truth through experimentation and observation. No one</p><p>is disputing that.</p><p>What scientists would dispute is the idea that space does</p><p>not exist. They would not be too keen on throwing out</p><p>gravity either. Through it all, however, they seem absolutely</p><p>certain that the night sky is not a dome covered in twinkling</p><p>lights.</p><p>99.</p><p>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velcro</p><p>Polaris is visible even when the observer is over 20 degrees</p><p>south of the equator, which would not be possible on a</p><p>globe Earth.</p><p>Polaris is visible from almost anywhere on the globe, but</p><p>that has nothing to do with whether or not the Earth is a</p><p>globe. It does have a lot to do with distance. Polaris</p><p>is so far</p><p>away from us that we have a wide view, it’s position being in</p><p>the North, never blocked by the Sun.</p><p>100.</p><p>Constellations in the northern hemisphere are visible from</p><p>every northern meridian, while the southern hemisphere</p><p>sometimes hides certain southern stars and constellations,</p><p>depending on where you are. This definitively proves a flat</p><p>Earth with a dome of small lights, not a globe spinning in</p><p>outer space.</p><p>From the point-of-view of anyone on Earth, we are at the</p><p>center of the universe. The stars can be observed to go</p><p>around us. The Sun and Moon appear to go around us.</p><p>Everything we do is geo-centric because this is where we</p><p>always are . We have to mentally step outside of our geo-</p><p>centric world if we want to grasp what might be in the</p><p>beyond.</p><p>Constellations in the Southern sky revolve around a central point. This would not be</p><p>possible in the flat-Earth model.</p><p>101.</p><p>Sigma Octantis, the supposed polar star in the south, is not</p><p>perfectly stationary and is hard to detect without an</p><p>advanced telescope anyway.</p><p>It seems to be admitted by default here in number 101</p><p>that there is a South Pole. The flat-Earth model would be</p><p>impossible with any kind of South Pole whatsoever.</p><p>To justify why the stars still move across the Southern sky</p><p>as if we are on a globe, Dubay gives this nonsensical tidbit:</p><p>“Either way, the direction on which stars move overhead is</p><p>based on perspective and the exact direction you’re facing,</p><p>not which hemisphere you are in.”</p><p>102.</p><p>In Eric Dubay’s own words: “The Law of Perspective</p><p>dictates that the angle and height at which an object is seen</p><p>diminishes the farther one recedes from the object, until at a</p><p>certain point the line of sight and the seemingly uprising</p><p>surface of the Earth converges to a vanishing point (i.e. the</p><p>horizon line) beyond which the object is invisible.”</p><p>The point is made here that even if the Earth were flat,</p><p>human beings cannot see past a certain point with the naked</p><p>eye. Good point, but as I said before, here in the American</p><p>Southwest you can easily see over 50 miles away. This is</p><p>always true as long as the object is big enough and the</p><p>atmosphere is clear enough. I wouldn’t expect to see</p><p>curvature, because this is mountainous terrain. The point is</p><p>that the human eye should be able to easily see 50 miles</p><p>away. Why then, can most shorelines not be seen from that</p><p>far at sea? Because shorelines by nature are at sea level,</p><p>meaning that the curvature of the Earth does indeed hide</p><p>shorelines.</p><p>With perpendicular reference points, the curvature of the Earth is observable .</p><p>There may be a huge mountain behind the coast you are</p><p>looking at. Maybe you can see that island from 100 miles</p><p>away, if it is tall enough. But the shoreline remains invisible,</p><p>because the Earth is curved.</p><p>103.</p><p>Many constellations can be seen over the whole globe.</p><p>This should be impossible on a globular Earth.</p><p>As mentioned before, these stars are gazillions of light</p><p>years away. The closest star to Earth is Proxima Centauri,</p><p>and it is 4.2 light years away. The fact that constellations</p><p>don’t change very much depending on your perspective</p><p>latitude is actually more of a proof for a globe Earth than a</p><p>flat one. If we were under a dome, the stars would move in a</p><p>completely different way.</p><p>104.</p><p>Taurus, Pisces, and Leo are all visible from 90 degrees</p><p>North to 65 degrees South.</p><p>Yes, despite living on a globe Earth, we still all share</p><p>virtually the same night sky. This is very consistent with a</p><p>globe Earth.</p><p>105.</p><p>Aquarius, Libra, Virgo, and Orion all have similar or even</p><p>more visibility around most of the Earth at night.</p><p>https://www.britannica.com/story/how-do-we-know-how-far-away-the-stars-are</p><p>This is actually proof for a spherical Earth. This</p><p>argument should not have been used at all. It disproves a</p><p>dome, even though Dubay does not acknowledge this fact.</p><p>Only objects from very far away could be seen from so many</p><p>places in the world. To make it seem as though this is an</p><p>argument for a flat Earth is a completely flipped distortion.</p><p>All there is to see at the South Pole is a barber pole with a silver ball on top.</p><p>106.</p><p>The barber shop pole with a globe earth on top is not the</p><p>real South Pole.</p><p>Yes, I think we can all agree that this point is obvious.</p><p>This barber pole is clearly some sort of symbolic thing. It</p><p>seems a bit underwhelming actually.</p><p>107.</p><p>Ring magnets, like those found in speakers, are in the</p><p>shape of a disk. The outer edge always registers as the</p><p>southern magnetic pole, and the very center registers as the</p><p>northern magnetic pole. This proves that you do not need a</p><p>sphere to have two magnetic poles.</p><p>Yes, I suppose it does prove that a sphere is not necessary</p><p>to have a north and a south pole on a magnet. Ring magnets</p><p>can be used to do some really neat levitating magic. Just</p><p>because there can be a non-spherical magnet does not mean</p><p>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O29Yube271E</p><p>the Earth is therefore non-spherical. Some dogs have three</p><p>legs, but that doesn’t mean dogs usually have three legs.</p><p>108.</p><p>A regular mariner’s compass points to a point in the flat</p><p>horizon, not a globular North Pole, which would make the</p><p>compass point down into the Earth, at an angle toward the</p><p>very top of the “sphere.”</p><p>About every half a million years , the North and South</p><p>poles switch places . This phenomena, known as</p><p>geomagnetic reversal , was first noticed when geologists</p><p>found volcanic rock that had formed while Earth was in a</p><p>reverse polarity. After the first discovery, many other</p><p>magnetic anomalies were found all over the world. These</p><p>discoveries clearly show that reverse polarities abound in</p><p>Earth’s history.</p><p>If it’s true that the poles have shifted many times over the</p><p>last several million years, then the flat-Earth model is</p><p>completely wrong. In the flat-Earth model, such an event</p><p>would be impossible. Also, compasses don’t work that way.</p><p>Compasses are often numbered 0-360. This is how many degrees are in a full circle.</p><p>109.</p><p>There are no fixed points for directions on a globe, except</p><p>North. All other directions are simply relative to North.</p><p>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_magnetic_field</p><p>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal</p><p>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal</p><p>This statement remains undisputed. We do identify all</p><p>directions as relative to North. This point seems to serve to</p><p>confuse rather than prove anything.</p><p>110.</p><p>East-West circumnavigation is not a compelling reason to</p><p>believe in a globe earth. Such concentric paths are</p><p>explicable on a flat Earth or a globe Earth.</p><p>Humans knew the Earth was a sphere long before the</p><p>first recorded circumnavigation. Ancient Greek writings</p><p>made mention of a spherical Earth as long ago as the</p><p>seventh century B.C.</p><p>111.</p><p>On the flat Earth, circumnavigation over the South Pole</p><p>would be impossible. Curiously, international law limits the</p><p>number of people who can even go to the South Pole, let</p><p>alone circumnavigate it. What is everyone covering up?</p><p>I have no doubt that something is probably being covered</p><p>up. I would even go so far as to say that it probably includes</p><p>every major world player, such as China, Russia, Japan, The</p><p>United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, and of course the United</p><p>States.</p><p>It’s a huge leap to go from multi-country cover-up to a</p><p>flat Earth. I would not be surprised if there were enormous</p><p>resources being gobbled-up on Antarctica by these major</p><p>countries. Saying that you can prove a cover-up does not</p><p>mean all roads lead to a flat Earth.</p><p>112.</p><p>If the Earth is actually a spinning globe in space, then why</p><p>don’t time zones change more drastically throughout the</p><p>year? In the globe-Earth model, Daylight Savings Time</p><p>should result in days and nights completely switching</p><p>relative times every six months. The fact that days do not</p><p>vary more than one hour every six months, and that</p><p>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth</p><p>Daylight Savings Time is not even observed by many,</p><p>one</p><p>example being the entire state of Arizona.</p><p>During the winter, daytime does not last as long. The sun</p><p>comes up later and sets earlier. The shortest day of the year,</p><p>Winter Solstice, is exactly six months away from the longest</p><p>day of the year. Claiming that the days have no noticeable</p><p>variation is wrong.</p><p>113.</p><p>The Newtonian-Einsteinian Paradaigm has given us a</p><p>world where we must imagine upside-down cars, people</p><p>walking along unknowingly at a right angle, and someone at</p><p>the top thinking they could possibly dig all way to the other</p><p>side of the world. All of this is so nonsensical, it speaks for</p><p>itself.</p><p>The idea that people are walking around “upside-down”</p><p>in Australia is a painfully simplified view of how the globe</p><p>model works, to put it nicely. To put it rudely, it was a</p><p>question I also had when I was six years old.</p><p>114.</p><p>A quote about how trees do not grow upside-down and the</p><p>sky is never below the Earth. To make sure I am not</p><p>misreading the passage, I will quote it here. It is taken from</p><p>On the False Wisdom of the Philosophers by Lacantius</p><p>[sic]:</p><p>“A sphere where people on the other side live with their</p><p>feet above their heads, where rain, snow and hail fall upwards,</p><p>where trees and crops grow upside-down and the sky is lower</p><p>than the ground? The ancient wonder of the hanging gardens</p><p>of Babylon dwindle into nothing in comparison to the fields,</p><p>seas, towns and mountains that pagan philosophers believe to</p><p>be hanging from the earth without support!”</p><p>Yes, I will agree that most trees don’t grow upside-down</p><p>and the sky is almost always up. However, this is no proof</p><p>for a flat Earth. It’s more like proof I’m not drunk.</p><p>115.</p><p>Density and buoyancy are rules of physics that better</p><p>explain why things fall toward the Earth. Gravity is an</p><p>unnecessary concept. It is also, flat Earthers believe, a total</p><p>lie.</p><p>Density and buoyancy are being used in this context to</p><p>substitute for the word gravity. While density and buoyancy</p><p>are great for describing the way objects float or sink in</p><p>water, it isn’t as effective at describing space. Since most</p><p>flat-Earthers don’t believe in space, then there’s no need for</p><p>gravity.</p><p>We didn’t need Isaac Newton to discover that things fell to the ground. We needed him to</p><p>create a mathematical equation for it.</p><p>116.</p><p>Gravity cannot pull things down sometimes, then other</p><p>times allow for some things to stay in perpetual orbit. These</p><p>are two contradictory manifestations of the same law of</p><p>“gravity.”</p><p>I don’t know exactly how orbits work either. It has always</p><p>seemed to me that objects in space should just slam into</p><p>each other. Then I remember that according to modern</p><p>cosmology, everything did smash into everything else, until</p><p>they finally settled into the pace of their current stable</p><p>orbits. Giant lumbering masses in space were left where</p><p>chaos and collision once ruled the universe.</p><p>According to physicists, a satellite in orbit (like the Moon)</p><p>is stuck between two rules of physics:</p><p>Law of Inertia : An object in motion stays in motion. The</p><p>Moon is trying to take off into space at the same rate as the</p><p>Earth is pulling it down. Unfortunately, this is Newton’s first</p><p>Law of Motion. Flat-Earthers usually disregard anything</p><p>that originally came from Isaac Newton. According to the</p><p>most popular flat-Earth narrative, he was in on the</p><p>conspiracy too.</p><p>Universal Law of Gravitation : Also attributed to</p><p>Newton, this says that the force between two objects is</p><p>proportional to the product of their masses, divided by the</p><p>square of the distance between them. In the simplest of</p><p>terms, gravity is the force of attraction between two objects.</p><p>117.</p><p>The Moon could not possibly be affecting the ocean’s</p><p>tides. It’s gravity is so much weaker than earth’s, the sea</p><p>should be resting peacefully even with the presence of a</p><p>moon.</p><p>The Moon’s gravity is about 17% as strong as Earth’s.</p><p>That is still impressive. The tides are caused not just because</p><p>the Moon is pulling on the oceans, but because it is pulling</p><p>https://science.howstuffworks.com/question378.htm</p><p>http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-1/Newton-s-First-Law</p><p>https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/13/newtons-universal-law-of-gravitation</p><p>https://www.activewild.com/gravity-for-kids/</p><p>on them at a constant rate as it zips around the planet about</p><p>once each day.</p><p>The oceans are all connected. In reality, the Earth really</p><p>does have only one huge body of water around it. The slow,</p><p>steady pull of gravity tugs on it, creating a kind of</p><p>momentum. The Moon is always pulling on the ocean</p><p>somewhere, so of course it never rests.</p><p>118.</p><p>If the Moon can exert enough gravity to jostle the oceans</p><p>around, then why aren’t lakes affected? Why not even a</p><p>little? Think about the size of the Great Lakes. They remain</p><p>completely undisturbed by the Moon’s gravity despite their</p><p>enormous size.</p><p>The planet really only has one ocean, with names like</p><p>Atlantic or Pacific used for practical purposes, such as how</p><p>to get to Europe. The giant, connected sea’s total volume is</p><p>approximately 1.3 billion cubic kilometers .</p><p>The largest lakes in the world are miniature compared to</p><p>the world ocean.</p><p>Gallon is approximately equal to 3.785 liters, so I estimate</p><p>https://www.livescience.com/6470-ocean-depth-volume-revealed.html</p><p>that the ocean contains about 342 quintillion gallons of</p><p>water. At under 600 billion gallons, even lake Superior</p><p>would barely raise the sea level.</p><p>The Moon only affects a lake for a fraction of the day, at a</p><p>much, much smaller force. The Moon is acting on the ocean</p><p>every minute of every day, because it covers the entire globe.</p><p>When explained this way, it almost sounds like ocean tides</p><p>help prove gravity and a spherical Earth.</p><p>119.</p><p>Ballers argue, “All of the other planets are spheres, so why</p><p>wouldn’t the Earth be a sphere?” Well, in order to agree on</p><p>this point, you would have to first convince me that there is</p><p>even such thing as planets.</p><p>I was wondering how I could possibly prove the existence</p><p>of the planets, since I myself don’t think NASA imagery can</p><p>be trusted. Then I remembered, history of the planets go</p><p>way farther back in time. NASA is a relatively-new scam,</p><p>with money and propaganda as its motive. But long before</p><p>NASA, astronomers were building better and better</p><p>telescopes, and they were all in agreement that what they</p><p>were seeing up there were spherical bodies at great</p><p>distances.</p><p>120.</p><p>The etymology of the word planet includes connections</p><p>with the words plate and plane . Adding a “t” at the end</p><p>doesn’t turn it into a sphere.</p><p>Yes, this might be true, but it’s an English lesson that has</p><p>no real bearing on the actual shape or movement of the</p><p>Earth.</p><p>121.</p><p>According to NASA, the Moon is 400 times closer to Earth</p><p>than the Sun, and just happens to be 400 times smaller.</p><p>From the perspective of someone on Earth, the two bodies</p><p>appear to be the same size. What if they are the same size?</p><p>I repeat, I don’t trust NASA either. The concept that the</p><p>Sun is 400 times farther away and 400 times bigger is not a</p><p>recent calculation. As far back as 450 B.C., humankind was</p><p>speculating that each star could be another Sun billions of</p><p>miles away. The unfolding of our understanding of the</p><p>universe has taken at least a few thousand years . Let’s not</p><p>hastily throw all the scientists under the bus just because</p><p>NASA lies and there aren’t any real pictures of Earth from</p><p>outer space.</p><p>122.</p><p>Using another quote, Dubay makes the point that if the</p><p>shoe were on the other foot, the spinning globe-Earth theory</p><p>would be the less believable one. It is a flat- Earth, not a</p><p>sphere, that resonates with our observational reality. It also</p><p>doesn’t feel like we are spinning at 1,000 miles an hour at</p><p>all!</p><p>I will reiterate here that the flat-Earther’s curvature</p><p>equation is way off. The spherical nature of Earth should</p><p>not be apparent from the perspective of the size of a human</p><p>being. As for feeling the Earth spinning, it is also</p><p>undetectable through just feeling. But you can</p>
Mais conteúdos dessa disciplina
rn_image_picker_lib_temp_3f0d8a0c-f306-4948-ab92-d27ff68d0239- 1 (148)
- 1 (120)
- Exercícios de Proporção
- Equações do Segundo Grau
- Sistemas_1_Grau
- Trabalho de MATEMÁTICA
- PORTFÓLIO - MAT - PRÁTICA PEDAGÓGICA PROCESSOS MATEMÁTICOS PARA O ENSINO MÉDIO - 54_2025
- Questão 4 Qual é o valor de x na equação logar ı ˊ tmica: log 2 (x−3)+log 2 (x−1)=3 A x = 1 B x = 3 C x = 4 D x = 5 E x = – 1
- (Adaptado de UFOP - MG) Em determinado dia, a temperatura numa praia atingiu seu valor máximo às 14h. Suponha que, nesse dia, a temperatura da praia �
- (PETROBRAS - 2010) O lucro anual de uma pequena empresa vem crescendo linearmente como mostra a imagem a seguir. Expressão adaptada de trigonometria a
- um carro com uma velocidade de 100 Km por hora gasta duas horas em determinado percurso quanto tempo em minutos esse carro demoraria para fazer o mesm
- Um líder eficaz entende que motivar uma equipe de vendas vai além de oferecer recompensas financeiras. Qual das alternativas representa uma estratégia
- Questão 3 Considere a função a seguir. A função apresentada mostra uma parábola descrita por: f(x)=x 2 −x−2, que é uma função do segundo grau. Com bas
- Considere a função f(x) = 120x ÷ (300−x). Podemos afirmar que o domínio da função f é:ATodo número real x.BTodo número real x, exceto os números posit
- Qual o comando do SIAFI para identificação dos dias do mês em que o SIAFI está disponível para realização da conformidade diária ou indisponível? Ques
- Qual o comando do SIAFI para identificação dos dias do mês em que o SIAFI está disponível para realização da conformidade diária ou indisponível? Ques
- (M120152I7) Considere uma função polinomial do 1º grau f: IR → IR cujo coeficiente linear é – 4 e o
coeficiente angular é 5.
O gráfico dessa função...
- O que acontece com a resistência elétrica de um condutor metálico quando sua temperatura aumenta? Questão 2Resposta a. Permanece constante b. Se torna
- Leia o fragmento de texto a seguir:Um engenheiro agrônomo foi contratado para estabelecer um viveiro de mudas de espécies frutíferas nativas. Durante
- Se o comprimento de uma barra de aço inox for 3 cm, qual será o comprimento em centímetros do desenho, se for empregada a escala 5:1? Questão 8Respost
- 280_Matemática_Financeira_Tema_3
- ESTATÍSTICA APLICADA À EDUCAÇÃO
