Even more questions

Just love these silly questions:  This time from Christian Answers.

As always, my:

Answers will be in block quotes.

“If all of life is meaningless, and ultimately absurd , why bother to march straight forward, why stand in the queue as though life as a whole makes sense?” —Francis Schaeffer, The God Who Is There  

What other choice do we have but to move forward and try to enjoy this one, precious life that we have.  I think non believers actually value life and humanity more, since we have to make sure this life counts.  I want to love and be loved and pass on my genes, I have to move forward.

If everyone completely passes out of existence when they die, what ultimate meaning has life? Even if a man’s life is important because of his influence on others or by his effect on the course of history, of what ultimate significance is that if there is no immortality and all other lives, events, and even history itself is ultimately meaningless?

This is really the same question, asked in a slightly different way.  Why do believers do this?  See my previous answer.  Yes, life is ultimately meaningless, who cares?  Something is precious because it does not last.

Suppose the universe had never existed. Apart form God, what ultimate difference would that make?

None at all.  Your point?

In a universe without God or immortality, how is mankind ultimately different from a swarm of mosquitoes or a barnyard of pigs?

We are different because we are human.  We are intelligent primates who can decide on morals, but other species have morals as well, like elephants, dolphins, and our fellow apes.  We make our own morals.  What is wrong with that?

What viable basis exists for justice or law if man is nothing but a sophisticated, programmed machine?

I am perfectly alright with accepting we are nothing more than highly evolved meat computers.  Does not bother me at all, in fact, I think the fact chemical processes can make laws and justice is just amazing.

Why does research, discovery, diplomacy, art, music, sacrifice, compassion, feelings of love, or affectionate and caring relationships mean anything if it all ultimately comes to naught anyway?

See the answers to the previous questions.  Same damn question asked over and over and over.

Without absolute morals, what ultimate difference is there between Saddam Hussein and Billy Graham?

There is none.  Both are apes, both followed relative morality.

If there is no immortality, why shouldn’t all things be permitted?(Dostoyevsky)

For some reason believers can not separate morality with objective morality.  We make morals.  Without humans, there are no human morals.  Objective morality is not a thing.

If morality is only a relative social construct, on what basis could or should anyone ever move to interfere with cultures that practice apartheid, female circumcision, cannibalism, or ethnic cleansing?

We interfere because most normal humans have empathy and want to reduce suffering.  I want to reduce suffering, don’t you?  Or are you like Mother Theresa and enjoy suffering?

If there is no God, on what basis is there any meaning or hope for fairness, comfort, or better times?

Empathy and humanism.  We succeed when we work together and realize we have to do it all ourselves.  The magic sky daddy is not real.

Without a personal Creator-God, how are you anything other than the coincidental, purposeless miscarriage of nature, spinning round and round on a lonely planet in the blackness of space for just a little while before you and all memory of your futile, pointless, meaningless life finally blinks out forever in the endless darkness?

That how the universe works.  Sorry if it makes you feel bad.  The truth is not always happy.  I would rather accept an unhappy truth than a comfortable lie, like you do.   Suck it up and be an adult and embrace the ultimate pointlessness of it all and just enjoy this one, amazing, remarkable, against all odds life together.

Glutton for punishment

I love crappy apologetics and ‘questions for Atheists’  Here are some new ones:

My Answers in block quotes.

1. If there is NO God, then there is no Measurement or Standard for morality?  Then What will define morality?

There is no objective morality.  Morality can be defined which action causes the least harm.  I do not understand why relative morality is a bad thing.

2. If there is NO God, then there is NO meaning or purpose to Life.  So without a God, does life have purpose or meaning?  Without God, does the Atheist have purpose?

Objective meaning?  No.  In 500 million years, all life on Earth will be gone, due to the increasing output of the sun, unless our descendants intervene.  You have to make up your own meaning.  Life just wants to continue, nothing more, nothing less.

3. Are you an advocate of New Atheism and Darwinism?  If so, then the most extreme and logical form of Darwinism is Eugenics.  Would you support this?  Why or Why Not?

Atheism and Darwinism are two separate ideas.  I have been an Atheist for a long time, over 25 years, so I don’t think I am new.  I lean more towards punctuated equilibrium and neo Darwinism.  We are not slaves to our genes, so I don’t know why Eugenics would be the logical conclusion.  This is a malformed question.

4. If we are ancesoters(sic)/descendants of Apes, then why are there no transitional fossils or species to support this theory?

We are apes, and there are many transitional fossils and intermediate species, along with genetic evidence that we have a common ancestor.

5. Do you believe in Human Nature?  It is Human Nature to believe in God, if so, why do you go against human nature and not believe in God?

No I do not.  We have very little built in instincts.  Sadly, we know this from ‘lost children’.  We are the product of our environment and culture.

6. Can ‘Something come from Nothing’?  Doesn’t that violate The First Law of Thermodynamics?

Yes, happens all the time at the quantum level, such as quantum fluctuations.  The First Law of Thermodynamics did not apply at the start of the universe, since the law did not exist yet.

7. It seems that a society of Atheist are immoral and self-destructing.  Why would anyone want a Godless Society, just look at our examples: North Korea, Maoist China, Stalin, & Pot Pol?

You can also look at Sweden, most of  Europe, and China, India, Japan, etc, all of whom do not believe in any god or your god and they are doing just fine.  Sweden is almost 70% Atheist, and they are doing just fine.

8. If you were to die, and you were before God.  And he was getting ready to pass judgement on you,  What would be your reaction or thoughts?  What plea would you give him so he does not judge you harshly?

I would be angry that it did not provide any proof and let me burn.  Petty, hidden, immoral god.  I would not plea with a bully.

9. What would convince you atheism is wrong?  And that Christianity is Right?

You should ask your god that.  I really have no idea.  Every religion in the world, with the same vision of god would be a good start, but that is not the case.  I think an omnipotent being is a self refuting concept.  You can’t have an infinite inside of a finite.

10. Why are you an Atheist?  Why do you NOT believe in God?  Why do you reject God?  (You can be as detailed as you want.)

I see no reason to believe.  There is no evidence, and believing in a fantasy is no way to live.  Even the very concept of an omnipotent god in a universe of 600,000,000,000 galaxies, with 100,000,000,000 stars, each, has no room for a god.  It is a silly concept and useless waste of time.

Ark Irony

The “Ark Encounter” is due to open some time in 2016.  Looking at the videos, I am struck by the irony that this ark recreation disproves an actual ark!  Wood Used  If you follow the link

, it is actually a pretty interesting video…especially the technology they are using, like CNC machines to cut the wood.  You can see the industrial kilns in the background, chainsaws and circular saws, and modern shipping techniques, like railroads and trucks and forklifts.    If you click around to other videos, you will see the steel bolts and gusseting plates used to fasten everything together.   And, of course, forklifts and giant industrial cranes needed to place everything.

When the ‘real’ ark was supposedly built, it was the late bronze age.  Not only were there no industrial tools, there weren’t even iron tools to work with.   It would be physically impossible for a small group of people to fell, transport, shape, (air) dry, and assemble all that lumber, all using bronze tools and wood hammers.  We are talking millions of board feet of lumber…and you don’t get 100 years to work on it.  The wood would rot before it was all assembled.  Without modern tools, as shown in their own videos, it would be impossible.  In addition, everything is held together using modern steel plates and bolts.  Even with these bolts, this fancy barn would never float.  The bracing, ribs, and keel are far too small and would snap instantly if you tried to take this boat out on the calmest of seas..  It may look like a boat, but it is nothing more than a 3 story barn.

Thanks for proving it is impossible!

Bible beating me down

Have not read too much of the Bible lately.  I received a Kindle Paperwhite for Christmas (an awesome device) and have been reading, frankly, much better fiction than the Bible.  What has really shocked me so far is just how amazingly repetitive it has been.  Same stories, same praise, same stories, over and over and it is fucking boring.  Another issue I have run into is how just plain bad how the Bible is presented, in print, and electronically.  The chapter and verse numbering, combined with multiple foot and endnotes, for every single line make it nigh impossible to read.  I have to ‘illuminate’ my own version, with virtually no numbering and no superscript to make it readable.  I use Xiphos and copy and paste it into a document and convert that to Kindle format or HTML to make it less distracting and slightly more readable.

Evidence

One thing to always remember when it comes to all the ‘debates’ about gods, faith, and baseless beliefs, is how incredibly pointless they are.  Without evidence, it is all about debating one completely imaginary concept against another.  If you can’t show it, you don’t know it.

Keep this in mind with the reading of Bible.  The comments I make are never serious, because nothing in the Bible is serious.  It is almost completely made up.  It has no more truth in it that any other ancient holy text.  It is all made up.  The only ‘proof’ the Bible is real is because…the Bible says it is real.  That does not work.  The Quran, Book of Mormon, Torah, Dianetics, and more, all say the same thing.  How do we know which is true?  Simple answer, none of them are.

Always remember, it is not up to the unbeliever to disprove a god or any other clearly imaginary concept.  It is up to the believer to provide evidence.  The same goes for the Flat Earthers.  They can claim all that they want, but it is up to them to show us the edge of the planet.  It is up to them to show us the ‘ice wall’.    The same thing for 9/11 conspiracy theorists.  Nitpicking reports is not proof.  You need to have positive proof of ‘explosive charges’, not that something ‘looks funny’.  Ask for evidence, and always check where that evidence is coming from.  You may be surprised.

 

 

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas to everyone out there.  I celebrate a nice, secular Christmas every year.  Tree, lights, presents, music, you know, all the good things about celebrating Christmas.  I know the origin(s) of the tradition, and know that Christ is about 2% of what we think of in terms of the holiday.

Flat Earth Wrapup

After plowing through the 200 ‘Proofs’ of a flat earth, I am really struck by the general dishonesty, lack of critical thinking, no basic logic, insane conspiracy mongering, and plagiarism.  All but three of the points were a lie, baseless assertion, or paranoid ramblings.  I have written and read technical reports, sometimes into the thousands of pages, and this ‘book’ might as well been written in crayon, with all the veracity and citations it used.  I can sum it all up simply:  Da wurld is flat cuz I thinks it looks flat and someone 160 years ago sayz  its flat and I don t enderstands howz fisicks workz…and nasa suxs.

There were rampant spelling and grammatical errors.  The ‘book’, except for the paranoid rants against NASA (and every other space agency, and every engineer alive today), was plagiarized en masse from Zetetic Astronomy Earth Not a Globe by Parallax (Samuel Birley Rowbotham) [1881] and 100 Proofs the World is Not A Globe.  Neither is less than 130 years old!!!  Did you really think no one would notice you plagiarized this book and pamphlet?  I am not going to go through every point again; I am tired of reading this gibberish.    If this ‘book’ was submitted a high school paper, it would of been an immediate “F” and almost certainly gotten you on academic suspension for plagiarism.  Yes, it is that bad.

Finally, the whole Flat Earth crowd makes the least sense to me.  Other baseless beliefs at least have a supernatural or unfalsifiable claim.  I can’t prove gods, or unicorns, or fairies don’t exist, but I can sure as heck prove the Earth IS a spinning ball of rock, orbiting a star, orbiting a galactic center, and not a flat, immobile rock..  On top of that is the insane conspiracy that would be needed.  Billions of people would have to be in on it…over millennia.  People knew the Earth was round thousands of years before we went to space.  The proofs are simple, and have been around for hundreds, if not thousands of years, and the world in no way looks flat.  Maybe they are insane?  Maybe they are looking for more advertisement clicks?  Maybe they are just trolling people to see how gullible they are?  Not sure of the answer, but this topic is boring me and I am moving on.  Back to finishing the Bible, which at least has an excuse be being primitive and illogical.

Addendum 2:  Looking even deeper into the Flat Earthers out there, now I get them.  These individuals suffer from Delusional Disorder:

Delusional disorder is an illness characterized by at least 1 month of delusions but no other psychotic symptoms according to the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5).[1]Delusions are false beliefs based on incorrect inference about external reality that persist despite the evidence to the contrary and these beliefs are not ordinarily accepted by other members of the person’s culture or subculture. Delusions can be characterized as persecutory (i.e., belief one is going to be harmed by an individual, organization or group), referential (i.e., belief gestures, comments, or environmental cues are directed at oneself), grandiose (i.e., belief that the individual has exceptional abilities, wealth, or fame), erotomanic (i.e., an individual’s false belief that another individual is in love with them), nihilistic (i.e., conviction that a major catastrophe will occur), or somatic (i.e., beliefs focused on bodily function or sensation). 1

Or, if they suffer from hallucinations as well, they suffer from:

Schizophrenia is a serious disorder which affects how a person thinks, feels and acts. Someone with schizophrenia may have difficulty distinguishing between what is real and what is imaginary; may be unresponsive or withdrawn; and may have difficulty expressing normal emotions in social situations.

Contrary to public perception, schizophrenia is not split personality or multiple personality. The vast majority of people with schizophrenia are not violent and do not pose a danger to others. Schizophrenia is not caused by childhood experiences, poor parenting or lack of willpower, nor are the symptoms identical for each person. 2

I believe Eric Dubay (from the Atlantean Conspiracy) and Jeranism, on Youtube, both have undiagnosed psychiatric conditions and have my complete sympathy.  They, and other like them, should seek help.  If, however, I am incorrect, and you two are nothing more than click baiting trolls, you deserve any derision slung towards you.  In the case of Dubay, just reading a few articles on his website, or a watching a few minutes of this video, I am convinced he does believe in what he exposing and should seek help.  With Jeranism, I am just not sure.  He seems fairly rational, and worst case is suffering from Delusional Disorder.  He appears talented in video production and could make a decent career in video production, if he did not waste so much time on Flat Earth/Conspiracy theories.

I hope others on the Internet and Youtube realize these people have a psychiatric problem, and not make fun of them.  I am no longer commenting on their videos, and I hope they are not doing harm to themselves or to others in this pursuit.

Not my video, but a superb explanation of the psychology behind the Flat Earth true believers.

Addendum:

Looking a little deeper into the rabbit hole that is the Flat Earth ‘cult’ is the realization this is nothing more than blind faith into a model of the world that really doesn’t align with how the world really works.  It really does not matter how many proofs you provide, their blind faith with always override what their senses are telling them.  The nonsense, ad hoc explanations and obvious denial of reality is simply delusional thinking.  It is an extension of young Earth creationists and NASA/Moon Landing/Space exploration denial.  I have a lot sympathy for these individuals.  They spend too much time on this topic and really do believe and have a faith based position on the shape of the Earth.  

They will never be able to integrate into any technical field and this faith based flat world view will cause real harm to their life.  I work in a very technical field where you would never make it past the first semester in college, where they introduce microwave and satellite based communications, both are based on the fact of a round planet.  With comments on YouTube and message boards, you can get the sense these individuals are not that well paid.  They will often say such and such flight is impossible, and the thought of actually booking such a flight does not cross their minds.  Not to toot my own horn, but I could book any of those flights right now, without second cost to the expense.  Yes, working in high tech fields really does positively impact your life.  The median salary for an experienced electronics engineer, with just a bachelors, is over $90,000 a year.   Can you claim the same for some warehouse worker who believes in a flat earth?  You have my pity, and I hope you can rejoin society once you accept there is not multi generational, 1,000,000,000+ individuals conspiracy and you can look at a sunrise and sunset and realize a flat earth is just plain impossible.  

 

Flat Earth

Flat Earth

I recently bumped into the oddest group of denialists/conspiracy theory online. Flat Earth believers. That’s right, it is Two Thousand Fucking Fifteen and people ‘believe’ in a flat earth and everything to do with the globe view of the world, heliocentric solar system, space exploration, are all due to a global conspiracy, involving billions of people over 2,300 years. It is easy to dismiss these claims, but this odd belief appears to be gaining some traction. As someone who can see the sun rise and set, know there are time zones, and have directly measured the rotation of Earth, I know we live on a oblate spheroid, orbiting an common G type star, in a spiral galaxy. What interests me is psychology behind this unjustified belief, that can actually be falsified.

Interestingly, the origins of this belief system are very recent, created by a writer named Samuel Rowbotham, in 1849. I truly think this was all started as a joke, since the book he published was written under the name Parallax. Parallax is actually one of the easiest proofs that we are orbiting the sun, and the moon is a distant object. This is really on the nose, and modern Flat Earthers just missed the joke. If the sun and moon are really 32 miles across, and close to the earth, 600, 2000, 0r 3000 miles, depending on who you ask, parallax error would be very apparent over the course of a single day. What do I mean by this? The apparent size of the sun and moon are right around half a degree, regardless of time of day, season, OR position on the Earth. Measure them everywhere, latitude, longitude, and apparent size and parallax angle is very small. In fact, it takes very sensitive instruments to even measure the parallax angle to determine the distance to the sun. The moon is a little easier, and the stars are very difficult. So, the name Parallax is a clue that Samuel knew the world was round and created something like The Onion as a joke or sarcasm.

It is my opinion that people who believe or purport to believe in a flat earth in 2015 fall into the following categories:

-People who live in primitive societies. The truth of the shape of the earth has no meaning or impact on their lives.

-Trolls that know the real shape of the globe, but make comments to elicit a response from anyone with more than a high school education.

-Religious zealots who take the writings of their holy books, which were written by land locked people who could believe in a flat, small, world, literally and if part of their holy book is false, it shakes their faith.

-Conspiracy theorists who don’t trust the ‘government’ or ‘them’. Most photos taken from space are taken by a government agency, due to the extreme expense. This argument falls flat when you consider commercialized space is a 60 billion dollar of year industry. I’ll expand upon this later.

-The last group is non critical thinkers who may have have trouble using simple logic to prove the earth is round and can’t be flat.

Honestly, with Flat Earthers, it is impossible to tell trolls from the religious zealots and conspiracy theorists. The first and second examples don’t concern me. The other groups are what are interesting to me. People who honestly believe the earth is flat. Since I am a lover of the truth and true things, I wanted to respond to a free online book from Atlantean Conspiricy (the names says it all, doesn’t it?). It has 200 points or ‘proofs’ and as an engineer, who has worked in aerospace, military, and civilian industries for the last 20 years I wanted to respond to these claims as honestly as possible to hopefully help some non critical thinker out there. Spoiler alert: The earth is not a disk and is an oblate spheroid traveling around a 93,000,000 mile away distant star.

As an interesting look into the minds of the trolls/zealots/non-critical thinkers, here are 200 ‘Proofs’ of a flat Earth.  I copied it in its entirety, including the preamble saying you can copy this.

My comments will be in block quotes like this.

This 35 page ebook full of photographs and diagrams is the perfect tool to help spark conversation and awaken your friends and family to the mother of all conspiracies.  Please make copies, print, distribute, re-upload and do everything you can to get this most important information out to the masses!

Well, mister author, thank you for the permission.  Mother of all conspiracies is the understatement of a lifetime.  I am around a quarter of the way through this ‘book’ and as a little bit of advice, try to have more current sources, properly cite your sources, and don’t lie about things that can easily be fact checked.

Download from the link above or read the entire thing online below:


1) The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government “space agencies” show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos.

First hint of conspiracy theory here, at least he acknowledges there are other space agencies, other than NASA.  Why the USSR and North Korea would want to add to this conspiracy is beyond me.  I don’t know about you, but I think I can see curve in the top and bottom most photos.

2) The horizon always rises to the eye level of the observer as altitude is gained, so you never have to look down to see it. If Earth were in fact a globe, no matter how large, as you ascended the horizon would stay fixed and the observer / camera would have to tilt looking down further and further to see it.

Couple of issues here; you actually do have to tilt the camera down.  In a commercial aircraft, the horizon is 3 degrees below the horizontal.  In taller structures you can measure the dip as well.  Second point, I can see the freaking curve in all three of your samples above!!!  Thank you for putting the reference line there.  I didn’t add it.

3) The natural physics of water is to find and maintain its level. If Earth were a giant sphere tilted, wobbling and hurdling through infinite space then truly flat, consistently level surfaces would not exist here. But since Earth is in fact an extended flat plane, this fundamental physical property of fluids finding and remaining level is consistent with experience and common sense.

Oh boy, the physics of water is to maintain a level perpendicular to the center of gravity or centripetal force.  The Earth does wobble through space…every 30,000 years.  Whomever wrote this does not understand the relative motion objects.  When you are flying, is the ground moving underneath you and you are sitting still?  It is consistent with common sense and experience.  Again, this ‘fundamental physical property of fluids’ is incorrect.

 

4) Rivers run down to sea-level finding the easiest course, North, South, East, West and all other intermediary directions over the Earth at the same time. If Earth were truly a spinning ball then many of these rivers would be impossibly flowing uphill, for example the Mississippi in its 3000 miles would have to ascend 11 miles before reaching the Gulf of Mexico.

Again, you don’t understand how gravity works, and the surface of the water does stay perpendicular to the force of gravity.  I looked it up, the Mississippi river starts at Lake Itasca at 1476 feet above sea level.  It flows downhill, in relation to the center of gravity of the Earth, all the way to the Gulf of Mexico.

5) One portion of the Nile River flows for a thousand miles with a fall of only one foot. Parts of the West African Congo, according to the supposed inclination and movement of the ball-Earth, would be sometimes running uphill and sometimes down. This would also be the case for the Parana, Paraguay and other long rivers.

Again, you don’t understand gravity.  It pulls towards the center of the Earth.  Same point as above, with new river names.

6) If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference as NASA and modern astronomy claim, spherical trigonometry dictates the surface of all standing water must curve downward an easily measurable 8 inches per mile multiplied by the square of the distance. This means along a 6 mile channel of standing water, the Earth would dip 6 feet on either end from the central peak. Every time such experiments have been conducted, however, standing water has proven to be perfectly level.

This one is total debunked bullshit.  The infamous Bedford Canal experiment has been disproven many times.  Here is an experiment.  Stand on Chicago’s lakefront on a clear, calm day, and try to see the shoreline at Michigan City, Indiana.  Get binoculars, telescope, telephoto lens.   You will not see it.  It is about 38.9 miles away.  Take a ride up to the top of the John Hancock or Willis Tower, and you will, naked eye or telescope.  Why is this?  Oh, I know, because we live on a ball.

7) Surveyors, engineers and architects are never required to factor the supposed curvature of the Earth into their projects. Canals, railways, bridges and tunnels for example are always cut and laid horizontally, often over hundreds of miles without any allowance for curvature.

Again, this assertion is false.  Surveyors, engineers, and architects all have to take it into account with very long bridges.    With canals and railways, the steady 8 inches a mile is acceptable, since water stays perpendicular to gravity and the rails actually do curve with the earth.

8) The Suez Canal connecting the Mediterranean with the Red Sea is 100 miles long without any locks making the water an uninterrupted continuation of the two seas. When constructed, the Earth’s supposed curvature was not taken into account, it was dug along a horizontal datum line 26 feet below sea-level, passing through several lakes from one sea to the other, with the datum line and water’s surface running perfectly parallel over the 100 miles.

Not again.   I’ll just copy and paste what I said before:  Oh boy, the physics of water is to maintain a level perpendicular to the center of gravity or centripetal force.

9) Engineer, W. Winckler was published in the Earth Review regarding the Earth’s supposed curvature, stating, “As an engineer of many years standing, I saw that this absurd allowance is only permitted in school books. No engineer would dream of allowing anything of the kind. I have projected many miles of railways and many more of canals and the allowance has not even been thought of, much less allowed for. This allowance for curvature means this – that it is 8” for the first mile of a canal, and increasing at the ratio by the square of the distance in miles; thus a small navigable canal for boats, say 30 miles long, will have, by the above rule an allowance for curvature of 600 feet. Think of that and then please credit engineers as not being quite such fools. Nothing of the sort is allowed. We no more think of allowing 600 feet for a line of 30 miles of railway or canal, than of wasting our time trying to square the circle”

Absurd claim from an engineer whom I can not find the original source, only third hand or worse citations from flat Earth articles.  Since he is referring to railways and canals, this must be, if it is not pure fiction, some time in the 19th century.  Same absurdity as the proof above.

10) The London and Northwestern Railway forms a straight line 180 miles long between London and Liverpool. The railroad’s highest point, midway at Birmingham station, is only 240 feet above sea-level. If the world were actually a globe, however, curving 8 inches per mile squared, the 180 mile stretch of rail would form an arc with the center point at Birmingham raising over a mile, a full 5,400 feet above London and Liverpool.

Same claim, new place.  I can guarantee you you can’t see London from Liverpool.  Since the London and Northwestern railway closed in 1922, this is a very old source.

11) A surveyor and engineer of thirty years published in the Birmingham Weekly Mercury stated, “I am thoroughly acquainted with the theory and practice of civil engineering. However bigoted some of our professors may be in the theory of surveying according to the prescribed rules, yet it is well known amongst us that such theoretical measurements are INCAPABLE OF ANY PRACTICAL ILLUSTRATION. All our locomotives are designed to run on what may be regarded as TRUE LEVELS or FLATS. There are, of course, partial inclines or gradients here and there, but they are always accurately defined and must be carefully traversed. But anything approaching to eight inches in the mile, increasing as the square of the distance, COULD NOT BE WORKED BY ANY ENGINE THAT WAS EVER YET CONSTRUCTED. Taking one station with another all over England and Scotland, it may be stated that all the platforms are ON THE SAME RELATIVE LEVEL. The distance between Eastern and Western coasts of England may be set down as 300 miles. If the prescribed curvature was indeed as represented, the central stations at Rugby or Warwick ought to be close upon three miles higher than a chord drawn from the two extremities. If such was the case there is not a driver or stoker within the Kingdom that would be found to take charge of the train. We can only laugh at those of your readers who seriously give us credit for such venturesome exploits, as running trains round spherical curves. Horizontal curves on levels are dangerous enough, vertical curves would be a thousand times worse, and with our rolling stock constructed as at present physically impossible.”

Same claim, so I will copy and paste:  Again, this assertion is false.  Surveyors, engineers, and architects all have to take it into account with very long bridges.    With canals and railways, the steady 8 inches a mile is acceptable, since water stays perpendicular to gravity and the rails actually do curve with the earth.

Again, the language is very dated and the source Birmingham Weekly Mercury looks like it has not been called the name in over 100 years.  A more recent, dated, and properly sourced quote would be nice.

12) The Manchester Ship Canal Company published in the Earth Review stated, “It is customary in Railway and Canal constructions for all levels to be referred to a datum which is nominally horizontal and is so shown on all sections. It is not the practice in laying out Public Works to make allowances for the curvature of the earth.

Not this claim…again.  Poorly sourced, and I don’t even think the “Earth Review” is a real thing, or it is at least 100 years old.

Same claim, so I will copy and paste:  Again, this assertion is false.  Surveyors, engineers, and architects all have to take it into account with very long bridges.    With canals and railways, the steady 8 inches a mile is acceptable, since water stays perpendicular to gravity and the rails actually do curve with the earth.

13) In a 19th century French experiment by M. M. Biot and Arago a powerful lamp with good reflectors was placed on the summit of Desierto las Palmas in Spain and able to be seen all the way from Camprey on the Island of Iviza. Since the elevation of the two points were identical and the distance between covered nearly 100 miles, if Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, the light should have been more than 6600 feet, a mile and a quarter, below the line of sight!

Gotta call bullshit on this one. François Arago was one of the scientists WHO HELPED REFINE THE DIAMETER OF THE SPHERICAL EARTH, and was friends with Léon Foucault WHO CREATED THE FOUCAULT PENDULUM which measures the rotation of the the spherical earth.  Please don’t try to use this brilliant man’s name to prove your theory.  A large part of his life was dedicated to making more exact measurements of the curve of the Earth.  The original source of this ‘experiment’ was published in 1851 by FLAT EARTHERS.

 

14) The Lieutenant-Colonel Portlock experiment used oxy-hydrogen Drummond’s lights and heliostats to reflect the sun’s rays across stations set up across 108 miles of St. George’s Channel. If the Earth were actually a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, Portlock’s light should have remained hidden under a mile and a half of curvature.

Another poorly sourced example.  In this case, this appeared in an article from 1851, and was published by the original flat earthers in the middle of the 19th century.  Bullshit begets bullshit.

15) If the Earth were truly a sphere 25,000 miles in circumference, airplane pilots would have to constantly correct their altitudes downwards so as to not fly straight off into “outer space;” a pilot wishing to simply maintain their altitude at a typical cruising speed of 500 mph, would have to constantly dip their nose downwards and descend 2,777 feet (over half a mile) every minute! Otherwise, without compensation, in one hour’s time the pilot would find themselves 31.5 miles higher than expected.

You really don’t understand how fluids work, do you?  The Earth atmosphere follows the curve of the Earth, due to gravity, just like the oceans.  When a plane is flying, since it needs lift to stay in the air, the plane just follows the ‘level’ of the air around it.  It is just like a boat that follows the curve of the water.  In addition, there is this little thing called inertia.  If the world worked like how the flat earthers think it works, every time you hit a hard bump in your car, or  jump up in a train or airplane, you will immediately go smashing into the back of the rail car or cabin.  Just think about it.

 

16) The experiment known as “Airy’s Failure” proved that the stars move relative to a stationary Earth and not the other way around. By first filling a telescope with water to slow down the speed of light inside, then calculating the tilt necessary to get the starlight directly down the tube, Airy failed to prove the heliocentric theory since the starlight was already coming in the correct angle with no change necessary, and instead proved the geocentric model correct.

The source of this one truly eludes me.  From what I can tell it was to either prove the aether or a geocentric universe. No original source, other than flat earth articles and not sure what it is supposed to prove, one way or the other.

17) “Olber’s Paradox” states that if there were billions of stars which are suns the night sky would be filled completely with light. As Edgar Allen Poe said, “Were the succession of stars endless, then the background of the sky would present us a uniform luminosity, since there could exist absolutely no point, in all that background, at which would not exist a star.” In fact Olber’s “Paradox” is no more a paradox than George Airy’s experiment was a “failure.” Both are actually excellent refutations of the heliocentric spinning ball model.

Oh, the irony of this proof.  Edgar Allen Poe actually debunked this paradox and accidentally suggested the big bang/finite universe.   This paradox is only a paradox in an infinite universe.  We do not live in an infinite universe, we live in a finite, expanding universe, which explains why the sky is dark.  The paradox was one of the first indications that the universe had a beginning.

18) The Michelson-Morley and Sagnac experiments attempted to measure the change in speed of light due to Earth’s assumed motion through space. After measuring in every possible different direction in various locations they failed to detect any significant change whatsoever, again proving the stationary geocentric model.

Oh, how little we know. This experiment was to try to detect the aether…again.  What this experiment actually demonstrated is that you can use a split beam of light to detect the rotational speed of an object.  The greatest irony is you can use a ring laser or fiber optic gyroscope based on this effect (this experiment let to a practical application, down to measuring the interference pattern) to directly measure the rotational velocity of the Earth.  I should know, I calibrate fiber optic gyroscopes for a living.   Yes, I have, and do measure the rotation of the Earth every day, directly.

19) Tycho Brahe famously argued against the heliocentric theory in his time, positing that if the Earth revolved around the Sun, the change in relative position of the stars after 6 months orbital motion could not fail to be seen. He argued that the stars should seem to separate as we approach and come together as we recede. In actual fact, however, after 190,000,000 miles of supposed orbit around the Sun, not a single inch of parallax can be detected in the stars, proving we have not moved at all.

You have got to be kidding me.  Tycho Brahe!?!  The last naked eye astronomer who died over 400 years ago!!!  Well, guess what, the stars do have parallax (the ones less than 6,000 light years away) and this can only be detected using actual instruments.  Why you would think sub arcsecond parallax is visible to naked eye is beyond me.

20) If Earth were truly constantly spinning Eastwards at over 1000mph, vertically-fired cannonballs and other projectiles should fall significantly due west. In actual fact, however, whenever this has been tested, vertically-fired cannonballs shoot upwards an average of 14 seconds ascending, 14 seconds descending, and fall back to the ground no more than 2 feet away from the cannon, often directly back into the muzzle.

This, my friends, is a complete and utter lie.  Any long range shooter knows you have to compensate for the rotation of the Earth and every long range ballistic projectile has to take the rotation of the Earth, at whatever latitude you are at into account.  Fall back into the muzzle, complete bullshit.

21) If the Earth were truly constantly spinning Eastwards at over 1000mph, helicopters and hot-air balloons should be able to simply hover over the surface of the Earth and wait for their destinations to come to them!

Same point as a few before, so copying and pasting:  You really don’t understand how fluids work, do you?  The Earth atmosphere follows the curve of the Earth, due to gravity, just like the oceans.  When a helicopter is flying, since it needs lift to stay in the air, the helicopter just follows the ‘level’ of the air around it.  It is just like a boat that follows the curve of the water.  In addition, there is this little thing called inertia.  If the world worked like how the flat earthers think it works, every time you hit a hard bump in your car, or  jump up in a train or airplane, you will immediately go smashing into the back of the rail car or cabin.  Just think about it.

22) If Earth were truly constantly spinning Eastwards at over 1000mph, during the Red Bull stratosphere dive, Felix Baumgartner, spending 3 hours ascending over New Mexico, should have landed 2500 miles West into the Pacific Ocean but instead landed a few dozen miles East of the take-off point.

Jesus Christ on a pogostick…again!!!  Copy and paste with edits: You really don’t understand how fluids work, do you?  The Earth atmosphere follows the curve of the Earth, due to gravity, just like the oceans.  When a skydiver is falling through the air, he follows the movement of the air, just like dropping a stone in water.  In addition, there is this little thing called inertia.  If the world worked like how the flat earthers think it works, every time you hit a hard bump in your car, or  jump up in a train or airplane, you will immediately go smashing into the back of the rail car or cabin.  Just think about it.

23) Ball-believers often claim “gravity” magically and inexplicably drags the entire lower-atmosphere of the Earth in perfect synchronization up to some undetermined height where this progressively faster spinning atmosphere gives way to the non-spinning, non-gravitized, non-atmosphere of infinite vacuum space. Such non-sensical theories are debunked, however, by rain, fireworks, birds, bugs, clouds, smoke, planes and projectiles all of which would behave very differently if both the ball-Earth and its atmosphere were constantly spinning Eastwards at 1000mph.

This so stupid, I don’t know how to respond.  Same as before I guess:

You really don’t understand how fluids work, do you?  The Earth atmosphere follows the curve of the Earth, due to gravity, just like the oceans.  When a plane is flying, since it needs lift to stay in the air, the plane just follows the ‘level’ of the air around it.  It is just like a boat that follows the curve of the water.  Same thing with bugs, birds, fireworks.  My brain hurts.  In addition, there is this little thing called inertia.  If the world worked like how the flat earthers think it works, every time you hit a hard bump in your car, or  jump up in a train or airplane, you will immediately go smashing into the back of the rail car or cabin.  Just think about it.

24) If Earth and its atmosphere were constantly spinning eastwards over 1000mph then North/South facing cannons should establish a control while East-firing cannonballs should fall significantly farther than all others while West-firing cannonballs should fall significantly closer. In actual fact, however, regardless of which direction cannons are fired, the distance covered is always the same.

In fact, yes, they do land in different places.  This is what is a called a lie.  Another copy and paste response:  This, my friends, is a complete and utter lie.  Any long range shooter knows you have to compensate for the rotation of the Earth and every long range ballistic projectile has to take the rotation of the Earth, at whatever latitude you are at into account.

25) If Earth and its atmosphere were constantly spinning eastwards over 1000mph, then the average commercial airliner traveling 500mph should never be able to reach its Eastward destinations before they come speeding up from behind! Likewise Westward destinations should be arrived at thrice the speed, but this is not the case.

Same point as a few before, so copying and pasting:  You really don’t understand how fluids work, do you?  The Earth atmosphere follows the curve of the Earth, due to gravity, just like the oceans.  When a helicopter is flying, since it needs lift to stay in the air, the helicopter just follows the ‘level’ of the air around it.  It is just like a boat that follows the curve of the water.  Just like the water, the atmosphere gets dragged along with the rotation of the Earth.  In addition, there is this little thing called inertia.  If the world worked like how the flat earthers think it works, every time you hit a hard bump in your car, or  jump up in a train or airplane, you will immediately go smashing into the back of the rail car or cabin.  Just think about it.

26) Quoting “Heaven and Earth” by Gabrielle Henriet, “If flying had been invented at the time of Copernicus, there is no doubt that he would have soon realized that his contention regarding the rotation of the earth was wrong, on account of the relation existing between the speed of an aircraft and that of the earth’s rotation. If the earth rotates, as it is said, at 1,000 miles an hour, and a plane flies in the same direction at only 500 miles, it is obvious that its place of destination will be farther removed every minute. On the other hand, if flying took place in the direction opposite to that of the rotation, a distance of 1,500 miles would be covered in one hour, instead of 500, since the speed of the rotation is to be added to that of the plane. It could also be pointed out that such a flying speed of 1,000 miles an hour, which is supposed to be that of the earth’s rotation, has recently been achieved, so that an aircraft flying at this rate in the same direction as that of the rotation could not cover any ground at all. It would remain suspended in mid-air over the spot from which it took off, since both speeds are equal.”

Same point as a few before, so copying and pasting:  You really don’t understand how fluids work, do you?  The Earth atmosphere follows the curve of the Earth, due to gravity, just like the oceans.  When a helicopter is flying, since it needs lift to stay in the air, the helicopter just follows the ‘level’ of the air around it.  It is just like a boat that follows the curve of the water.  Just like the water, the atmosphere gets dragged along with the rotation of the Earth.  In addition, there is this little thing called inertia.  If the world worked like how the flat earthers think it works, every time you hit a hard bump in your car, or  jump up in a train or airplane, you will immediately go smashing into the back of the rail car or cabin.  Just think about it.

27) If Earth and its atmosphere were constantly spinning Eastwards over 1000mph, landing airplanes on such fast-moving runways which face all manner of directions North, South, East, West and otherwise would be practically impossible, yet in reality such fictional concerns are completely negligible.

 

Same point as a few before, so copying and pasting:   You really don’t understand how fluids work, do you?  The Earth atmosphere follows the curve of the Earth, due to gravity, just like the oceans.  When a plane is flying, since it needs lift to stay in the air, the plane just follows the ‘level’ of the air around it.  It is just like a boat that follows the curve of the water.  Just like the water, the atmosphere gets dragged along with the rotation of the Earth.  In addition, there is this little thing called inertia.  If the world worked like how the flat earthers think it works, every time you hit a hard bump in your car, or  jump up in a train or airplane, you will immediately go smashing into the back of the rail car or cabin.  Just think about it.

28) If the Earth and its atmosphere were constantly spinning Eastwards over 1000mph, then clouds, wind and weather patterns could not casually and unpredictably go every which way, with clouds often travelling in opposing directions at varying altitudes simultaneously.

If you knew anything about fluid dynamics, the atmosphere reacts to the rotation of the Earth as we would expect on a sphere and weather patterns do not go every which way.

29) If the Earth and its atmosphere were constantly spinning Eastwards over 1000mph, this should somewhere somehow be seen, heard, felt or measured by someone, yet no one in history has ever experienced this alleged Eastward motion; meanwhile, however, we can hear, feel and experimentally measure even the slightest Westward breeze.

Same point as a few before, so copying and pasting:   You really don’t understand how fluids work, do you?  The Earth atmosphere follows the curve of the Earth, due to gravity, just like the oceans.  Just like the water, the atmosphere gets dragged along with the rotation of the Earth.  In addition, there is this little thing called inertia.  If the world worked like how the flat earthers think it works, every time you hit a hard bump in your car, or  jump up in a train or airplane, you will immediately go smashing into the back of the rail car or cabin.  Just think about it.

30) In his book “South Sea Voyages,” Arctic and Antarctic explorer Sir James Clarke Ross, described his experience on the night of November 27th, 1839 and his conclusion that the Earth must be motionless: “The sky being very clear … it enabled us to observe the higher stratum of clouds to be moving in an exactly opposite direction to that of the wind–a circumstance which is frequently recorded in our meteorological journal both in the north-east and south-east trades, and has also often been observed by former voyagers. Captain Basil Hall witnessed it from the summit of the Peak of Teneriffe; and Count Strzelechi, on ascending the volcanic mountain of Kiranea, in Owhyhee, reached at 4000 feet an elevation above that of the trade wind, and experienced the influence of an opposite current of air of a different hygrometric and thermometric condition … Count Strzelechi further informed me of the following seemingly anomalous circumstance–that at the height of 6000 feet he found the current of air blowing at right angles to both the lower strata, also of a different hygrometric and thermometric condition, but warmer than the inter-stratum. Such a state of the atmosphere is compatible only with the fact which other evidence has demonstrated, that the earth is at rest.”

How very odd.  I can’t find “South Sea Voyages” anywhere.  The only search results I could find are from …drumroll please…from Flat Earth sources.  The gibberish language above literally does not mean anything.  It is pure word salad and I am sure it was a good name attached to a made up quote in a made up book.  Most telling is Peak of Teneriffe is in the Canary Islands, Kiranea in Owhyhee, does not exist outside of Flat Earth literature and they SPELLED CLARKE incorrectly.  Ross was an English artic and antartic explorer, and Strzelechi was Polish, who explored Australia.  I can’t make heads or tails of the paragraph above.

31) Quoting “Zetetic Cosmogeny” Thomas Winships states: “Let ‘imagination’ picture to the mind what force air would have which was set in motion by a spherical body of 8,000 miles in diameter, which in one hour was spinning round 1,000 mph, rushing through space at 65,000 mph and gyrating across the heavens? Then let ‘conjecture’ endeavor to discover whether the inhabitants on such a globe could keep their hair on? If the earth-globe rotates on its axis at the terrific rate of 1,000 miles an hour, such an immense mass would of necessity cause a tremendous rush of wind in the space it occupied. The wind would go all one way, and anything like clouds which got ‘within the sphere of influence’ of the rotating sphere, would have to go the same way. The fact that the earth is at rest is proved by kite flying.”

Same point as a few before, so copying and pasting:   You really don’t understand how fluids work, do you?  The Earth atmosphere follows the curve of the Earth, due to gravity, just like the oceans.  Just like the water, the atmosphere gets dragged along with the rotation of the Earth.  In addition, there is this little thing called inertia.  If the world worked like how the flat earthers think it works, every time you hit a hard bump in your car, or  jump up in a train or airplane, you will immediately go smashing into the back of the rail car or cabin.  Just think about it.

Oh, using Flat Earth literature to prove a Flat Earth is disingenuous.

32) If “gravity” is credited with being a force strong enough to hold the world’s oceans, buildings, people and atmosphere stuck to the surface of a rapidly spinning ball, then it is impossible for “gravity” to also simultaneously be weak enough to allow little birds, bugs, and planes to take-off and travel freely unabated in any direction.

I don’t know about you, but as soon as the fuel runs out on an airplane, gravity becomes an issue really fucking quickly.  Since a human can only jump about 6 inches vertically, it is a pretty damn significant force.  Insects and birds have to expend huge amounts of energy to stay aloft.

33) If “gravity” is credited with being a force strong enough to curve the massive expanse of oceans around a globular Earth, it would be impossible for fish and other creatures to swim through such forcefully held water.

Couple of things here, you can’t compress a liquid, and that column of water above, being pulled down by gravity, you when diving becomes a big deal, really quickly.  Ever hear of crush depth in a submarine?  330 meters is the deepest free drive record for a human.

34) Ship captains in navigating great distances at sea never need to factor the supposed curvature of the Earth into their calculations. Both Plane Sailing and Great Circle Sailing, the most popular navigation methods, use plane, not spherical trigonometry, making all mathematical calculations on the assumption that the Earth is perfectly flat. If the Earth were in fact a sphere, such an errant assumption would lead to constant glaring inaccuracies. Plane Sailing has worked perfectly fine in both theory and practice for thousands of years, however, and plane trigonometry has time and again proven more accurate than spherical trigonometry in determining distances across the oceans.

I’m sorry, this is a lie.  You do have to take into account the curve of the Earth and using 2d maps to represent a 3d world is huge issue and been a thorn in the side of map makers as long as there has been maps.   Asserting something does not make it true.  This is a lie, plain and simple.

35) If the Earth were truly a globe, then every line of latitude south of the equator would have to measure a gradually smaller and smaller circumference the farther South travelled. If, however, the Earth is an extended plane, then every line of latitude south of the equator should measure a gradually larger and larger circumference the farther South travelled. The fact that many captains navigating south of the equator assuming the globular theory have found themselves drastically out of reckoning, moreso the farther South travelled, testifies to the fact that the Earth is not a ball.

Again, this is a complete lie.  If you tried to navigate using a flat earth map, you would be hopelessly lost.  The lines of latitude do get shorter in circumference, the further south you go.

36) During Captain James Clark Ross’s voyages around the Antarctic circumference, he often wrote in his journal perplexed at how they routinely found themselves out of accordance with their charts, stating that they found themselves an average of 12-16 miles outside their reckoning every day, later on further south as much as 29 miles.

No idea where you got this idea, but at least you spelled his name right this time.  Since when Ross was exploring Antarctica, and HE WAS THE FIRST PERSON TO DO SO how would he WOULD HE HAVE CHARTS TO REFERENCE AGAINST????  Ever wonder why the Ross Ice Shelf is named that?  Ross discovered it.  This is just a bald faced lie…again.

37) Lieutenant Charles Wilkes commanded a United States Navy exploration expedition to the Antarctic from 1838 to 1842, and in his journals also mentioned being consistently east of his reckoning, sometimes over 20 miles in less than 18 hours.

Even if this anecdote is true, wouldn’t it be better proof of a round Earth???  A flat earth would have a HUGE distance to cover to circle Antarctica.

38) To quote Reverend Thomas Milner, “In the southern hemisphere, navigators to India have often fancied themselves east of the Cape when still west, and have been driven ashore on the African coast, which, according to their reckoning, lay behind them. This misfortune happened to a fine frigate, the Challenger, in 1845. How came Her Majesty’s Ship ‘Conqueror,’ to be lost? How have so many other noble vessels, perfectly sound, perfectly manned, perfectly navigated, been wrecked in calm weather, not only in dark night, or in a fog, but in broad daylight and sunshine – in the former case upon the coasts, in the latter, upon sunken rocks – from being ‘out of reckoning?’” The simple answer is that Earth is not a ball.

This is such a misquote, it is not even funny.  The Earth is not a ball is not in the original quote, and Milner was almost certainly referring to the difficulties in dead reckoning navigation and sailors unfamiliar in navigating in the southern hemisphere.  If anything, with a flat earth, the southern continents should be further apart, leading to less navigational issues.  Also, nice, current quote, from 1845.

39) Practical distance measurements taken from “The Australian Handbook, Almanack, Shippers’ and Importers’ Directory” state that the straight line distance between Sydney and Nelson is 1550 statute miles. Their given difference in longitude is 22 degrees 2’14”. Therefore if 22 degrees 2’14” out of 360 is 1550 miles, the entirety would measure 25,182 miles. This is not only larger than the ball-Earth is said to be at the equator, but a whole 4262 miles greater than it would be at Sydney’s southern latitude on a globe of said proportions.

No idea where you dug this book up, but the locations are incorrect.  Sydney is 151.209E and Nelson is 141.90 east, a difference of 9.3 degrees.  They are only about 400 miles apart, so I have no idea how this is a valid proof.  Google exists, we can fact check stuff now.

40) From near Cape Horn, Chile to Port Philip in Melbourne, Australia the distance is 10,500 miles, or 143 degrees of longitude away. Factoring in the remaining degrees to 360 makes for a total distance of 26,430 miles around this particular latitude, which is over 1500 miles wider than Earth is supposed to be at the equator, and many more thousands of miles wider than it is supposed to be at such Southern latitudes.

Well, this is another lie, it is 9,287 km, or 5770.674 miles. If this is all coming from the same book, throw it out.

41) Similar calculations made from the Cape of Good Hope, South Africa to Melbourne, Australia at an average latitude of 35.5 degrees South, have given an approximate figure of over 25,000 miles, which is again equal to or greater than the Earth’s supposed greatest circumference at the equator. Calculations from Sydney, Australia to Wellington, New Zealand at an average of 37.5 degrees South have given an approximate circumference of 25,500 miles, greater still! According to the ball-Earth theory, the circumference of the Earth at 37.5 degrees Southern latitude should be only 19,757 statute miles, almost six thousand miles less than such practical measurements.

Another lie. They are 6380.2394 miles apart.  Did you really think no one would fact check this?

42) In the ball-Earth model Antarctica is an ice continent which covers the bottom of the ball from 78 degrees South latitude to 90 and is therefore not more than 12,000 miles in circumference. Many early explorers including Captian Cook and James Clark Ross, however, in attempting Antarctic circumnavigation took 3 to 4 years and clocked 50-60,000 miles around. The British ship Challenger also made an indirect but complete circumnavigation of Antarctica traversing 69,000 miles. This is entirely inconsistent with the ball model.

This proof is very badly worded and disingenuous.  Cook took 3 voyages around the world, and only one was to look for Antarctica, since which was unknown at the time.  Each of these voyages was around three years long and were in no way direct routes to anything, since he was trying to find new places, like Australia.  Could not find anything like this for Ross.  Sources?

43) If Earth was a ball there are several flights in the Southern hemisphere which would have their quickest, straightest path over the Antarctic continent such as Santiago, Chile to Sydney, Australia. Instead of taking the shortest, quickest route in a straight line over Antarctica, all such flights detour all manner of directions away from Antarctica instead claiming the temperatures too cold for airplane travel! Considering the fact that there are plenty of flights to/from/over Antarctica, and NASA claims to have technology keeping them in conditions far colder (and far hotter) than any experienced on Earth, such an excuse is clearly just an excuse, and these flights aren’t made because they are impossible.

Ummm….Santiago to Sydney is totally an available flight.  As is Auckland to Buenos Aries, as is Sydney to Johannesburg.  The other routes are not economically viable.  The whole diatribe about planes being too fragile at those temperature is make up by the author.  At 40,000 feet, the air temperature is between -40 to 70 degrees F, no matter where you are on Earth.  I used to test aircraft (and spacecraft) components, they are tested and have to perform at these temperatures, day in and day out.  In addition, there are many, many trans-Arctic flights, which are very similar in temperatures.  In addition, you can totally take a tour of the South Pole, landing, by plane.  This tour is offered about by at least 6 different companies.

44) If Earth was a ball, and Antarctica was too cold to fly over, the only logical way to fly from Sydney to Santiago would be a straight shot over the Pacific staying in the Southern hemisphere the entire way. Re-fueling could be done in New Zealand or other Southern hemisphere destinations along the way if absolutely necessary. In actual fact, however, Santiago-Sydney flights go into the Northern hemisphere making stop-overs at LAX and other North American airports before continuing back down to the Southern hemisphere. Such ridiculously wayward detours make no sense on the globe but make perfect sense and form nearly straight lines when shown on a flat Earth map.

Same objection, so here is the response pasted:   The whole diatribe about planes being too fragile at those temperature is make up by the author.  At 40,000 feet, the air temperature is between -40 to 70 degrees F, no matter where you are on Earth.  I used to test aircraft (and spacecraft) components, they are tested and have to perform at these temperatures, day in and day out.  In addition, there are many, many trans-Arctic flights, which are very similar in temperatures.  In addition, you can totally take a tour of the South Pole, landing, by plane.  This tour is offered about by at least 6 different companies.

45) On a ball-Earth, Johannesburg, South Africa to Perth, Australia should be a straight shot over the Indian Ocean with convenient re-fueling possibilities on Mauritus or Madagascar. In actual practice, however, most Johannesburg to Perth flights curiously stop over either in Dubai, Hong Kong or Malaysia all of which make no sense on the ball, but are completely understandable when mapped on a flat Earth.

 

Johannesburg to Perth is a direct flight, South African 280, leaving daily, and is the cheapest flight, and is 9 hours, 20 minutes long.

46) On a ball-Earth Cape Town, South Africa to Buenos Aries, Argentina should be a straight shot over the Atlantic following the same line of latitude across, but instead every flight goes to connecting locations in the Northern hemisphere first, stopping over anywhere from London to Turkey to Dubai. Once again these make absolutely no sense on the globe but are completely understandable options when mapped on a flat Earth.

This is also clearly a lie, none of the routes I could find go through the Northern Hemisphere.  Strange cherry picking.  Most flights are Cape Town to Johannesburg, to San Paulo, to Buenos Aries.  This is not way a conspiracy, as there are thousands of possible city combinations that are not just economically viable, like Chicago to Santiago.  You have to pass through Atlanta first, but this is pretty typical.

47) On a ball-Earth Johannesburg, South Africa to Sao Paolo, Brazil should be a quick straight shot along the 25th Southern latitude, but instead nearly every flight makes a re-fueling stop at the 50th degree North latitude in London first! The only reason such a ridiculous stop-over works in reality is because the Earth is flat.

 

The Johannesburg to Sao Paulo flight is served by South African 222, leaving every day, 9 hours, 45 minutes flight duration.  Not sure how this is a flat earth proof?

48) On a ball-Earth Santiago, Chile to Johannesburg, South Africa should be an easy flight all taking place below the Tropic of Capricorn in the Southern hemisphere, yet every listed flight makes a curious re-fueling stop in Senegal near the Tropic of Cancer in the North hemisphere first! When mapped on a flat Earth the reason why is clear to see, however, Senegal is actually directly in a straight-line path half-way between the two.

Yet another lie.  You can travel from Santiago, via San Paulo, to Johannesburg.  See my Chicago to Santiago example.  Getting tired of the lies.  Takes about 20 seconds of fact checking to debunk these.

49) If Earth were a spinning ball heated by a Sun 93 million miles away, it would be impossible to have simultaneously sweltering summers in Africa while just a few thousand miles away bone-chilling frozen Arctic/Antarctic winters experiencing little to no heat from the Sun whatsoever. If the heat from the Sun traveled 93,000,000 miles to the Sahara desert, it is absurd to assert that another 4,000 miles (0.00004%) further to Antarctica would completely negate such sweltering heat resulting in such drastic differences.

You clearly don’t understand why seasons occur.  The Earth is tilted in relation to the sun, and this tilt changes the angle of the sunlight, and the hours of sun per day, which varies with the seasons.  Not sure how seasons would work on a flat earth.  The distance from the sun makes little difference, in fact, in Northern Hemisphere Summer, the Earth is actually further away from the sun, by almost a million miles.   Explain how this would work under your model?

50) If the Earth were truly a globe, the Arctic and Antarctic polar regions and areas of comparable latitude North and South of the equator should share similar conditions and characteristics such as comparable temperatures, seasonal changes, length of daylight, plant and animal life. In reality, however, the Arctic/Antarctic regions and areas of comparable latitude North/South of the equator differ greatly in many ways entirely inconsistent with the ball model and entirely consistent with the flat model.

I really don’t get this one.  Is it because the animals are different?  Why would they be the same?  In either model?  The reason the Arctic is warmer is the North Atlantic current dumps a lot of heat into the region from the equatorial regions.  A huge, huge difference is the Arctic is an ocean, the Antarctic is a continent, with stone underneath there.  Water only gets so cold.

51) Antarctica is by far the coldest place on Earth with an average annual temperature of approximately -57 degrees Fahrenheit, and a record low of -135.8! The average annual temperature at the North Pole, however, is a comparatively warm 4 degrees. Throughout the year, temperatures in the Antarctic vary less than half the amount at comparable Arctic latitudes. The Northern Arctic region enjoys moderately warm summers and manageable winters, whereas the Southern Antarctic region never even warms enough to melt the perpetual snow and ice. On a tilting, wobbling, ball-Earth spinning uniformly around the Sun, Arctic and Antarctic temperatures and seasons should not vary so greatly.

Same point, so copy and paste answer:  The reason the Arctic is warmer is the North Atlantic current dumps a lot of heat into the region from the equatorial regions.  A huge, huge difference is the Arctic is an ocean, the Antarctic is a continent, with stone underneath there.  Water only gets so cold.

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

So?  Life varies all over the planet.  The America’s have no camels, horses, elephants, or pigs (or humans, for that matter) natively.  Australia and Madagascar have totally different animals.  What’s the point?

53) At places of comparable latitude North and South, the Sun behaves very differently than it would on a spinning ball Earth but precisely how it should on a flat Earth. For example, the longest summer days North of the equator are much longer than those South of the equator, and the shortest winter days North of the equator are much shorter than the shortest South of the equator. This is inexplicable on a uniformly spinning, wobbling ball Earth but fits exactly on the flat model with the Sun traveling circles over and around the Earth from Tropic to Tropic.

This is a total lie. No kind way to put it.  Hobart, Tasmania and Chicago, Illinois are around the same latitude South and North, less than 1 degree apart, and they hours of the day are directly inverse to each other.  The length daylight hours of the summer solstice is the same length of the winter solstice.  A solid proof of a round earth.  Don’t use this one again.

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

This is a complete lie.  Copy with changes:  Hobart, Tasmania and Chicago, Illinois are around the same latitude South and North, less than 1 degree apart, the dusk and dawn times are identical, six months apart from each other.  A solid proof of a round earth.  Don’t use this one again.

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

This entire proof is a lie.   The Antarctic has the same 24 hours of sunlight and darkness, just like the Arctic, and they are inverse of each other.  I already explained why they have different temperatures.  The reason the Arctic is warmer is the North Atlantic current dumps a lot of heat into the region from the equatorial regions.  A huge, huge difference is the Arctic is an ocean, the Antarctic is a continent, with stone underneath there.  Water only gets so cold.

56) The “Midnight Sun” is an Arctic phenomenon occurring annually during the summer solstice where for several days straight an observer significantly far enough north can watch the Sun traveling circles over-head, rising and falling in the sky throughout the day, but never fully setting for upwards of 72+ hours! If the Earth were actually a spinning globe revolving around the Sun, the only place such a phenomenon as the Midnight Sun could be observed would be at the poles. Any other vantage point from 89 degrees latitude downwards could never, regardless of any tilt or inclination, see the Sun for 24 hours straight. To see the Sun for an entire revolution on a spinning globe at a point other than the poles, you would have to be looking through miles and miles of land and sea for part of the revolution!

You really don’t understand the tilt of the earth.  Take a fucking globe and a flashlight and you can see why the sun does not set for entire arctic and antarctic circle.

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

This is a complete lie.  I found dozens, if not hundreds of videos of this, north and south pole.  There are 6 different companies offering private tours of the south pole in summer.

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

How is this not proof of a round Earth?  Below 66 south, it works just like 66 north.  Again, flashlight and globe.

59) Quoting Gabrielle Henriet, “The theory of the rotation of the earth may once and for all be definitely disposed of as impracticable by pointing out the following inadvertence. It is said that the rotation takes twenty-four hours and that its speed is uniform, in which case, necessarily, days and nights should have an identical duration of twelve hours each all the year round. The sun should invariably rise in the morning and set in the evening at the same hours, with the result that it would be the equinox every day from the 1st of January to the 31st of December. One should stop and reflect on this before saying that the earth has a movement of rotation. How does the system of gravitation account for the seasonal variations in the lengths of days and nights if the earth rotates at a uniform speed in twenty-four hours!?”

The Earth is fucking tilted, you idiot.  And yes, 2 days a year, the day is 12 hours long, everywhere.  How does this work with your magical circling sun over a plane????

60) Anyone can prove the sea-horizon perfectly straight and the entire Earth perfectly flat using nothing more than a level, tripods and a wooden plank. At any altitude above sea-level, simply fix a 6-12 foot long, smooth, leveled board edgewise upon tripods and observe the skyline from eye-level behind it. The distant horizon will always align perfectly parallel with the upper edge of the board. Furthermore, if you move in a half-circle from one end of the board to the other whilst observing the skyline over the upper edge, you will be able to trace a clear, flat 10-20 miles depending on your altitude. This would be impossible if the Earth were a globe 25,000 miles in circumference; the horizon would align over the center of the board but then gradually, noticeably decline towards the extremities. Just ten miles on each side would necessitate an easily visible curvature of 66.6 feet from each end to the center.

Fuck, this is stupid. Do you really think you can detect curve comparing is six foot board as a reference to a ball 25,000 miles across???

61) If the Earth were actually a big ball 25,000 miles in circumference, the horizon would be noticeably curved even at sea-level, and everything on or approaching the horizon would appear to tilt backwards slightly from your perspective. Distant buildings along the horizon would all look like leaning towers of Piza falling away from the observer. A hot-air balloon taking off then drifting steadily away from you, on a ball-Earth would slowly and constantly appear to lean back more and more the farther away it flew, the bottom of the basket coming gradually into view as the top of the balloon disappears from sight. In reality, however, buildings, balloons, trees, people, anything and everything at right angles to the ground/horizon remains so regardless the distance or height of the observer.

This one is even more stupid.  To see a tilt of only 1 degree, the object would have to be 57.29 MILES away.  The Leaning Tower of Pizza leans at 4 degrees, meaning to see the same tilt, it would have to be 229 MILES away.  Too bad the horizon is about 6 to 8 miles away at eye level.

62) Samuel Rowbotham’s experiments at the Old Bedford Level proved conclusively the canal’s water to be completely flat over a 6 mile stretch. First he stood in the canal with his telescope held 8 inches above the surface of the water, then his friend in a boat with a 5 foot tall flag sailed the 6 miles away. If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference the 6 mile stretch of water should have comprised an arc exactly 6 feet high in the middle, so the entire boat and flag should have ultimately disappeared, when in fact the entire boat and flag remained visible at the same height for the entire journey.

Ah, yes, Dr. Parallax himself.  This experiment was disproved many times, and he even went to court, and lost.  Any attempt to replicate these results has always been in failure.

63) In a second experiment Dr. Rowbotham affixed flags 5 feet high along the shoreline, one at every mile marker. Then using his telescope mounted at 5 feet just behind the first flag looked over the tops of all 6 flags which lined up in a perfectly straight line. If the Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference the flags should have progressively dipped down after the first establishing line of sight, the second would have descended 8 inches, 32 inches for the third, 6 feet for the fourth, 10 feet 8 inches for the fifth, and 16 feet 8 inches for the sixth.

Ah, yes, Dr. Parallax himself.  This experiment was disproved many times, and he even went to court, and lost.  Any attempt to replicate these results has always been in failure.

64) Quoting “Earth Not a Globe!” by Samuel Rowbotham, “It is known that the horizon at sea, whatever distance it may extend to the right and left of the observer on land, always appears as a straight line. The following experiment has been tried in various parts of the country. At Brighton, on a rising ground near the race course, two poles were fixed in the earth six yards apart, and directly opposite the sea. Between these poles a line was tightly stretched parallel to the horizon. From the center of the line the view embraced not less than 20 miles on each side making a distance of 40 miles. A vessel was observed sailing directly westwards; the line cut the rigging a little above the bulwarks, which it did for several hours or until the vessel had sailed the whole distance of 40 miles. The ship coming into view from the east would have to ascend an inclined plane for 20 miles until it arrived at the center of the arc, whence it would have to descend for the same distance. The square of 20 miles multiplied by 8 inches gives 266 feet as the amount the vessel would be below the line at the beginning and at the end of the 40 miles.”

This is also by Rowbotham aka Parallax, and is also a lie.

65) Also Quoting Dr. Rowbotham, “On the shore near Waterloo, a few miles to the north of Liverpool, a good telescope was fixed, at an elevation of 6 feet above the water. It was directed to a large steamer, just leaving the River Mersey, and sailing out to Dublin. Gradually the mast-head of the receding vessel came nearer to the horizon, until, at length, after more than four hours had elapsed, it disappeared. The ordinary rate of sailing of the Dublin steamers was fully eight miles an hour; so that the vessel would be, at least, thirty-two miles distant when the mast-head came to the horizon. The 6 feet of elevation of the telescope would require three miles to be deducted for convexity, which would leave twenty-nine miles, the square of which, multiplied by 8 inches, gives 560 feet; deducting 80 feet for the height of the main-mast, and we find that, according to the doctrine of rotundity, the mast-head of the outward bound steamer should have been 480 feet below the horizon. Many other experiments of this kind have been made upon sea-going steamers, and always with results entirely incompatible with the theory that the earth is a globe.”

This is also by Rowbotham aka Parallax, and is also a lie.

66) Dr. Rowbotham conducted several other experiments using telescopes, spirit levels, sextants and “theodolites,” special precision instruments used for measuring angles in horizontal or vertical planes. By positioning them at equal heights aimed at each other successively he proved over and over the Earth to be perfectly flat for miles without a single inch of curvature. His findings caused quite a stir in the scientific community and thanks to 30 years of his efforts, the shape of the Earth became a hot topic of debate around the turn of the nineteenth century.

 

This is also by Rowbotham aka Parallax, and is also a lie.  He lost in court.  You can try any of these experiments any they will fail and reveal the earth is round.

67) The distance across the Irish Sea from the Isle of Man’s Douglas Harbor to Great Orm’s Head in North Wales is 60 miles. If the Earth was a globe then the surface of the water between them would form a 60 mile arc, the center towering 1944 feet higher than the coastlines at either end. It is well-known and easily verifiable, however, that on a clear day, from a modest altitude of 100 feet, the Great Orm’s Head is visible from Douglas Harbor. This would be completely impossible on a globe of 25,000 miles. Assuming the 100 foot altitude causes the horizon to appear approximately 13 miles off, the 47 miles remaining means the Welsh coastline should still fall an impossible 1472 feet below the line of sight!

I kind of think this was all made up.  The distance is 40 miles, not 60, and I am not going to go into the math here.  I have, however, been to Warren Dunes State Park in Michigan and looked back to my home city of Chicago, 53 miles distant.  All you can see it the tops of the tallest buildings, the Willis, Aeon, and John Hancock Towers.  The rest of the city, gone.  I even tried it with a 150x telescope.  That’s all you can see.

68) The Philadelphia skyline is clearly visible from Apple Pie Hill in the New Jersey Pine Barrens 40 miles away. If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, factoring in the 205 foot elevation of Apple Pie Hill, the Philly skyline should remain well-hidden beyond 335 feet of curvature.

You can clearly tell this is taken from a high elevation, as Apple Pie Hill is wooded area, so it had to be taken from the observation tower, that is 60 feet tall.  The city is 28 miles away, not 40.  So many lies.

69) The New York City skyline is clearly visible from Harriman State Park’s Bear Mountain 60 miles away. If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, viewing from Bear Mountain’s 1,283 foot summit, the Pythagorean Theorem determining distance to the horizon being 1.23 times the square root of the height in feet, the NYC skyline should be invisible behind 170 feet of curved Earth.

Wow, so many lies.  The actual distance is 34.7 miles, and 1283 feet up is pretty damn high and you can see across this distance easily.

70) From Washington’s Rock in New Jersey, at just a 400 foot elevation, it is possible on a clear day to see the skylines of both New York and Philadelphia in opposite directions at the same time covering a total distance of 120 miles! If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, both of these skylines should be hidden behind over 800 feet of Earth’s curvature.

More lies.   505 feet elevation, 20 miles to New York, 40 to Philly.

71) It is often possible to see the Chicago skyline from sea-level 60 miles away across Lake Michigan. In 2015 after photographer Joshua Nowicki photographed this phenomenon several news channels quickly claimed his picture to be a “superior mirage,” an atmospheric anomaly caused by temperature inversion. While these certainly do occur, the skyline in question was facing right-side up and clearly seen unlike a hazy illusory mirage, and on a ball-Earth 25,000 miles in circumference should be 2,400 feet below the horizon.

This is a superior mirage.  You will notice two things, this is the only photo like this, which is why it made big news.  99.9% of the time, all you can see is the top of the Big 3, as I stated a few proofs ago.  And, even as a mirage, you still can’t see the lake front, short buildings, and all of the buildings are distorted by the mirage.

2810345189_64f3a69d32_b

This is what you can see at sunset, typically.  Willis tower, Aeon, Trump, and John Hancock visible…where is the rest of the city?  Oh yeah, below the horizon, on the curved lake surface.

72) October 16, 1854 the Times newspaper reported the Queen’s visit to Great Grimsby from Hull recording they were able to see the 300 foot tall dock tower from 70 miles away. On a ball-Earth 25,000 miles in circumference, factoring their 10 foot elevation above the water and the tower’s 300 foot height, at 70 miles away the dock tower should have remained an entire 2,600 feet below the horizon.

Nice, current report here, only 161 years ago.  I call bullshit.

73) In 1872 Capt. Gibson and crewmates, sailing the ship “Thomas Wood” from China to London, reported seeing the entirety of St. Helena Island on a clear day from 75 miles away. Factoring in their height during measurement on a ball-Earth 25,000 miles in circumference, it was found the island should have been 3,650 feet below their line of sight.

Another current report here, except the fact the peak of St. Helena is 6745 feet above sea level.

74) From Genoa, Italy at a height of just 70 feet above sea-level, the island of Gorgona can often be seen 81 miles away. If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, Gorgona should be hidden beyond 3,332 feet of curvature.

I don’t totally buy this one.  Why is not always visible?

75) From Genoa, Italy at a height of just 70 feet above sea-level, the island of Corsica can often be seen 99 miles away. If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, Corsica should fall 5,245 feet, almost an entire mile below the horizon.

Corsica has peaks over 8,000 feet above sea level, so not sure how this is valid.

76) From Genoa, Italy 70 feet above sea-level, the island of Capraia 102 miles away can often be seen as well. If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, Capraia should always remain hidden behind 5,605 feet, over a mile of supposed curvature.

77) Also from Genoa, on bright clear days, the island of Elba can be seen an incredible 125 miles away! If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, Elba should be forever invisible behind 8770 feet of curvature.

78) From Anchorage, Alaska at an elevation of 102 feet, on clear days Mount Foraker can be seen with the naked eye 120 miles away. If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, Mount Foraker’s 17,400 summit should be leaning back away from the observer covered by 7,719 feet of curved Earth. In reality, however, the entire mountain can be quite easily seen standing straight from base to summit.

Ugh, I am tired of these ‘proofs’.  Actual distance is 100 miles.

79) From Anchorage, Alaska at an elevation of 102 feet, on clear days Mount McKinley can be seen with the naked eye from 130 miles away. If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, Mount McKinley’s 20,320 foot summit should be leaning back away from the observer and almost half covered by 9,220 feet of curved Earth. In reality, however, the entire mountain can be quite easily seen standing straight from base to summit.

I don’t see the whole mountain, do you?

80) In Chambers’ Journal, February 1895, a sailor near Mauritius in the Indian Ocean reported having seen a vessel which turned out to be an incredible 200 miles away! The incident caused much heated debate in nautical circles at the time, gaining further confirmation in Aden, Yemen where another witness reported seeing a missing Bombay steamer from 200 miles away. He correctly stated the precise appearance, location and direction of the steamer all later corroborated and confirmed correct by those onboard. Such sightings are absolutely inexplicable if the Earth were actually a ball 25,000 miles around, as ships 200 miles distant would have to fall approximately 5 miles below line of sight!

This has to be a mirage or bullshit.  Another century old report.

81) The distance from which various lighthouse lights around the world are visible at sea far exceeds what could be found on a ball-Earth 25,000 miles in circumference. For example, the Dunkerque Light in southern France at an altitude of 194 feet is visible from a boat (10 feet above sea-level) 28 miles away. Spherical trigonometry dictates that if the Earth was a globe with the given curvature of 8 inches per mile squared, this light should be hidden 190 feet below the horizon.

Too vague to respond to.

82) The Port Nicholson Light in New Zealand is 420 feet above sea-level and visible from 35 miles away where it should be 220 feet below the horizon.

Photo or I call bullshit.

83) The Egerö Light in Norway is 154 feet above high-water and visible from 28 statute miles where it should be 230 feet below the horizon.

Photo or I call bullshit.

84) The Light at Madras, on the Esplanade, is 132 feet high and visible from 28 miles away, where it should be 250 feet below the line of sight.

Photo or I call bullshit.

85) The Cordonan Light on the west coast of France is 207 feet high and visible from 31 miles away, where it should be 280 feet below the line of sight.

Photo or I call bullshit.

86) The light at Cape Bonavista, Newfoundland is 150 feet above sea-level and visible at 35 miles, where it should be 491 feet below the horizon.

Photo or I call bullshit.

87) The lighthouse steeple of St. Botolph’s Parish Church in Boston is 290 feet tall and visible from over 40 miles away, where it should be hidden a full 800 feet below the horizon!

Photo or I call bullshit.

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

Photo or I call bullshit.  Astronomers would have no opinion on this.

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

Photo or I call bullshit.

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

Photo or I call bullshit.

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

Photo or I call bullshit.  Astronomers would have no opinion on this.

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

Photo or I call bullshit.

93) The St. George’s Channel between Holyhead and Kingstown Harbor near Dublin is 60 miles across. When half-way across a ferry passenger will notice behind them the light on Holyhead pier as well as in front of them the Poolbeg light in Dublin Bay. The Holyhead Pier light is 44 feet high, while the Poolbeg lighthouse 68 feet, therefore a vessel in the middle of the channel, 30 miles from either side standing on a deck 24 feet above the water, can clearly see both lights. On a ball Earth 25,000 miles in circumference, however, both lights should be hidden well below both horizons by over 300 feet!

Photo or I call bullshit.  150 year old accounts are useless.

94) From the highland near Portsmouth Harbor in Hampshire, England looking across Spithead to the Isle of Wight, the entire base of the island, where water and land come together composes a perfectly straight line 22 statute miles long. According to the ball-Earth theory, the Isle of Wight should decline 80 feet from the center on each side to account for the necessary curvature. The cross-hairs of a good theodolite directed there, however, have repeatedly shown the land and water line to be perfectly level.

Photo or I call bullshit.  150 year old drawings are kind of useless.

95) On a clear day from the highland near Douglas Harbor on the Isle of Man, the whole length of the coast of North Wales is often plainly visible to the naked eye. From the Point of Ayr at the mouth of the River Dee to Holyhead comprises a 50 mile stretch which has also been repeatedly found to be perfectly horizontal. If the Earth actually had curvature of 8 inches per mile squared, as NASA and modern astronomy claim, the 50 mile length of Welsh coast seen along the horizon in Liverpool Bay would have to decline from the center-point an easily detectable 416 feet on each side!

Photo or I call bullshit.  Astronomers and NASA would have no opinion on this.

96) From “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe” by William Carpenter, “If we take a journey down the Chesapeake Bay, by night, we shall see the ‘light’ exhibited at Sharpe’s Island for an hour before the steamer gets to it. We may take up a position on the deck so that the rail of the vessel’s side will be in a line with the ‘light’ and in the line of sight; and we shall find that in the whole journey the light won’t vary in the slightest degree in its apparent elevation. But, say that a distance of thirteen miles has been traversed, the astronomers’ theory of ‘curvature’ demands a difference (one way or the other!) in the apparent elevation of the light, of 112 feet 8 inches! Since, however, there is not a difference of 100 hair’s breadths, we have a plain proof that the water of the Chesapeake Bay is not curved, which is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.”

Great, quoting another flat earther to prove a flat earth.  Dishonest and Photo or I call bullshit.  Astronomers would have no opinion on this.

97) NASA and modern astronomy say the Earth is a giant ball tilted back, wobbling and spinning 1,000 mph around its central axis, traveling 67,000 mph circles around the Sun, spiraling 500,000 mph around the Milky Way, while the entire galaxy rockets a ridiculous 670,000,000 mph through the Universe, with all of these motions originating from an alleged “Big Bang” cosmogenic explosion 14 billion years ago. That’s a grand total of 670,568,000 mph in several different directions we’re all supposedly speeding along at simultaneously, yet no one has ever seen, felt, heard, measured or proven a single one of these motions to exist whatsoever.

We have proven all of these motions.  Inertia exists, gravity exists, space exists. Deal with it.  What is with this wobble?  It happens every 30,000 years.

98) NASA and modern astronomy say Polaris, the North Pole star, is somewhere between 323-434 light years, or about 2 quadrillion miles, away from us! Firstly, note that is between 1,938,000,000,000,000 – 2,604,000,000,000,000 miles making a difference of 666,000,000,000,000 (over six hundred trillion) miles! If modern astronomy cannot even agree on the distance to stars within hundreds of trillions of miles, perhaps their “science” is flawed and their theory needs re-examining. However, even granting them their obscurely distant stars, it is impossible for heliocentrists to explain how Polaris manages to always remain perfectly aligned straight above the North Pole throughout Earth’s various alleged tilting, wobbling, rotating and revolving motions.

Better measurements over time is a strength of science, not a weakness.  Polaris is not exactly at the pole, and in a few thousand years, it will no longer be the pole star.

99) Viewed from a ball-Earth, Polaris, situated directly over the North Pole, should not be visible anywhere in the Southern hemisphere. For Polaris to be seen from the Southern hemisphere of a globular Earth, the observer would have to be somehow looking “through the globe,” and miles of land and sea would have to be transparent. Polaris can be seen, however, up to over 20 degrees South latitude.

Complete lie.  Polaris can not be seen further south than about half a degree south of the equator.

100) If Earth were a ball, the Southern Cross and other Southern constellations would all be visible at the same time from every longitude on the same latitude as is the case in the North with Polaris and its surrounding constellations. Ursa Major/Minor and many others can be seen from every Northern meridian simultaneously whereas in the South, constellations like the Southern Cross cannot. This proves the Southern hemisphere is not “turned under” as in the ball-Earth model, but simply stretching further outwards away from the Northern center-point as in the flat Earth model.

This is a complete lie.  The constellations in the  southern hemisphere can never be seen from the northern, and rotate in the opposite direction.  They also circle a point close to the the southern cross.  Some day, there will be a southern polar star as the Earth precesses every 26,000 years.  At the equator you can see the northern and southern constellations, and you can see the north star and southern cross, just above the horizon.

101) Sigma Octantis is claimed to be a Southern central pole star similar to Polaris, around which the Southern hemisphere stars all rotate around the opposite direction. Unlike Polaris, however, Sigma Octantis can NOT be seen simultaneously from every point along the same latitude, it is NOT central but allegedly 1 degree off-center, it is NOT motionless, and in fact cannot be seen at all using publicly available telescopes! There is legitimate speculation regarding whether Sigma Octantis even exists. Either way, the direction in which stars move overhead is based on perspective and the exact direction you’re facing, not which hemisphere you are in.

There is no southern polar star, right now.  This is a complete lie, again.

102) Some heliocentrists have tried to suggest that the Pole Star’s gradual declination overhead as an observer travels southwards is proof of a globular Earth. Far from it, the declination of the Pole Star or any other object is simply a result of the Law of Perspective on plane (flat) surfaces. The Law of Perspective dictates that the angle and height at which an object is seen diminishes the farther one recedes from the object, until at a certain point the line of sight and the seemingly uprising surface of the Earth converges to a vanishing point (i.e. the horizon line) beyond which the object is invisible. In the ball-Earth model the horizon is claimed to be the curvature of the Earth, whereas in reality, the horizon is known to be simply the vanishing line of perspective based on the strength of your eyes, instruments, weather and altitude.

The law of perspective is used by artists to represent a 3 dimensional object on a 2 dimensional surface, and I have no idea why flat earthers try to use this.  There is no vanishing point in the real world.  Let me repeat The law of perspective is used by artists to represent a 3 dimensional object on a 2 dimensional surface.  THERE IS NO VANISHING POINT IN THE REAL WORLD.  THERE IS A HORIZON SINCE WE ARE ON THE SURFACE OF A SPHERE.  It is an artist’s tool, nothing more.  Even if was applicable, it still does not change the fact the stars rotate in the other direction.

103) There are several constellations which can be seen from far greater distances over the face of the Earth than should be possible if the world were a rotating, revolving, wobbling ball. For instance, Ursa Major, very close to Polaris, can be seen from 90 degrees North latitude (the North Pole) all the way down to 30 degrees South latitude. For this to be possible on a ball-Earth the Southern observers would have to be seeing through hundreds or thousands of miles of bulging Earth to the Northern sky.

This is a complete lie, just like the 20 degrees south polaris viewing.

104) The constellation Vulpecula can be seen from 90 degrees North latitude, all the way to 55 degrees South latitude. Taurus, Pisces and Leo can be seen from 90 degrees North all the way to 65 degrees South. An observer on a ball-Earth, regardless of any tilt or inclination, should not logically be able to see this far.

You can not see these constellations year round from the degrees quotes here.  This is actually better proof of a round earth with a tilt than a flat one.

105) Aquarius and Libra can be seen from 65 degrees North to 90 degrees South! The constellation Virgo is visible from 80 degrees North down to 80 degrees South, and Orion can be seen from 85 degrees North all the way to 75 degrees South latitude! These are all only possible because the “hemispheres” are not spheres at all but concentric circles of latitude extending outwards from the central North Pole with the stars rotating over and around.

Now I know this is all made up, or has serious omissions.

106) The so-called “South Pole” is simply an arbitrary point along the Antarctic ice marked with a red and white barbershop pole topped with a metal ball-Earth. This ceremonial South Pole is admittedly and provably NOT the actual South Pole, however, because the actual South Pole could be demonstrably confirmed with the aid of a compass showing North to be 360 degrees around the observer. Since this feat has never been achieved, the model remains pure theory, along with the establishment’s excuse that the geomagnetic poles supposedly constantly move around making verification of their claims impossible.

You don’t know the difference between the axial pole and a magnetic pole, do you?  You also don’t understand magnetic compasses.  If you take them to the magnetic north pole (in Canada) or the magnetic south pole (in the southern ocean), your compass will actually try to point down, following the Earth’s magnetic field lines.  If you have one suspended in oil, it will point down.

107) Ring magnets of the kind found in loudspeakers have a central North pole with the opposite “South” pole actually being all points along the outer circumference. This perfectly demonstrates the magnetism of our flat Earth, whereas the alleged source of magnetism in the ball-Earth model is emitted from a hypothetical molten magnetic core in the center of the ball which they claim conveniently causes both poles to constantly move thus evading independent verification at their two “ceremonial poles.” In reality the deepest drilling operation in history, the Russian Kola Ultradeep, managed to get only 8 miles down, so the entire ball-Earth model taught in schools showing a crust, outer-mantle, inner-mantle, outer-core and inner-core layers are all purely speculation as we have never penetrated through beyond the crust.

Several things here, even looking at your diagram, the whole of the Earth would have to fit in that tiny air gap in a speaker.  Copy from my last one: You don’t know the difference between the axial pole and a magnetic pole, do you?  You also don’t understand magnetic compasses.  If you take them to the magnetic north pole (in Canada) or the magnetic south pole (in the southern ocean), your compass will actually try to point down, following the Earth’s magnetic field lines.  If you have one suspended in oil, it will point down.  Lastly, we have many ways to determine the composition of the earth using seismic waves AND THE FACE THE EARTH HAS A MAGNETIC FIELD.

 

108) The mariner’s compass is an impossible and non-sensical instrument for use on a ball-Earth. It simultaneously points North and South over a flat surface, yet claims to be pin-pointing two constantly moving geomagnetic poles at opposite ends of a spinning sphere originating from a hypothetical molten metal core. If compass needles were actually drawn to the North pole of a globe, the opposing “South” needle would actually be pointing up and off into outer-space.

Actually, both ends of the compass are pointing out into space, since the compass is just following a magnetic field line.  Didn’t you ever play with magnets and iron filings as kid?  Like I said before, if you actually went to a magnetic pole, your standard compass would have a needle jammed into the surface of the dial.   In fact, the annoying difference between the magnetic and true north is a pain in the ass, and navigation charts have to corrected every time the pole moves.

109) There are no fixed “East” or “West” points just as there is no fixed “South.” The North central Pole is the only proven fixed point on our flat Earth, with South being all straight lines outwards from the pole, East and West being concentric circles at constant right angles 90 degrees from the pole. A westerly circumnavigation of Earth is thus going around with Polaris continually on your right, while an easterly circumnavigation is going around with Polaris always at your left.

I really have an issue with this one.  If you were truly on a disk, you would have to be constantly turning right to keep a true west course. Take the northern border between the United States and Canada.  On a flat map, it looks curved, but if you flew an aircraft along that parallel, you would be heading due east or west.  On a disk shaped earth, you would have to correct your path to the right or left all the time.  Also, good fucking luck trying to keep polaris on your right in the southern hemisphere.

110) Magellan and others’ East/West circumnavigations of Earth are often quoted as proof of the ball model. In actual fact, however, sailing or flying at rights angles to the North pole and eventually returning to one’s original location is no more difficult or mysterious than doing so on a globe. Just as an architect’s compass can place its center-point on a flat piece of paper and trace a circle either way around the “pole,” so can a ship or plane circumnavigate a flat-Earth.

This one is just stupid.  Flying at right angles to the pole means you would always have to be correcting your course.  See the last response.

111) Since the North Pole and Antarctica are covered in ice and guarded “no-fly” zones, no ships or planes have ever been known to circumnavigate the Earth in North/South directions. The only kind of circumnavigation which could not happen on a flat-Earth is North/Southbound, which is likely the very reason for the heavily-enforced flight restrictions. The fact that there has yet to be a single verified North/South circumnavigation of Earth serves as standing proof the world is not a ball.

Tons of lies here.  Yes, I am calling you a liar.  I have known MANY people to take the polar route between Chicago and Hong Kong.  The flight from Boston to Hong Kong LEAVES 5 TIMES A DAY!!! and passes almost exactly over the north pole.  For shits and giggles, I easily mapped a circumnavigation, north to south from Chicago to Chicago.  You go from Chicago to Atlanta to Santiago, Chile to Hong Kong, to Chicago.  You can take the reverse as well.  45 hours in the air.  At an average speed of 575 miles an hour…you get 25,875 miles in the air.  Wow, that number sounds familiar.  How is this trip possible on a flat Earth??????

112) The Sun brings noon to every time-zone as it passes directly over-head every 15 degree demarcation point, 24 times per day in its circular path over and around the Earth. If time-zones were instead caused by the uniform spinning of the ball-Earth around the Sun, every 6 months as Earth found itself on the opposite side of the Sun, clocks all over Earth would have to flip 12 hours, day would be night and night would be day.

You don’t understand sidereal motion.   This is so stupid, I don’t even know how to respond.

113) The idea that people are standing, ships are sailing and planes are flying upside down on certain parts of Earth while others tilted at 90 degrees and all other impossible angles is complete absurdity. The idea that a man digging a hole straight down could eventually reach sky on the other side is ludicrous. Common sense tells every free-thinking person correctly that there truly is an “up” and “down” in nature, unlike the “everything is relative” rhetoric of the Newtonian/Einsteinian paradigm.

An argument from incredulity is not effective or persuasive.  Yes, there are people at all sorts of angles right now, deal with it.  Gravity is very well understood and not magic.

114) Quoting, “On the False Wisdom of the Philosophers” by Lacantius, “A sphere where people on the other side live with their feet above their heads, where rain, snow and hail fall upwards, where trees and crops grow upside-down and the sky is lower than the ground? The ancient wonder of the hanging gardens of Babylon dwindle into nothing in comparison to the fields, seas, towns and mountains that pagan philosophers believe to be hanging from the earth without support!”

An argument from incredulity is not effective or persuasive.  Yes, there are people at all sorts of angles right now, deal with it.  Gravity is very well understood and not magic.

115) The existing laws of density and buoyancy perfectly explained the physics of falling objects long before knighted Freemason “Sir” Isaac Newton bestowed his theory of “gravity” upon the world. It is a fact that objects placed in denser mediums rise up while objects placed in less dense mediums sink down. To fit with the heliocentric model which has no up or down, Newton instead claimed objects are attracted to large masses and fall towards the center. Not a single experiment in history, however, has shown an object massive enough to, by virtue of its mass alone, cause other smaller masses to be attracted to it as Newton claims “gravity” does with Earth, the Sun, Moon, Stars and Planets.

No, this is a lie.  Gravity has been directly measured…many times and repeatedly.  You may say it with conviction, but this is a lie.

116) There has also never been a single experiment in history showing an object massive enough to, by virtue of its mass alone, cause another smaller mass to orbit around it. The magic theory of gravity allows for oceans, buildings and people to remain forever stuck to the underside of a spinning ball while simultaneously causing objects like the Moon and satellites to remain locked in perpetual circular orbits around the Earth. If these were both true then people should be able to jump up and start orbiting circles around the Earth, or the Moon should have long ago been sucked into the Earth. Neither of these theories have ever been experimentally verified and their alleged results are mutually exclusive.

 

No, this is a lie.  Gravity has been directly measured…many times and repeatedly.  You may say it with conviction, but this is a lie.  You also don’t understand inertia.

117) Newton also theorized and it is now commonly taught that the Earth’s ocean tides are caused by gravitational lunar attraction. If the Moon is only 2,160 miles in diameter and the Earth 8,000 miles, however, using their own math and “law,” it follows that the Earth is 87 times more massive and therefore the larger object should attract the smaller to it, and not the other way around. If the Earth’s greater gravity is what keeps the Moon in orbit, it is impossible for the Moon’s lesser gravity to supersede the Earth’s gravity, especially at Earth’s sea-level, where its gravitational attraction would even further out-trump the Moon’s. And if the Moon’s gravity truly did supersede the Earth’s causing the tides to be drawn towards it, there should be nothing to stop them from continuing onwards and upwards towards their great attractor.

Fuck, this is stupid, ignorant shit.  They are both attracted to each other and orbit a barycenter.  In fact, the moon (and sun) do cause the tides, and it is tidally locked with the earth since moving all that water took most of the spin out.  So, on the flat Earth, enlighten me, how do the tides work?

118) Furthermore, the velocity and path of the Moon are uniform and should therefore exert a uniform influence on the Earth’s tides, when in actuality the Earth’s tides vary greatly and do not follow the Moon. Earth’s lakes, ponds, marshes and other inland bodies of water also inexplicably remain forever outside the Moon’s gravitational grasp! If “gravity” was truly drawing Earth’s oceans up to it, all lakes, ponds and other bodies of standing water should certainly have tides as well.

You ignorant stooge.  The tides vary due to the fact the moon’s orbit is inclined 5 degrees from the Earth’s.  This is why there are only occasional eclipses.  The interaction between the tilt and the sun’s gravity cause the variation.  But, they can be predicted.  You have to remember the amount of force of gravity is directly proportional to the mass.  Lakes and rivers are small, the OCEANS ARE FUCKING HUGE.  MORE MASS=MORE ATTRACTION.

119) It is claimed that the other planets are spheres and so therefore Earth must also be a sphere. Firstly, Earth is a “plane” not a “planet,” so the shape of these “planets” in the sky have no bearing on the shape of the Earth beneath our feet. Secondly, these “planets” have been known for thousands of years around the world as the “wandering stars” since they differ from the other fixed stars in their relative motions only. When looked at with an unprejudiced naked-eye or through a telescope, the fixed and wandering stars appear as luminous discs of light, NOT spherical terra firma. The pictures and videos shown by NASA of spherical terra firma planets are all clearly fake computer-generated images, and NOT photographs.

Ah, yes, the NASA conspiracy rears it’s ugly head.  I can look AT THE FUCKING MOON and see it is a sphere.  The photo on the left was obviously taken from a spacecraft, not a telescope.  Here is an Amateur  photo I found:

Mars_Peach

Looks pretty damn round to me.  In addition, I remember watching the photos come in live from Uranus and Neptune from the Voyager 2 probe.  I know what computer generated images looked like in the 80’s, and these were 1000 times more realistic than what was possible at the time.

120) The etymology of the word “planet” actually comes from late Old English planete, from Old French planete (Modern French planète), from Latin planeta, from Greek planetes, from (asteres) planetai “wandering (stars),” from planasthai “to wander,” of unknown origin, possibly from PIE *pele “flat, to spread” or notion of “spread out.” And Plane (n) “flat surface,” c. 1600, from Latin planum “flat surface, plane, level, plain,” planus “flat, level, even, plain, clear.” They just added a “t” to our Earth plane and everyone bought it.

Interesting, but who gives a shit?

121) When you observe the Sun and Moon you see two equally-sized equidistant circles tracing similar paths at similar speeds around a flat, stationary Earth. The “experts” at NASA, however, claim your common sense every day experience is false on all counts! To begin with, they say the Earth is not flat but a big ball; not stationary but spinning around 19 miles per second; they say the Sun does not revolve around the Earth as it appears, but Earth revolves around the Sun; the Moon, on the other hand, does revolve around the Earth, though not East to West as it appears, rather West to East; and the Sun is actually 400 times larger than the Moon and 400 times farther away! You can clearly see they are the same size and distance, you can see the Earth is flat, you can feel the Earth is stationary, but according to the gospel of modern astronomy, you are wrong and a simpleton worthy of endless ridicule if you dare to trust your own eyes and experience.

 

An argument from incredulity is not effective or persuasive.  I don’t care what common sense tells you, the universe does not have to follow common sense.  You are a simpleton and deserve ridicule.

122) Quoting Allen Daves, “If the Government or NASA had said to you that the Earth is stationary, imagine that. And then imagine we are trying to convince people that ‘no, no it’s not stationary, it’s moving forward at 32 times rifle bullet speed and spinning at 1,000 miles per hour.’ We would be laughed at! We would have so many people telling us ‘you are crazy, the Earth is not moving!’ We would be ridiculed for having no scientific backing for this convoluted moving Earth theory. And not only that but then people would say, ‘oh then how do you explain a fixed, calm atmosphere and the Sun’s observable movement, how do you explain that?’ Imagine saying to people, ‘no, no, the atmosphere is moving also but is somehow magically velcroed to the moving-Earth. The reason is not simply because the Earth is stationary.’ So what we are actually doing is what makes sense. We are saying that the moving-Earth theory is nonsense. The stationary-Earth theory makes sense and we are being ridiculed. You’ve got to picture it being the other way around to realize just how RIDICULOUS this situation is. This theory from the Government and NASA that the Earth is rotating and orbiting and leaning over and wobbling is absolute nonsense and yet people are clinging to it, tightly, like a teddy bear. They just can’t bring themselves to face the possibility that the Earth is stationary though ALL the evidence shows it: we feel no movement, the atmosphere hasn’t been blown away, we see the Sun move from East-to-West, everything can be explained by a motionless Earth without bringing in all these assumptions to cover up previous assumptions gone bad.”

I have no idea who Allen Daves is.  Again, an argument from incredulity is not effective or persuasive.  I have measured the rotation of the Earth directly and your stationary Earth, sun overhead model does not fit with what I can personally observe.  I can see sunsets and sunrises.  Your ‘laws of perspective’ are inapplicable and easily falsifiable.

123) Heliocentrists’ astronomical figures always sound perfectly precise, but they have historically been notorious for regularly and drastically changing them to suit their various models. For instance, in his time Copernicus calculated the Sun’s distance from Earth to be 3,391,200 miles. The next century Johannes Kepler decided it was actually 12,376,800 miles away. Issac Newton once said, “It matters not whether we reckon it 28 or 54 million miles distant for either would do just as well!” How scientific!? Benjamin Martin calculated between 81 and 82 million miles, Thomas Dilworth claimed 93,726,900 miles, John Hind stated positively 95,298,260 miles, Benjamin Gould said more than 96 million miles, and Christian Mayer thought it was more than 104 million! Flat-Earthers throughout the ages, conversely, have used sextants and plane trigonometry to make such calculations and found the Sun and Moon both to be only about 32 miles in diameter and less than a few thousand miles from Earth.

You don’t get the scientific method.  Also, the Earth changes distance from the sun, since all orbits are elliptical.  In addition, if your sextants and and plane geometry are so great, why is your measurement of distance ‘a few thousand miles’?    With the above photos your disprove your own point.  You would assume with the tree photos, the sun is 30 or 40 feet above the canopy.  The cloud one as well, just a few thousand feet up.  So stupid.

124) Amateur balloon footage taken above the clouds has provided stunning visual proof that the Sun cannot be millions of miles away. In several shots you can see a clear hot-spot reflecting on the clouds directly below the Sun’s spotlight-like influence. If the Sun were actually millions of miles away such a small, localized hot-spot could not occur.

This one is really dumb.  So, do you see an actual hot spot on earth?  If so, where?  What were are seeing here is most likely a lighter colored area of the earth, if anything. Also, I CAN SEE THE FUCKING CURVE OF THE EARTH IN THIS PHOTO NUMBNUTS!!!

125) Another proof the Sun is not millions of miles away is found by tracing the angle of sun-rays back to their source above the clouds. There are thousands of pictures showing how sunlight comes down through cloud-cover at a variance of converging angles. The area of convergence is of course the Sun, and is clearly NOT millions of miles away, but rather relatively close to Earth just above the clouds.

You moron.  That is all I can say.  Clouds like this are only a few thousand feet up, so by this logic the sun is about 5 or 6 miles above the surface, tops.  Great, you just disproved your own theory.

126) The Sun’s annual journey from tropic to tropic, solstice to solstice, is what determines the length and character of days, nights and seasons. This is why equatorial regions experience almost year-round summer and heat while higher latitudes North and especially South experience more distinct seasons with harsh winters. The heliocentric model claims seasons change based on the ball-Earth’s alleged “axial tilt” and “elliptical orbit” around the Sun, yet their flawed current model places us closest to the Sun (91,400,000 miles) in January when its actually winter, and farthest from the Sun (94,500,000 miles) in July when its actually summer throughout most of the Earth.

 

I covered this already, it is due to the tilt.  It is the angle of incidence and the hours of sunlight a day that cause the seasons.  How do seasons work on the flat earth model?

127) The fact that the Sun and Moon’s reflections on water always form a straight line path from the horizon to the observer proves the Earth is not a ball. If Earth’s surface was curved it would be impossible for the reflected light to curve over the ball from horizon to observer.

Shit for brains, this photo is actually a proof for a round earth.  Notice how the reflections get more dense the closer you are to the horizon?  This would only happen on a ball earth.  On a flat earth, it would act as a flat mirror, with a single angle of reflection and a spot, not a smear.

128) There are huge centuries-old stone sundials and moondials all over the world which still tell the time now down to the minute as perfectly as the day they were made. If the Earth, Sun and Moon were truly subject to the number of contradictory revolving, rotating, wobbling and spiraling motions claimed by modern astronomy, it would be impossible for these monuments to so accurately tell time without constant adjustment.

Who the fuck says the earth is wobbling and varying so much?  This is just stupid.

129) To quote William Carpenter, “Why, in the name of common sense, should observers have to fix their telescopes on solid stone bases so that they should not move a hair’s-breadth, – if the Earth on which they fix them moves at the rate of nineteen miles in a second? Indeed, to believe that ‘six thousand million million million tons’ is ‘rolling, surging, flying, darting on through space for ever’ with a velocity compared with which a shot from a cannon is a ‘very slow coach,’ with such unerring accuracy that a telescope fixed on granite pillars in an observatory will not enable a lynx-eyed astronomer to detect a variation in its onward motion of the thousandth part of a hair’s-breadth is to conceive a miracle compared with which all the miracles on record put together would sink into utter insignificance. Since we can, (in middle north latitudes), see the North Star, on looking out of a window that faces it – and out of the very same corner of the very same pane of glass in the very same window – all the year round, it is proof enough for any man in his senses that we have made no motion at all and that the Earth is not a globe.”

Same fucking thinking from someone I have never heard of.  Copy and paste:

An argument from incredulity is not effective or persuasive.  I don’t care what common sense tells you, the universe does not have to follow common sense.  You are a simpleton and deserve ridicule.

130) From “Earth Not a Globe!” by Samuel Rowbotham, “Take two carefully-bored metallic tubes, not less than six feet in length, and place them one yard asunder, on the opposite sides of a wooden frame, or a solid block of wood or stone: so adjust them that their centres or axes of vision shall be perfectly parallel to each other. Now, direct them to the plane of some notable fixed star, a few seconds previous to its meridian time. Let an observer be stationed at each tube and the moment the star appears in the first tube let a loud knock or other signal be given, to be repeated by the observer at the second tube when he first sees the same star. A distinct period of time will elapse between the signals given. The signals will follow each other in very rapid succession, but still, the time between is sufficient to show that the same star is not visible at the same moment by two parallel lines of sight when only one yard asunder. A slight inclination of the second tube towards the first tube would be required for the star to be seen through both tubes at the same instant. Let the tubes remain in their position for six months; at the end of which time the same observation or experiment will produce the same results–the star will be visible at the same meridian time, without the slightest alteration being required in the direction of the tubes: from which it is concluded that if the earth had moved one single yard in an orbit through space, there would at least be observed the slight inclination of the tube which the difference in position of one yard had previously required. But as no such difference in the direction of the tube is required, the conclusion is unavoidable, that in six months a given meridian upon the earth’s surface does not move a single yard, and therefore, that the earth has not the slightest degree of orbital motion.”

Mr. Parallax again, again with the stupid.  Use a better instruments than some metal tube, and you will measure parallax on closer stars.  We have this intruments call telescopes now.  You may of heard of them, they are just 400 years old.

131) NASA and modern astronomy maintain that the Moon is a solid, spherical, Earth-like habitation which man has actually flown to and set foot on. They claim the Moon is a non-luminescent planetoid which receives and reflects all its light from the Sun. The reality is, however, that the Moon is observably not a solid body, it is clearly circular, but not spherical, and not in any way an Earth-like planetoid which humans could set foot on. In fact, the Moon has been proven largely transparent and completely self-luminescent, shining with its own unique light.

You are so full of shit.  Who has said the moon is transparent and shines it’s own light?  I have personally observed lunar and solar eclipses.  I have viewed it many times with a telescope. I love to watch Earthshine on it right around sunset.  You are a liar.

132) The Sun’s light is golden, warm, drying, preservative and antiseptic, while the Moon’s light is silver, cool, damp, putrefying and septic. The Sun’s rays decrease the combustion of a bonfire, while the Moon’s rays increase combustion. Plant and animal substances exposed to sunlight quickly dry, shrink, coagulate, and lose the tendency to decompose and putrify; grapes and other fruits become solid, partially candied and preserved like raisins, dates, and prunes; animal flesh coagulates, loses its volatile gaseous constituents, becomes firm, dry, and slow to decay. When exposed to moonlight, however, plant and animal substances tend to show symptoms of putrefaction and decay. This proves that Sun and Moon light are different, unique, and opposites as they are in the geocentric flat model.

Who the fuck wrote that garbage?  So stupid, I won’t even respond with anything meaningful, since it was verbal masterbation.

133) In direct sunlight a thermometer will read higher than another thermometer placed in the shade, but in full, direct moonlight a thermometer will read lower than another placed in the shade. If the Sun’s light is collected in a large lens and thrown to a focus point it can create significant heat, while the Moon’s light collected similarly creates no heat. In the “Lancet Medical Journal,” from March 14th, 1856, particulars are given of several experiments which proved the Moon’s rays when concentrated can actually reduce the temperature upon a thermometer more than eight degrees. So sunlight and moonlight clearly have altogether different properties.

What the fuck did I just read?  No shit, the sun is 100,000 to 200,000 times brighter than the moon, SINCE THE MOON ONLY REFLECTS LIGHT.  In addition, that is not how light works.  It can’t ‘cool’ anything.  This is fucking stupid.  You don’t understand light or temperature.

134) Furthermore the Moon itself cannot physically be both a spherical body and a reflector of the Sun’s light. Reflectors must be flat or concave for light rays to have any angle of incidence; If a reflector’s surface is convex then every ray of light points in a direct line with the radius perpendicular to the surface resulting in no reflection.

Sure can be a reflector.  Take a fucking ball and move it past a light.  It is not some sort of stealth object.  Also observe how the shadows on the ball form waxing and waning crescents, just like the moon.  Only a sphere can do this.

135) Not only is the Moon clearly self-luminescent, shining its own unique light, but it is also largely transparent. When the waxing or waning Moon is visible during the day it is possible to see the blue sky right through the Moon. And on a clear night, during a waxing or waning cycle, it is even possible to occasionally see stars and “planets” directly through the surface of the Moon! The Royal Astronomical Society has on record many such occurrences throughout history which all defy the heliocentric model.

Liar.  Show me one photo of this happening.  It is physically impossible.

136) Many people think that modern astronomy’s ability to accurately predict lunar and solar eclipses is a result and proof positive of the heliocentric theory of the universe. The fact of the matter however is that eclipses have been accurately predicted by cultures worldwide for thousands of years before the “heliocentric ball-Earth” was even a glimmer in Copernicus’ imagination. Ptolemy in the 1st century A.D. accurately predicted eclipses for six hundred years on the basis of a flat, stationary Earth with equal precision as anyone living today. All the way back in 600 B.C. Thales accurately predicted an eclipse which ended the war between the Medes and Lydians. Eclipses happen regularly with precision in 18 year cycles, so regardless of geocentric or heliocentric, flat or globe Earth cosmologies, eclipses can be accurately calculated independent of such factors.

So?  Even you admit it doesn’t matter which model this pertains to.

137) Another assumption and supposed proof of Earth’s shape, heliocentrists claim that lunar eclipses are caused by the shadow of the ball-Earth occulting the Moon. They claim the Sun, Earth, and Moon spheres perfectly align like three billiard balls in a row so that the Sun’s light casts the Earth’s shadow onto the Moon. Unfortunately for heliocentrists, this explanation is rendered completely invalid due to the fact that lunar eclipses have happened and continue to happen regularly when both the Sun and Moon are still visible together above the horizon! For the Sun’s light to be casting Earth’s shadow onto the Moon, the three bodies must be aligned in a straight 180 degree syzygy, but as early as the time of Pliny, there are records of lunar eclipses happening while both the Sun and Moon are visible in the sky. Therefore the eclipsor of the Moon cannot be the Earth/Earth’s shadow and some other explanation must be sought.

This is a lie.  Even though you assert it, solar eclipses only happen with a new moon, lunar eclipses with a full moon.  You are lying, again.

138) Another favorite “proof” of ball-Earthers is the appearance from an observer on shore of ships’ hulls being obfuscated by the water and disappearing from view when sailing away towards the horizon. Their claim is that ships’ hulls disappear before their mast-heads because the ship is beginning its declination around the convex curvature of the ball-Earth. Once again, however, their hasty conclusion is drawn from a faulty premise, namely that only on a ball-Earth could this phenomenon occur. The fact of the matter is that the Law of Perspective on plane surfaces dictates and necessitates the exact same occurrence. For example a girl wearing a dress walking away towards the horizon will appear to sink into the Earth the farther away she walks. Her feet will disappear from view first and the distance between the ground and the bottom of her dress will gradually diminish until after about half a mile it seems like her dress is touching the ground as she walks on invisible legs. Such is the case on plane surfaces, the lowest parts of objects receding from a given point of observation necessarily disappear before the highest.

Yet again, let me repeat:  The law of perspective is used by artists to represent a 3 dimensional object on a 2 dimensional surface, and I have no idea why flat earthers try to use this.  There is no vanishing point in the real world.  Let me repeat The law of perspective is used by artists to represent a 3 dimensional object on a 2 dimensional surface.  THERE IS NO VANISHING POINT IN THE REAL WORLD.  THERE IS A HORIZON SINCE WE ARE ON THE SURFACE OF A SPHERE.  It is an artist’s tool, nothing more.  Even on the model you have above, it still does not explain why ships (and whole cities) disappear from the bottom up.

139) Not only is the disappearance of ship’s hulls explained by the Law of Perspective on flat surfaces, it is proven undeniably true with the aid of a good telescope. If you watch a ship sailing away into the horizon with the naked eye until its hull has completely disappeared from view under the supposed “curvature of the Earth,” then look through a telescope, you will notice the entire ship quickly zooms back into view, hull and all, proving that the disappearance was caused by the Law of Perspective, not by a wall of curved water! This also proves that the horizon is simply the vanishing line of perspective from your point of view, NOT the alleged “curvature” of Earth.

You, sir, are full of shit.  No, the ship will not reappear.  I tried this looking at Chicago from 57 miles away.  Guess what, all it it was make the what I could see with my naked eyes larger.  Even with a 150X telescope, it made no difference.  All I could see was the top floors of some of tallest building on earth.

140) Foucault’s Pendulums are often quoted as proof of a rotating Earth but upon closer investigation prove the opposite. To begin with, Foucault’s pendulums do not uniformly swing in any one direction. Sometimes they rotate clockwise and sometimes counter-clockwise, sometimes they fail to rotate and sometimes they rotate far too much. The behavior of the pendulum actually depends on 1) the initial force beginning its swing and, 2) the ball-and-socket joint used which most-readily facilitates circular motion over any other. The supposed rotation of the Earth is completely inconsequential and irrelevant to the pendulum’s swing. If the alleged constant rotation of the Earth affected pendulums in any way, then there should be no need to manually start pendulums in motion. If the Earth’s diurnal rotation caused the 360 degree uniform diurnal rotation of pendulums, then there should not exist a stationary pendulum anywhere on Earth!

That whole previous statement is a lie.  All of it.  Every last word of it.  They are not random, you can predict exactly what rate they should precess.  You can make one yourself and try it.  They rotate in opposite directions in the northern and southern hemispheres.  I can tell by the writing style this is Parallax again.  It is always a lie as well.

141) The “Coriolis Effect” is often said to cause sinks and toilet bowls in the Northern Hemisphere to drain spinning in one direction while in the Southern Hemisphere causing them to spin the opposite way, thus providing proof of the spinning ball-Earth. Once again, however, just like Foucault’s Pendulums spinning either which way, sinks and toilets in the Northern and Southern hemispheres do not consistently spin in any one direction! Sinks and toilets in the very same household are often found to spin opposite directions, depending entirely upon the shape of the basin and the angle of the water’s entry, not the supposed rotation of the Earth.

For once, some truth.  It is the jets in the toilet that make the difference.  The pendulums, however, are very predictable and they have even built one at the South Pole!  It circles the full 360 degrees in one day.

142) People claim that if the Earth were flat, they should be able to use a telescope and see clear across the oceans! This is absurd, however, as the air is full of precipitation especially over the oceans, and especially at the lowest, densest layer of atmosphere is NOT transparent. Picture the blurry haze over roads on hot, humid days. Even the best telescope will blur out long before you could see across an ocean. You can, however, use a telescope to zoom in MUCH more of our flat Earth than would be possible on a ball 25,000 miles in circumference.

Lies, again.  Telescope or not, at eye level you can only see about 6 miles or so.

143) People claim that if the Earth were flat, with the Sun circling over and around us, we should be able to see the Sun from everywhere all over the Earth, and there should be daylight even at night-time. Since the Sun is NOT 93 million miles away but rather just a few thousand and shining down like a spotlight, once it has moved significantly far enough away from your location it becomes invisible beyond the horizon and daylight slowly fades until it completely disappears. If the Sun were 93 million miles away and the Earth a spinning ball, the transition from daylight to night would instead be almost instantaneous as you passed the terminator line.

This  is MY biggest complaint with the flat earth model.  I can see the fucking sunrise and sunset, whole sun, half sun, quarter sun, hell, I have even seen the green flash.   On the flat earth model, this would be impossible.  If the Earth had no atmosphere, yes, the sunset would be very quick and we would be very dead.

144) Pictures of the Moon appearing upside-down in the Southern hemisphere and right-side up in the North are often cited as proof of the ball-Earth, but once again, upon closer inspection, provide another proof of the flat model. In fact, time-lapse photography shows the Moon itself turns clockwise like a wheel as it circles over and around the Earth. You can find pictures of the Moon at 360 degrees of various inclination from all over the Earth simply depending on where and when the picture was taken.

So stupid, so fucking stupid.  I don’t even understand how this can work on the flat earth model, at all.  Round Earth, easy to understand.

145) Heliocentrists believe the Moon is a ball, even though its appearance is clearly that of a flat luminous disc. We only ever see the same one face (albeit at various inclinations) of the Moon, yet it is claimed that there is another “dark side of the Moon” which remains hidden. NASA states the Moon spins opposite the spin of the Earth in such a perfectly synchronized way that the motions cancel each other out so we will conveniently never be able to observe the supposed dark-side of the Moon outside of their terrible fake CGI images. The fact of the matter is, however, if the Moon were a sphere, observers in Antarctica would see a different face from those at the equator, yet they do not – just the same flat face rotated at various degrees.

Really?  Fucking really?  It is tidally locked, and anyone can take photos of the moon, as good as ‘NASA”.  The Soviets were the first to take photos of the far side, by the way.

146) The ball-Earth model claims the Moon orbits around the Earth once every 28 days, yet it is plain for anyone to see that the Moon orbits around the Earth every single day! The Moon’s orbit is slightly slower than the Sun’s, but follows the Sun’s same path from Tropic to Tropic, solstice to solstice, making a full circle over the Earth in just under 25 hours.

Then what causes the tides?

147) The ball-Earth model claims the Sun is precisely 400 times larger than the Moon and 400 times further away from Earth making them “falsely” appear exactly the same size. Once again, the ball model asks us to accept as coincidence something that cannot be explained other than by natural design. The Sun and the Moon occupy the same amount of space in the sky and have been measured with sextants to be of equal size and equal distance, so claiming otherwise is against our eyes, experience, experiments and common sense.

Again with the incredulity.  Fuck your common sense. In a few million years, the moon will appear smaller, by the way and no more total solar eclipses.

148) Quoting “Earth Not a Globe!” by Samuel Rowbotham, “It is found by observation that the stars come to the meridian about four minutes earlier every twenty-four hours than the sun, taking the solar time as the standard. This makes 120 minutes every thirty days, and twenty-four hours in the year. Hence all the constellations have passed before or in advance of the sun in that time. This is the simple fact as observed in nature, but the theory of rotundity and motion on axes and in an orbit has no place for it. Visible truth must be ignored, because this theory stands in the way, and prevents its votaries from understanding it.”

More word salad from Parallax. Sidereal motion, look it up.

149) Throughout thousands of years the same constellations have remained fixed in their same patterns without moving out of position whatsoever. If the Earth were a big ball spinning around a bigger Sun spinning around a bigger galaxy shooting off from the Biggest Bang as NASA claims, it is impossible that the constellations would remain so fixed. Based on their model, we should, in fact, have an entirely different night sky every single night and never repeat exactly the same star pattern twice.

The stars are really, really, really far away.  Regardless, constellations have and do change over time.  The Babylonians and Chinese have great records, good enough for modern astronomers to be able to see the constellations have changed.

150) If Earth were a spinning ball it would be impossible to photograph star-trail time-lapses turning perfect circles around Polaris anywhere but the North Pole. At all other vantage points the stars would be seen to travel more or less horizontally across the observer’s horizon due to the alleged 1000mph motion beneath their feet. In reality, however, Polaris’s surrounding stars can always be photographed turning perfect circles around the central star all the way down to the Tropic of Capricorn.

On the contrary, you can only take star trails because the earth is spinning ball.  You are full of shit with the Tropic of Capricorn.  You have to point at the southern pole then, and it spins the other way.

151) If Earth were a spinning ball revolving around the Sun it would actually be impossible for star-trail photos to show perfect circles even at the North Pole! Since the Earth is also allegedly moving 67,000mph around the Sun, the Sun moving 500,000mph around the Milky Way, and the entire galaxy going 670,000,000mph, these four contradictory motions would make star-trail time-lapses all show irregular curved lines.

Repeat after me: STARS ARE REALLY FUCKING FAR AWAY.  92 million miles is Jack Shit compared to even the closest star.  The sun is 7 light minutes away, proxima centauri is over 4 light YEARS away.

152) In 2003, three University Geography professors collaborated in an experiment to prove that the state of Kansas is indeed actually flatter than a pancake! Using topigraphical geodetic surveys covering over 80,000 square miles it was determined that Kansas has a flatness ratio of 0.9997 over the entire state while the average pancake, precisely measured using a confocal laser microscope comes in at 0.957, making Kansas thereby literally flatter than a pancake.

In reference to the Earth’s center of gravity, it is pretty flat.  So?  If it is so flat, put up a tower at the western border, look east with a telescope, and you should be able to see from one end to the other.  What’s that?  There still is a horizon there?  Oh yeah, the Earth is a fucking sphere.

153) Quoting Reverend Thomas Milner’s “Atlas of Physical Geography,” we find that, “Vast areas exhibit a perfectly dead level, scarcely a rise existing through 1,500 miles from the Carpathians to the Urals. South of the Baltic the country is so flat that a prevailing north wind will drive the waters of the Stattiner Haf into the mouth of the Oder, and give the river a backward flow 30 or 40 miles. The plains of Venezuela and New Granada, in South America chiefly on the left of the Orinoco, are termed Ilanos, or level fields. Often in the space of 270 square miles the surface does not vary a single foot. The Amazon only falls 12 feet in the last 700 miles of its course; the La Plata has only a descent of one thirty-third of an inch a mile.”

If it is that level, on a flat planet, you should be able to see the urals from a long way away.  Why are there no photos of this?  Wouldn’t this be a slam dunk proof?  I am not explaining the rivers…again.

154) The Felix Baumgartner Red Bull dive outside camera shows the same amount of “curvature of Earth” from surface-level to jump-height proving it to be a deceiving fish-eyed wide-angle lens, while the inside regular camera shows a perfectly flat horizon, eye level at 128,000 feet, which is only consistent with a flat plane.

How you can tell with that view is beyond me.

155) Some people claim to have seen the curvature of the Earth out their airplane windows. The glass used in all commercial airplanes, however, is curved to remain flush with the fuselage. This creates a slight effect mixed with confirmation bias people mistake for being the alleged curvature of the Earth. In actuality, the fact that you can see the horizon at eye-level at 35,000 feet out both port/starboard windows proves the Earth is flat. If the Earth were a ball, no matter how big, the horizon would stay exactly where it was and you would have to look DOWN further and further to see the horizon at all. Looking straight out the window at 35,000 feet you should see nothing but “outer-space” from the port and starboard windows, as the Earth/horizon are supposed to be BELOW you. If they are visible at eye level outside both side windows, it’s because the Earth is flat!

If you had an actual instrument, you would be able to measure the 3 degree or so dip in the horizon from horizontal.  It’s there.

156) People also claim to see curvature in Go Pro or other high altitude camera footage of the horizon. While it is true that the horizon often appears convex in such footage, it just as often appears concave or flat depending on the tilt/movement of the camera. The effect is simply a distortion due to wide-angle lenses. In lens-corrected and footage taken without wide-angle technology, all amateur high-altitude horizon shots appear perfectly flat.

So?  There are much better proofs of a round earth than balloon photos.

157) If “gravity” magically dragged the atmosphere along with the spinning ball Earth, that would mean the atmosphere near the equator would be spinning around at over 1000mph, the atmosphere over the mid-latitudes would be spinning around 500mph, and gradually slower down to the poles where the atmosphere would be unaffected at 0mph. In reality, however, the atmosphere at every point on Earth is equally unaffected by this alleged force, as it has never been measured or calculated and proven non-existent by the ability of airplanes to fly unabated in any direction without experiencing any such atmospheric changes.

This is a total lie, the rotation of the earth has a huge influence on air and ocean currents and weather.  The fact that hurricanes spin in opposite directions north and south of the equator are a solid proof of a spinning earth.

158) If “gravity” magically dragged the atmosphere along with the spinning ball Earth, that would mean the higher the altitude, the faster the spinning atmosphere would have to be turning around the center of rotation. In reality, however, if this were happening then rain and fireworks would behave entirely differently as they fell down through progressively slower and slower spinning atmosphere. Hot-air balloons would also be forced steadily faster Eastwards as they ascended through the ever increasing atmospheric speeds.

Ugh, this is just a few previous points, globbed together.  Already debunked.

159) If there were progressively faster and faster spinning atmosphere the higher the altitude that would mean it would have to abruptly end at some key altitude where the fastest layer of gravitized spinning atmosphere meets the supposed non-gravitized non-spinning non-atmosphere of infinite vacuum space! NASA has never mentioned what altitude this impossible feat allegedly happens, but it is easily philosophically refuted by the simple fact that vacuums cannot exist connected to non-vacuums while maintaining the properties of a vacuum – not to mention, the effect such a transition would have on a rocket “space ship” would be disastrous.

You really don’t understand gravity, at all, or the Earth’s atmosphere.  The spin has nothing to do with gravity.   I am not here to teach you basic high school physics.

160) It is impossible for rockets or any type of jet propulsion engines to work in the alleged non-atmosphere of vacuum space because without air/atmosphere to push against there is nothing to propel the vehicle forwards. Instead the rockets and shuttles would be sent spinning around their own axis uncontrollably in all directions like a gyroscope. It would be impossible to fly to the Moon or go in any direction whatsoever, especially if “gravity” were real and constantly sucking you towards the closest densest body.

Fuck me, you never took a physics class, did you?  Any action has an equal and opposite reaction.  The rocket exhaust has nothing to do with the air, and rockets actually work better in a vacuum.

161) If Earth were really a ball, there would be no reason to use rockets for flying into “outer-space” anyway because simply flying an airplane straight at any altitude for long enough should and would send you off into outer-space. To prevent their airplanes from flying tangent to the ball-Earth, pilots would have to constantly course-correct downwards, or else within just a few hours the average commercial airliner traveling 500mph would find themselves lost in “outer-space.” The fact that this never happens, artificial horizons remain level at pilot’s desired altitudes and do NOT require constant downwards adjustments, proves the Earth is not a ball.

This is too fucking stupid to respond to, as I have already done so too many times now.

162) All NASA and other “space agencies” rocket launches never go straight up. Every rocket forms a parabolic curve, peaks out, and inevitably starts falling back to Earth. The rockets which are declared “successful” are those few which don’t explode or start falling too soon but make it out of range of spectator view before crashing down into restricted waters and recovered. There is no magic altitude where rockets or anything else can simply go up, up, up and then suddenly just start “free-floating” in space. This is all a science-fiction illusion created by wires, green-screens, dark pools, some permed hair and Zero-G planes.

Oh look, moronic conspiracy theories.  So genius boy, how can I see satellites WITH MY NAKED EYES?  Explain to me the millions of people who use satellite based technology EVERY DAY?  By the way, if a space agency is going for a polar orbit, they do shoot straight up, like at Vandenburg.  How were they able to fake this footage in the 50’s, 60’s, 70’s and 80’s? CGI was primitive then..or non existent.  The deepest irony is we could send a man to the moon, but lacked the technology to fake it.  Even now, there is not a studio in the world that can produce footage that clear.

163) NASA and other space agencies have been caught time and again with air bubbles forming and floating off in their official “outer-space” footage. Astronauts have also been caught using scuba-space-gear, kicking their legs to move, and astronaut Luca Parmitano even almost drowned when water started filling up his helmet while allegedly on a “space-walk.” It is admitted that astronauts train for their “space-walks” in under-water training facilities like NASA’s “Neutral Buoyancy Lab,” but what is obvious from their “space bubbles,” and other blunders is that all official “space-walk” footage is also fake and filmed under-water.

This is obviously training footage.  What about the continuous footage from the inside of Skylab, Mir, the ISS, and Shuttle?

164) Analysis of many interior videos from the “International Space Station,” have shown the use of camera-tricks such as green-screens, harnesses and even wildly permed hair to achieve a zero-gravity type effect. Footage of astronauts seemingly floating in the zero-gravity of their “space station” is indistinguishable from “vomit comet” Zero-G airplane footage. By flying parabolic maneuvers this Zero-G floating effect can be achieved over and over again then edited together. For longer uncut shots, NASA has been caught using simple wires and green screen technology.

This is a clear lie.  I am not dignifying it with a response.  I have seen long, uncut videos, live from the ISS.  No way this is possible with special effects.

165) NASA claims one can observe the International Space Station pass by overhead proving its existence, yet analysis of the “ISS” seen through zoom cameras proves it to be some type of hologram/drone, not a physical floating space-base. As you can see in my documentary “ISS Hoax,” when zooming in/out, the “ISS” dramatically and impossibly changes shape and color, displaying a prismatic rainbow effect until coming into focus much like an old television turning on/off.

Honestly?  Really?  You deny what you can see with your naked eyes?  Since you don’t understand optics does not mean there is no ISS.  Hologram?????  You are delusional.

166) The “geostationary communications satellite” was first created by Freemason science-fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke and supposedly became science-fact just a decade later. Before this, radio, television, and navigation systems like LORAN and DECCA were already well-established and worked fine using only ground-based technologies. Nowadays huge fibre-optics cables connect the internet across oceans, gigantic cell towers triangulate GPS signals, and ionospheric propagation allows radio waves to be bounced all without the aid of the science-fiction best-seller known as “satellites.”

How does GPS work at sea?  No cell towers there.  LORAN and DECCA sucked to work with.  How does satellite TV work?

167) Satellites are allegedly floating around in the thermosphere where temperatures are claimed to be upwards of 4,530 degrees Fahrenheit. The metals used in satellites, however, such as aluminum, gold and titanium have melting points of 1,221, 1,948, and 3,034 degrees respectively, all far lower than they could possibly handle.

I really don’t know where this myth of the temperature of space came from.  There is very little air up there, so thermal exchange is only via radiation, no conduction.  Oh, that’s right, you never took a physics class.

168) So-called “satellite” phones have been found to have reception problems in countries like Kazakhstan with very few cell phone towers. If the Earth were a ball with 20,000+ satellites surrounding, such blackouts should not regularly occur in any rural countryside areas.

This is a lie and completely made up.  The company I work for makes satellite dishes for the marine industry.  We would have a lot of pissed off sailors if their TV, phone and internet went out away from the sight of land.

169) So-called “satellite” TV dishes are almost always positioned at a 45 degree angle towards the nearest ground-based repeater tower. If TV antennae were actually picking up signals from satellites 100+ miles in space, most TV dishes should be pointing more or less straight up to the sky. The fact that “satellite” dishes are never pointing straight up and almost always positioned at a 45 degree angle proves they are picking up ground-based tower signals and not “outer-space satellites.”

This one is bullshit on several levels.  They are not always pointed at 45 degrees, and if they are, that means if the tower is a mile away IT WOULD HAVE TO BE A MILE TALL.  TWO MILES AWAY, 2 MILES TALL!!!  They are a great proof of a round earth, since they have to pointed to geostationary satellites above the equator.  In the northern hemisphere, they always ALWAYS point south.  The opposite in the southern.  Go for a walk with a compass and take a look.

170) People even claim to see satellites with their naked eyes, but this is ridiculous considering they are smaller than a bus and allegedly 100+ miles away; It is impossible to see anything so small that far away. Even using telescopes, no one claims to discern the shape of satellites but rather describes seeing passing moving lights, which could easily be any number of things from airplanes to drones to shooting stars or other unidentified flying objects.

I have seen them dozens, if not hundreds of times.  I watched the Mir space station with a 150x telescope as a child.  You are lying.

171) NASA claims there are upwards of 20,000 satellites floating around Earth’s upper-atmosphere sending us radio, television, GPS, and taking pictures of the planet. All these supposed satellite pictures, however, are admittedly “composite images, edited in photoshop!” They claim to receive “ribbons of imagery” from satellites which must then be spliced together to create composite images of the Earth, all of which are clearly CGI and not photographs. If Earth were truly a ball with 20,000 satellites orbiting, it would be a simple matter to mount a camera and take some real photographs. The fact that no real satellite photographs of the supposed ball Earth exist in favor of NASA’s “ribbons of composite CG imagery,” is further proof we are not being told the truth.

What about weather satellite photos?  The geosynchronous variety take whole earth photos every 10 minutes.   They have saved thousands of lives due to better prediction of hurricanes and typhoons.  Let me show you some CGI from 1963 and a photo from Geminii from 1965:

First-Computer-Generated-Film-980x516 s_g16_33AG04Hf

See a difference?  You may complain, there there is film of this scene as well.  The irony of we had the technology to go to space, but think of any special effects from 1965 films.

172) If you pick any cloud in the sky and watch for several minutes, two things will happen: the clouds will move and they will morph gradually changing shape. In official NASA footage of the spinning ball Earth, such as the “Galileo” time-lapse video however, clouds are constantly shown for 24+ hours at a time and not moving or morphing whatsoever! This is completely impossible, further proof that NASA produces fake CGI videos, and further evidence that Earth is not a spinning ball.

What are you talking about?  Go onto any weather website, and you can see the clouds changing all the time.  You are lying again.

173) NASA has several alleged photographs of the ball-Earth which show several exact duplicate cloud patterns! The likelihood of having two or three clouds of the exact same shape in the same picture is as likely as finding two or three people with exactly the same fingerprints. In fact it is solid proof that the clouds were copied and pasted in a computer program and that such pictures showing a ball-shaped Earth are fakes.

They don’t look the same to me.  Similar, but with the super cropped photo, I could not tell you one way or the other.

174) NASA graphics artists have placed things like faces, dragons, and even the word “SEX” into cloud patterns over their various ball-Earth pictures. Their recent 2015 Pluto pictures even clearly have a picture of Disney’s “Pluto” the dog layered into the background. Such blatant fraud goes unnoticed by the hypnotized masses, but provides further proof of the illegitimacy of NASA and their spinning ball planet mythos.

Looks like JY to me, upside down off the california coast.

175) Professional photo-analysts have dissected several NASA images of the ball-Earth and found undeniable proof of computer editing. For example, images of the Earth allegedly taken from the Moon have proven to be copied and pasted in, as evidenced by rectangular cuts found in the black background around the “Earth” by adjusting brightness and contrast levels. If they were truly on the Moon and Earth was truly a ball, there would be no need to fake such pictures.

You don’t understand compressed photos, do you? Amp up the contrast of any photo that any kind of compression and you will see this.  It is an artifact of data compression.  I am sure this was a frame capture from a video, so that is a lot a photoshopping.

176) When NASA’s images of the ball-Earth are compared with one another the coloration of the land/oceans and relative size of the continents are consistently so drastically different from one another as to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the pictures are all fake.

No, they aren’t.  If you take a photo from the same angle, it will look exactly the same.  Liars.

177) In the documentary “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon,” you can watch official leaked NASA footage showing Apollo 11 astronauts Buzz Aldrin, Neil Armstrong and Michael Collins, for almost an hour, using transparencies and camera-tricks to fake shots of a round Earth! They communicate over audio with control in Houston about how to accurately stage the shot, and someone keeps prompting them on how to effectively manipulate the camera to achieve the desired effect. First, they blacked out all the windows except for a downward facing circular one, which they aimed the camera towards from several feet away. This created the illusion of a ball-shaped Earth surrounded by the blackness of space, when in fact it was simply a round window in their dark cabin. Neil Armstrong claimed at this point to be 130,000 miles from Earth, half-way to the Moon, but when camera-tricks were finished the viewer could see for themselves the astro-nots were not more than a couple dozen miles above the Earth’s surface, likely flying in a high-altitude plane!

Maybe NASA just wanted to help hero up there get some decent shots.  You can totally look at every single last photo taken on every Apollo mission.  There are a lot of bum ones there.  I hate this conspiracy bullshit.

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

I agree, you can’t use Google earth to prove anything.

179) If the Earth were constantly spinning Eastwards 1000mph then airplane flight durations going Eastwards vs. Westwards should be significantly different. If the average commercial airliner travels 500mph, it follows that Westbound equatorial flights should reach their destination at approximately thrice the speed as their Eastbound return flights. In reality, however, the differences in East/Westbound flight durations usually amount to a matter of minutes, and nothing near what would occur on a 1000mph spinning ball Earth.

Same example, same answer:  You really don’t understand how fluids work, do you?  The Earth atmosphere follows the curve of the Earth, due to gravity, just like the oceans.  When a plane is flying, since it needs lift to stay in the air, the plane just follows the ‘level’ of the air around it.  It is just like a boat that follows the curve of the water.  In addition, there is this little thing called inertia.  If the world worked like how the flat earthers think it works, every time you hit a hard bump in your car, or  jump up in a train or airplane, you will immediately go smashing into the back of the rail car or cabin.  Just think about it.

 

180) The spinning ball model dictates that the Earth and atmosphere would be moving together at approximately 500mph at the mid-latitudes where an LA to NYC flight takes place. The average commercial airliner traveling 500mph takes 5.5 hours traveling East with the alleged rotation of the Earth, so the return flight West should take only 2.75 hours, but in fact we find the average NYC to LA flight takes 6 hours, a flight time totally inconsistent with the spinning ball model.

Same example, same answer:  You really don’t understand how fluids work, do you?  The Earth atmosphere follows the curve of the Earth, due to gravity, just like the oceans.  When a plane is flying, since it needs lift to stay in the air, the plane just follows the ‘level’ of the air around it.  It is just like a boat that follows the curve of the water.  In addition, there is this little thing called inertia.  If the world worked like how the flat earthers think it works, every time you hit a hard bump in your car, or  jump up in a train or airplane, you will immediately go smashing into the back of the rail car or cabin.  Just think about it.

181) Flights Eastwards with the alleged spin of the ball-Earth from Tokyo to LA take an average of 10.5 hours, therefore the return flights Westwards against the alleged spin should take an average of 5.25 hours, but in actual fact take an average of 11.5 hours, another flight time totally inconsistent with the spinning ball model.

Same example, same answer:  You really don’t understand how fluids work, do you?  The Earth atmosphere follows the curve of the Earth, due to gravity, just like the oceans.  When a plane is flying, since it needs lift to stay in the air, the plane just follows the ‘level’ of the air around it.  It is just like a boat that follows the curve of the water.  In addition, there is this little thing called inertia.  If the world worked like how the flat earthers think it works, every time you hit a hard bump in your car, or  jump up in a train or airplane, you will immediately go smashing into the back of the rail car or cabin.  Just think about it.

182) Flights Eastwards with the alleged spin of the ball-Earth from NY to London take an average of 7 hours, therefore the return flights Westwards against the alleged spin should take an average of 3.5 hours, but in actual fact take an average of 7.5 hours, a flight time totally inconsistent with the spinning ball model.

Same example, same answer:  You really don’t understand how fluids work, do you?  The Earth atmosphere follows the curve of the Earth, due to gravity, just like the oceans.  When a plane is flying, since it needs lift to stay in the air, the plane just follows the ‘level’ of the air around it.  It is just like a boat that follows the curve of the water.  In addition, there is this little thing called inertia.  If the world worked like how the flat earthers think it works, every time you hit a hard bump in your car, or  jump up in a train or airplane, you will immediately go smashing into the back of the rail car or cabin.  Just think about it.

183) Flights Eastwards from Chicago to Boston with the alleged spin of the ball-Earth take an average of 2.25 hours, therefore the return flights Westwards against the alleged spin should take an average of just over an hour, but in actual fact take an average of 2.75 hours, once again, completely inconsistent with the spinning ball model.

Same example, same answer:  You really don’t understand how fluids work, do you?  The Earth atmosphere follows the curve of the Earth, due to gravity, just like the oceans.  When a plane is flying, since it needs lift to stay in the air, the plane just follows the ‘level’ of the air around it.  It is just like a boat that follows the curve of the water.  In addition, there is this little thing called inertia.  If the world worked like how the flat earthers think it works, every time you hit a hard bump in your car, or  jump up in a train or airplane, you will immediately go smashing into the back of the rail car or cabin.  Just think about it.

184) Flights Eastwards from Paris to Rome with the alleged spin of the ball-Earth take an average of 2 hours, therefore the return flights Westwards against the alleged spin should take an average of 1 hour, but in actual fact have an average flight duration of 2 hours 10 minutes, a flight time totally inconsistent with the spinning ball model.

Same example, same answer:  You really don’t understand how fluids work, do you?  The Earth atmosphere follows the curve of the Earth, due to gravity, just like the oceans.  When a plane is flying, since it needs lift to stay in the air, the plane just follows the ‘level’ of the air around it.  It is just like a boat that follows the curve of the water.  In addition, there is this little thing called inertia.  If the world worked like how the flat earthers think it works, every time you hit a hard bump in your car, or  jump up in a train or airplane, you will immediately go smashing into the back of the rail car or cabin.  Just think about it.

185) We are told that the Earth and atmosphere spin together at such a perfect uniform velocity that no one in history has ever seen, heard, felt or measured the supposed 1000mph movement. This is then often compared to traveling in a car at uniform velocity, where we only feel the movement during acceleration or deceleration. In reality, however, even with eyes closed, windows up, over smooth tar in a luxury car at a mere uniform 50mph, the movement absolutely can be felt! At 20 times this speed, Earth’s imaginary 1000mph spin would most certainly be noticeable, felt, seen and heard by all.

Same example, same answer:  You really don’t understand how fluids work, do you?  The Earth atmosphere follows the curve of the Earth, due to gravity, just like the oceans.  When a plane is flying, since it needs lift to stay in the air, the plane just follows the ‘level’ of the air around it.  It is just like a boat that follows the curve of the water.  In addition, there is this little thing called inertia.  If the world worked like how the flat earthers think it works, every time you hit a hard bump in your car, or  jump up in a train or airplane, you will immediately go smashing into the back of the rail car or cabin.  Just think about it.

186) People sensitive to motion sickness feel distinct unease and physical discomfort from motion as slight as an elevator or a train ride. This means that the 1000mph alleged uniform spin of the Earth has no effect on such people, but add an extra 50mph uniform velocity of a car and their stomach starts turning knots. The idea that motion sickness is nowhere apparent in anyone at 1000mph, but suddenly comes about at 1050mph is ridiculous and proves the Earth is not in motion whatsoever.

Same example, same answer:  You really don’t understand how fluids work, do you?  The Earth atmosphere follows the curve of the Earth, due to gravity, just like the oceans.  When a plane is flying, since it needs lift to stay in the air, the plane just follows the ‘level’ of the air around it.  It is just like a boat that follows the curve of the water.  In addition, there is this little thing called inertia.  If the world worked like how the flat earthers think it works, every time you hit a hard bump in your car, or  jump up in a train or airplane, you will immediately go smashing into the back of the rail car or cabin.  Just think about it.

187) The second law of thermodynamics, otherwise known as the law of entropy, along with the fundamental principles of friction/resistance determine the impossibility of Earth being a uniformly spinning ball. Over time, the spinning ball Earth would experience measurable amounts of drag constantly slowing the spin and lengthening the amount of hours per day. As not the slightest such change has ever been observed in all of recorded history it is absurd to assume the Earth has ever moved an inch.

This is a total lie.   Every year leap seconds have to added to the year to compensate for the slowing rotation of the Earth.  Back when the dinosaurs roamed, the day was about 19 hours long.

188) Over the years NASA has twice changed their story regarding the shape of the Earth. At first they maintained Earth was a perfect sphere, which later changed to an “oblate spheroid” flattened at the poles, and then changed again to being “pear-shaped” as the Southern hemisphere allegedly bulges out as well. Unfortunately for NASA, however, none of their official pictures show an oblate spheroid or pear-shaped Earth! All their pictures, contrary to their words, show a spherical (and clearly CGI fake) Earth.

A 30 mile bulge is nothing compared to a planet 25,000 miles in circumference.

189) The Bible, Koran, Srimad Bhagavatam, and many other holy books describe and purport the existence of a geocentric, stationary flat Earth. For example, 1 Chronicles 16:30 and Psalm 96:10 both read, “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.” And Psalm 93:1 says, “The world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.” The Bible also repeatedly affirms that the Earth is “outstretched” as a plane, with the outstretched heavens everywhere above (not all around) giving a scriptural proof the Earth is not a spinning ball.

I am an Atheist, so I don’t give a shit about your holy books.  They also say birds are bats, donkeys can talk, you can live in the belly of a whale, travel to the moon on the back of a winged horse, and you can curse a fig tree.

190) Cultures the world over throughout history have all described and purported the existence of a geocentric, stationary flat Earth. Egyptians, Indians, Mayans, Chinese, Native Americans and literally every ancient civilization on Earth had a geocentric flat-Earth cosmology. Before Pythagoras, the idea of a spinning ball-Earth was non-existent and even after Pythagoras it remained an obscure minority view until 2000 years later when Copernicus began reviving the heliocentric theory.

So?  We didn’t know about electricity until less than 200 year ago.  Does it mean that electricity is a conspiracy as well?

191) From Pythagoras to Copernicus, Galileo and Newton, to modern astronauts like Aldrin, Armstrong and Collins, to director of NASA and Grand Commander of the 33rd degree C. Fred Kleinknecht, the founding fathers of the spinning ball mythos have all been Freemasons! The fact that so many members of this, the largest and oldest secret society in existence have all been co-conspirators bringing about this literal “planetary revolution” is beyond the possibility of coincidence and provides proof of organized collusion in creating and maintaining this multi-generational deception.

I wish I could cash in on this conspiracy, since I work with directly measuring the rotation of the Earth on a daily basis and communicating with the ‘fake’ satellites.  Since I have been an engineer for 20 years, let me in on a little secret:  The Earth is a spinning ball of rock, satellites are real, space travel is real, and there is no giant army of engineers and technicians carefully maintaining the lie.

192) Quoting “Terra Firma” by David Wardlaw Scott, “The system of the Universe, as taught by Modern Astronomers, being founded entirely on theory, for the truth of which they are unable to advance one single real proof, they have entrenched themselves in a conspiracy of silence, and decline to answer any objections which may be made to their hypotheses … Copernicus himself, who revived the theory of the heathen philosopher Pythagoras, and his great exponent Sir Isaac Newton, confessed that their system of a revolving Earth was only a possibility, and could not be proved by facts. It is only their followers who have decorated it with the name of an ‘exact science,’ yea, according to them, ‘the most exact of all the sciences.’ Yet one Astronomer Royal for England once said, speaking of the motion of the whole Solar system: ‘The matter is left in a most delightful state of uncertainty, and I shall be very glad if any one can help me out of it.’ What a very sad position for an ‘exact science’ to be in is this!”

What is the point of listening to this moron?

193) No child or un-indoctrinated man in their right-mind would ever conclude or even conceive given to their own devices, based on their own personal observations, that the Earth was a spinning ball revolving around the Sun! Such imaginative theories nowhere present in anyone’s daily experience require and have required massive amounts of constant propaganda to uphold the illusion.

Unsourced quote from a moron.

194) From David Wardlaw Scott, “I remember being taught when a boy, that the Earth was a great ball, revolving at a very rapid rate around the Sun, and, when I expressed to my teacher my fears that the waters of the oceans would tumble off, I was told that they were prevented from doing so by Newton’s great law of Gravitation, which kept everything in its proper place. I presume that my countenance must have shown some signs of incredulity, for my teacher immediately added – I can show you a direct proof of this; a man can whirl around his head a pail filled with water without its being spilt, and so, in like manner, can the oceans be carried round the Sun without losing a drop. As this illustration was evidently intended to settle the matter, I then said no more upon the subject. Had such been proposed to me afterwards as a man, I would have answered somewhat as follows – Sir, I beg to say that the illustration you have given of a man whirling a pail of water round his head, and the oceans revolving round the Sun, does not in any degree confirm your argument, because the water in the two cases is placed under entirely different circumstances, but, to be of any value, the conditions in each case must be the same, which here they are not. The pail is a hollow vessel which holds the water inside it, whereas, according to your teaching, the Earth is a ball, with a continuous curvature outside, which, in agreement with the laws of nature, could not retain any water.”

What is the point of listening to this moron? Let me talk to a real scientist, or heck, a high school physics teacher would do.

195) Astronomers say the magical magnetism of gravity is what keeps all the oceans of the world stuck to the ball-Earth. They claim that because the Earth is so massive, by virtue of this mass it creates a magic force able to hold people, oceans and atmosphere tightly clung to the underside of the spinning ball. Unfortunately, however, they cannot provide any practical example of this on a scale smaller than the planetary. A spinning wet tennis ball, for instance, has the exact opposite effect of the supposed ball-Earth! Any water poured over it simply falls off the sides, and giving it a spin results in water flying off 360 degrees like a dog shaking after a bath. Astronomers concede the wet tennis ball example displays the opposite effect of their supposed ball-Earth, but claim that at some unknown mass, the magic adhesive properties of gravity suddenly kick in allowing the spinning wet tennis ball-Earth to keep every drop of “gravitized” water stuck to the surface. When such an unproven theory goes against all experiments, experience and common sense, it is high time to drop the theory.

What is the point of listening to this unsourced moron?  Let me talk to a real scientist, or heck, a high school physics teacher would do.

196) Quoting Marshall Hall, “In short, the sun, moon, and stars are actually doing precisely what everyone throughout all history has seen them do. We do not believe what our eyes tell us because we have been taught a counterfeit system which demands that we believe what has never been confirmed by observation or experiment. That counterfeit system demands that the Earth rotate on an ‘axis’ every 24 hours at a speed of over 1000 MPH at the equator. No one has ever, ever, ever seen or felt such movement (nor seen or felt the 67,000MPH speed of the Earth’s alleged orbit around the sun or its 500,000 MPH alleged speed around a galaxy or its retreat from an alleged ‘Big Bang’ at over 670,000,000 MPH!). Remember, no experiment has ever shown the earth to be moving. Add to that the fact that the alleged rotational speed we’ve all been taught as scientific fact MUST decrease every inch or mile one goes north or south of the equator, and it becomes readily apparent that such things as accurate aerial bombing in WWII (down a chimney from 25,000 feet with a plane going any direction at high speed) would have been impossible if calculated on an earth moving below at several hundred MPH and changing constantly with the latitude.”

Same shitty arguments, debunked 150 points ago.  Not repeating myself.

197) Some people claim there is no motive for such a grand-scale deception and that flat or a ball makes no difference. By removing Earth from the motionless center of the Universe, these Masons have moved us physically and metaphysically from a place of supreme importance to one of complete nihilistic indifference. If the Earth is the center of the Universe, then the ideas of God, creation, and a purpose for human existence are resplendent. But if the Earth is just one of billions of planets revolving around billions of stars in billions of galaxies, then the ideas of God, creation, and a specific purpose for Earth and human existence become highly implausible. By surreptitiously indoctrinating us into their scientific materialist Sun-worship, not only do we lose faith in anything beyond the material, we gain absolute faith in materiality, superficiality, status, selfishness, hedonism and consumerism. If there is no God, and everyone is just an accident, then all that really matters is me, me, me. They have turned Madonna, the Mother of God, into a material girl living in a material world. Their rich, powerful corporations with slick Sun-cult logos sell us idols to worship, slowly taking over the world while we tacitly believe their “science,” vote for their politicians, buy their products, listen to their music, and watch their movies, sacrificing our souls at the altar of materialism. To quote Morris Kline, “The heliocentric theory, by putting the sun at the center of the universe … made man appear to be just one of a possible host of wanderers drifting through a cold sky. It seemed less likely that he was born to live gloriously and to attain paradise upon his death. Less likely, too, was it that he was the object of God’s ministrations.”

I don’t even need to refute this.  Just read that gibberish and make up your own mind.

198) Some say the idea of an inter-generational world-wide conspiracy to delude the masses sounds implausible or unrealistic, but these people need only familiarize themselves with the works and writings of Freemasons themselves, for example John Robison who exposed this in his 1798 book, “Proofs of a Conspiracy Against All the Religions and Governments of Europe Carried Out in the Secret Meetings of the Freemasons, Illuminati and Reading Societies.” Supreme Commander of the 33rd degree Albert Pike was quite forth-coming in several letters regarding the Masons ultimate goal of world domination, and in the Zionist “Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion” the exact plan by which this would be and has been carried out is completely disclosed.

Do you honestly think there are BILLIONS of people involved in a two millennia long conspiracy?  Really?  If I am being honest, between a spinning ball hurtling through space and a world wide conspiracy involving a large percentage of the human population over 2,000 years, the spinning ball is much easier to believe.

199) From “Foundations of Many Generations” by E. Eschini, “The one thing the fable of the revolving Earth has done, it has shown the terrible power of a lie, a lie has the power to make a man a mental slave, so that he dares not back the evidence of his own senses. To deny the plain and obvious movement of the Sun he sees before him. When he feels himself standing on an Earth utterly devoid of motion, at the suggestion of someone else he is prepared to accept that he is spinning furiously round. When he sees a bird flying, and gaining over the ground, he is prepared to believe that the ground is really travelling a great number of times faster than the bird, finally, in order to uphold the imagination of a madman, he is prepared to accuse his Maker of forming him a sensiferous lie.”

Religious moron.  Why do I care?

200) And finally, from Dr. Rowbotham, “Thus we see that this Newtonian philosophy is devoid of consistency; its details are the result of an entire violation of the laws of legitimate reasoning, and all its premises are assumed. It is, in fact, nothing more than assumption upon assumption, and the conclusions derived therefrom are willfully considered as things proved, and to be employed as truths to substantiate the first and fundamental assumptions. Such a ‘juggle and jumble’ of fancies and falsehoods extended and intensified as in theoretical astronomy is calculated to make the unprejudiced inquirer revolt with horror from the terrible conjuration which has been practised upon him; to sternly resolve to resist its further progress; to endeavour to over-throw the entire edifice, and to bury in its ruins the false honours which have been associated with its fabricators, and which still attach to its devotees. For the learning, the patience, the perseverance and devotion for which they have ever been examples, honour and applause need not be withheld; but their false reasoning, the advantages they have taken of the general ignorance of mankind in respect to astronomical subjects, and the unfounded theories they have advanced and defended, cannot be otherwise than regretted, and ought to be by every possible means uprooted.”

Parallax speaks for the last time, making baseless assertions and observations that don’t agree with the world we actually live on.

For more information about our Flat Earth read “The Flat Earth Conspiracy” by Eric Dubay and visit:

http://www.AtlanteanConspiracy.com
http://www.ifers.boards.net

 

Oldie but still relevant

Almost two years ago, Bill Nye ‘debated’ Ken Ham at the ‘Creation Museum’ in Kentucky.  After the debate, some creationists scrawled some crude questions onto some lined paper and asked what follows below.  Here are my answers:

1) “Bill Nye, are you influencing the minds of children in a positive way?”

I sure hope so.  He is a skilled engineer and a great entertainer.  I really wish they had Aron Ra to debate, but I know it would just be silly.

2) “Are you scared of a Divine Creator?”

No, not at all.  I am only afraid of real things.

3) “Is it completely illogical that the Earth was created mature? i.e. trees created with rings … Adam created as an adult ….”

Yeah, pretty much.  You could say the Earth was created 10 seconds before now.  I think it is stupid concept and why would a god who wants us to believe in him create a world that looks old?  To double dog dare us?  Don’t we just have to assume it is old and just move on from there?

4) “Does not the second law of thermodynamics disprove evolution?”

If this was a closed system, maybe, but in an open system, like the Earth/Sun combination, it really does not apply.  The universe as a whole will eventually succumb to entropy, and life will not be able to stop it.

5) “How do you explain a sunset if their [sic] is no God?”

The refractive index of our atmosphere.  Oh, you mean why is it ‘pretty’ looking?  It is entirely a subjective feeling.  If you were blind, would this be an amazing thing?

6) “If the Big Bang Theory is true and taught as science along with evolution, why do the laws of thermodynamics debunk said theories?”

They don’t.  In fact, the Big Bang is the beginning of the laws of thermodynamics, the eventual heat death of the universe is the end.

7) “What about noetics?”

I had to look this one up.  Noetics is, more or less, complete New Age nonsense about mind over matter gibberish.  I will use my hands to change the universe, not my ‘mind/soul/spiritual body’ and higher dimensions.

8) “Where do you derive objective meaning in life?”

You don’t.  Life has whatever meaning you want to apply to it.  There is no objective meaning.  Your genes only want you to reproduce or die.  Nothing else.

9) “If God did not create everything, how did the first single-celled organism originate? By chance?”

Sure, why not?  Given enough time, energy and an ocean full of precursors to self replicating life, it is almost certain to occur.  You can have life (something that can reproduce) without a cell as well.

10) “I believe in the Big Bang Theory … God said it and BANG it happened.”

Not a question.  Where did God come from?  Telling me he is timeless and immaterial is special pleading and makes no sense.

11) “Why do evolutionists/secularists/humanists/non-God believing people reject the idea of their [sic] being a Creator God but embrace the concept of intelligent design from aliens or other extra-terrestrial sources?”

This question is just a bunch of odd straw men, lashed together. Those 4 different people are not the same thing.  I can only answer for myself.  I am an ‘evolutionist’ I guess (accept the fact of evolution), secular, humanist, and I don’t believe in any gods.  I totally reject intelligent design from aliens and I don’t believe in extraterrestrial sources is the most likely origin of life on Earth.

12) “There is no in between … the only one found has been Lucy and there are only a few pieces of the hundreds necessary for an ‘official proof’.”

Don’t really get this one.  Human evolution is pretty well understood, with sometimes hundreds of individuals of each ancestor species of human already discovered, and we are discovering more every year.

13) “Does metamorphosis help support evolution?”

Hell yeah.  Look at a frog.  it starts as a fish like creature that changes into a frog, showing, plainly, how evolution works.  Or, look at an insect, that goes from larval to adult forms.  Again, as a juvenile, this is a simpler form that would transform into a more complex adult form.

14) “If Evolution is a theory (like creationism or the Bible) why then is Evolution taught as a fact.”

Creationism is not a theory.  It does not even rise to the level of hypothesis.  It fails every test.  Evolution by means of natural selection has been tested for over 150 years, and always passes.  It is the most tested theory in science.  We understand evolution better than about ANYTHING else in science.

15) “Because science is ‘theory’–not testable, observable, nor repeatable, why do you object to creationism or intelligent design being taught in school?”

You do not understand the word science.  Science is testable, observable, and repeatable.  Theory is a tool used by science.  An idea starts as a hypothesis, then if passes repeated experiments, it can become a theory.  Theories can be (and are) constantly tested.    Creationism and intelligent design can’t even reach the level of hypothesis.  Gibberish question.

16) “What mechanism has science discovered that evidences an increase of genetic information seen in any genetic mutation or evolutionary process?”

Yes, all the time, I am not a genetic biologist, but here is a cool video https://youtu.be/I14KTshLUkg

17) “What purpose do you think you are here for if you don’t believe in salvation?”

To help my fellow humans have less suffering and play video games, collect watches, be a good husband and father.

18) “Why have we found only 1 ‘Lucy,’ when we have found more than 1 of everything else?”

We have found several members of Australopithecus afarensis, and hundreds of other human ancestors among dozens of species.

19) “Can you believe in ‘the big bang’ without ‘faith’”?

I don’t have to believe it it, the cosmic background radiation was discovered many years ago, and the math behind it is well understood.

20) “How can you look at the world and not believe someone created/thought of it? It’s amazing!!!”

It is amazing, it is amazing I am alive right now.  The odds are staggering.  But, to believe in something infinitely more complex than this universe that can not be proven to exist in any way is a waste of time.

21) “Relating to the big bang theory … Where did the exploding star come from?”

Exploding star?  You mean quantum fluctuations?  It has been tested in the large hadron collider.  It appears to be a natural property of this universe.

22) “If we came from monkeys then why are there still monkeys?”

This is a really ignorant question.   If I came from my parents, why do I still have a mom and dad?  Same question, just shorter period of time.  Why are there any species and not just one?  Not how life works.

Half way to infinity.

Most of the way through the  Psalms which makes me about half way through the Bible.  I have to be honest, it is a very, very poorly written book.  It is repetitive, boring, the lessons are outdated, impractical, or just morally wrong in relation to modern views.  Moreover, the Bible is repetitive.  It is the same 4 stories, told over and over and over and over and over and over.  Anyone who says this is great literature is full of shit.  It is horrid.  At the same time, I am also reading the Harry Potter books, which offers a more believable narrative, has a plot, and is much more enjoyable.

I am going to be taking a little break from the Bible, I just can’t take any more of the worst book, by far, that I have ever read.

In the meantime, I will be working on some retro, portable video games, on one of my other sites.  Until then, I am sure no one is chomping on the bit to read more of my commentary on the Bible.