✦ Exposing the 'Global' Conspiracy from Atlantis to Zion
Thursday, February 26, 2015
The Flat-Earth Conspiracy Challenge
The Flat-Earth Conspiracy is a book and a documentary by Eric Dubay which is literally re-shaping the world and spear-heading a mass awakening to the greatest conspiracy and most successful cover-up in history. Ancient civilizations the world over believed Earth to be the flat, immovable center of creation around which the heavens revolved daily
cycles in perfect circles.This stable geocentric universe, proven true by experience and experiments, which reigned undisputed for
thousands of years adequately explaining all Earthly and celestial phenomena, was
violently uprooted, spun around, and sent flying through infinite space by a
cabal of Sun-worshipping theoretical astronomers.Early Masonic magicians like Copernicus,
Kepler, Galileo, and Newton, along with their modern Masonic astro-not
counter-parts like Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins, hand-in-hand with NASA and world Freemasonry using everything from books, magazines,
and television to computer-generated imaging, have succeeded, in the minds of the masses, to pick up the fixed Earth, shape it
into a ball, spin it in circles, and throw it around the Sun!In schools where every professor’s desk is adorned
with a spinning Earth-globe, we are lectured on the “heliocentric” theory of
the universe, shown images of ball-planets and videos of men suspended in space.The illusion created, connivingly convincing,
has entranced the world’s population into blindly believing a maleficent
myth.
"I finished the flat earth conspiracy, and it shook the foundations of my world." -Charles Lindell
"I've
bought your book Eric, "The Flat Earth Conspiracy" and I'm enjoying it
immensely. Just a couple of months ago I would never have thought that I
would ever entertain such a concept... Seriously compelling!"
-Steamship (Blog Commenter)
"Thank you Eric for your extraordinary work which resonates so
deeply! I have been working this Flat Earth stuff out in my mind for a
few weeks and BINGO you are saying EXACTLY what I've been thinking! Big
ups to you for sharing awesome (and sensible) info. This is indeed the
greatest conspiracy in the history of humanity. Since seeing through
this deception, I am feeling more grounded, liberated and empowered!"
-Petra Portal
"Hey Eric. I'm a longtime
follower of your webpage. I have an open mind, i think. I bought your
last book about the flat earth. And really liked it. Worth every cent!
Planing on buying the paperback edition. Keep up the good work. Its all
new to me this flat earth thing so it takes some time to process i
believe. But it is good argument that you have collected. Best regards
Hampus from Sweden!" -Hampus Nilsson
"Hi Eric,
What a great book, I could not stop reading it, let me plug it for you;
to everyone reading these comments, BUY ERIC'S BOOK--it's worth every
penny. Very compelling material, and it's evident you worked hard on it,
and it's greatly appreciated." -Anonymous Commenter
"Your book The Flat Earth Conspiracy is
fabulous,...OMG OMG OMG!!!!! It now makes sense to me why The Vatican
own the SOHO space telescope that photographs the sun every minute, or
so they say, they probably film it 24/7 though I reckon. How will they
ever keep a lid on the wicked lie with the internet so instant......OMG Eric!!!! I'm camping in the mountains this week
and won't be back in Melbourne till end of week.... I'm reading your
book!!!! I'm having the paradigm shift of all paradigm shifts!!!! This
has to be THE LIE OF ALL LIES....I suggest that this heliocentric
spinning concept is the foundation of The System. Everything, absolutely
everything, is based upon it. You truly are a wonderful man to have
brought this lie to our attention.... and in such a creative and
artistic way. Thank you thank you thank you!!!!!! XXXOOO" -Vicki Victoria
"HI
Eric, Great job! I read your book, then ordered, and am reading,
Zetetic Astronomy. All of what you say, prove and theorize makes sense
to me. Keep up the great work, it is really
inspiring and appreciated. IMHO, Eric is doing a great service to
Mankind. I successfully worked on Wall Street for over 20 years and met
many
brilliant men and women, who only cared about their paychecks. Eric
has done some very heavy lifting for the greater good of all. His
analysis is empirical and plain, look for yourself, common sense. I
for one have learned a great deal from his deep research and
independent inquiry. And from other comments show so are many other
inquiring
minds." -Jamie Lee, TabuBlog
"HI
Guys. Just finished reading The Flat Earth book by Eric. Very
interesting. The Math adds up. I am well aware of the laws of
perspective. I have worked in civil engineering. I have flown at various
heights as a civilian and as military personnel and have often thought
that the curvature of the earth isn't that curved at all. I have not
considered the 'no dinosaur stance' though. However, I am reasonably
well read on our giant ancestry, the Smithsonian cover up and the many
reports of findings around the world of bones and other artifacts. I
really enjoyed reading this book and would welcome any other suggestions
with regard to advancing my knowledge base. I am going to put the
Atlantean Conspiracy on my future reading list. I have sent for
Spiritual Science as a next read." -Ivan Mayland
"I just spent a whole day reading the book and i'm
quite freaked out. It's going to take a little while to even start to
digest this. I was battling a degree of cognitive dissonance to begin
with but you're quite overwhelmingly and exhaustively convincing and
thorough.Until now, not one bit of potential esoteric info has
particularly surprised or bothered me. I'd be mildly bemused if
Elizabeth Windsor started shape-shifting into a reptilian live on tv but I'd be fairly nonchalant about it and probably enjoy saying 'I told you
so...' to a few people. All of the esoteric stuff so far has
been about expansion. But what you're saying
seemingly brings everything back to a place where we're the center of
all creation/the universe. I'm really struggling with this! I think I'll go back and read your other books next to get some more perspective." -Jordan Rose
"I just finished your book. It answered a few
lingering questions I had. The literature on the sun/moon and the number
13 stood out to me personally. The shocking thing is
it is exactly what I need my mom to read. She read the Atlantean
Conspiracy and has some issues she can't wrap her catholic/scientific
mind around.
Your books are phenomenal for hitting a particular target
audience... from the conspiracy theorists, religious groups, science,
and so on. You have a way of showing each group the same story. Spiritual Science capitalized on quantum physics, this most recent book will
definitely target devout bible people (don't know what else to call
them) and with the pope's recent comments I am sure a lot of religious
people will begin to wonder why is the Vatican changing suddenly. They
may start looking like I did. And I am sure some of them will find your
book. It is working be patient and don't stop writing!" -Lauren Peters
"Hi Eric, I really love the book
you should be very proud at collating so much information together
that creates a great argument against what is a MASSIVE
BELIEF.... heheh.... love it! Large respect to Eric Dubay from The Atlantean Conspiracy, who during my
research kindly sent me a copy of his new book to preview - he covers a
ton of information and amazing images in near 300 pages, collaborating
years of intense research." -Mark Knight, Wayki Wayki
Did you know there is no valid proof, not a single piece of solid scientific evidence confirming Earth to be a huge spinning ball!? The Flat-Earth Conspiracy book completely dispels every ball-Earth myth you have been taught and proves conclusively that the Earth is, just as it appears, an extended motionless plane over and around which everything in the heavens revolves. If you have finished reading "The Flat-Earth Conspiracy" please leave a quick review below. And I also challenge any and every brainwashed ball-Earth believer to comment what "evidence/proof" you think you have for accepting this doctrine, and I will debunk everyweak point you deluded trolls make! :) Game on.
I finished The Flat Earth Conspiracy a few weeks ago and I've been an avid reader of your blog, Atlantean Conspiracy dot com, for about 6 years.
You have probably been the single most influential factor in opening my mind. I truly believe I am now a better person, due to the knowledge I've gained from your work.
...There's one thing that I hope you can help me with though. For me it's not hard to reevaluate my opinion and change it. I used to think the earth was round and never gave it a second thought. But after reading your book, I realize the only reason I believed the world was round was because that's what I was told. Meaning that opinion was never truly my own. And with the knowledge I have, I can honestly decide for myself that I believe the earth is flat.
Now maybe my mind is just more opened than most, maybe because I'm young, maybe because I've spent a lot of time with our friend Mary Jane. I'm not really sure. But how can I get others to realize that if the only reason they believe something, is because that's what they were told, then it's not really their opinion?
...When your young you don't have the knowledge to make your own opinions. Your only choice is to believe what you are told, because you trust those who are telling you these things. But once you reach a certain age, you should be able to form your own opinion based on knowledge and facts....its just so hard to get people to do that sometimes. I suppose for some, ignorance truly is bliss.
Thanks so much guys! It's certainly difficult to express these ideas and open people's minds to this suppressed, taboo information. The Flat-Earth Conspiracy book and documentary are currently two of the most valuable tools I've found for helping awaken anyone who will sit down and watch/read. Many people are so sure of their ball-Earth beliefs, however, they refuse to do even that on the grounds that they "know better" and you are "wasting their time." Just keep planting seeds and researching further, eventually the truth will pass people's 3-stage defense mechanisms:
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Arthur Schopenhauer
Long time reader, sparse commentator. I've watched with great interest your discussions through your comments page.
mlong12's opinion is not far from my own.. in the sense that he is taking time to form his own opinion, rather than regurgitating others views as his own..
Wherein the problem lies. My ball earth opinion is just a belief that has been indoctrinated to me throughout my life. A belief has no need for facts, it is just a belief.
The flat earth theory seems to need a similar thing, a leap of faith, if you will. Regardless of my doing a few archaic home experiments to prove/ disprove the flat earth/ ball earth. These experiments merely show that the results are conclusive with the original experiments findings.. they neither prove or disprove if the earth is convex, concave, hollow, round..BANANA SHAPED..
I have watched many videos on many things, some of your videos included, and I must say, watching your interview with a guy from NZ/Oz (sorry, guys " down under", no offence meant, can't remember which) and reading your blog has shown me without a doubt what a beautiful, tranquil, spiritual being you are. I mean that with the most sincerity.
So my real question is, why? Why dupe us with the shape of our world? To what aims/ ends? What difference does it make to every-man/woman?
A conspiracy this monolithic would need such a vast amount of collaboration, from every govt. in the world.
In the days when the flat earth belief was the accepted "norm" was there not just as much deceit, sexual deviation and subversion, murder and war, torturous conditions, spiritual belief and religious vigour, compassion and empathy?
What has been achieved by the so called invention of the ball earth myth?
Thank you as ever, for your commitment, determination and bravery in shining a light into the darkest forgotten corners of mankind's existence.
"A seeker of the truth is infinitely better company than someone who believes they have found it". (Terry Pratchett)
Hi Eric, The thing with debating ball-earthers is they don't put the research in beforehand and as such don't offer much in terms of constructive dialogue - as I'm sure you've encountered, they'll just pass it off, hide behind the numbers of people that agree with them and offhandedly reject any truly scientific evidence you present. I think you'll have a far more interesting and productive debate with a concave-earth believer. Or maybe a three-way-dance to settle it once and for all (in our eyes). From what I can gather, Lord Steven Christ is always on the lookout for a debate - have you tried him? Cheers, John
Thanks for the comments Michael and John! I appreciate your compliments regarding the Vinny Eastwood interview as well. As for your question of motive behind the conspiracy, I have explained as follows:
NASA is the biggest black budget black hole in existence sucking in over 30 billion dollars taxpayer money for the fake moon landings alone. But it is about much more than just money. You claim "a flat Earth theory cannot be used to devalue our spiritual sevles," yet this is exactly what has happened.
The modern Atheist Big Bang Heliocentric Globe-Earth Chance Evolution paradigm spiritually controls humanity by removing God, or any sort of intelligent design, and replacing purposeful divine creation with haphazard random cosmic coincidence.
“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." -Morris Kline
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.
Our eyes and experience tell us the Earth is flat and motionless, and everything in the sky revolves around us. When we cease to believe our own eyes and experience we must prostrate ourselves at the feet of the very pseudo-scientists who blinded us, to treat them as "experts," astronomical "priests" who have special knowledge only they can access, like the Hubble telescope. By brainwashing us of something so gigantic and fundamental, it makes every other kind of lesser indoctrination a piece of cake!
Earth being the flat, fixed center of the universe, around which everything in the heavens revolves denotes a special importance and significance not only the Earth, but to us humans, the most intelligent among the intelligent designer's designs. By turning Earth into a spinning ball thrown around the Sun and shot through infinite space from a Godless Big Bang they turn humanity into a random meaningless, purposeless accident of a blind, dumb universe! It's trauma-based mind-control! They beat the divinity out of us with their mental manipulations.
And the end-game of this deception is world domination which they plan on ushering in based on a fake alien invasion like in ID4 and other sci-fi movies. A hundreds years ago nobody believed in "aliens." Nowadays everyone's sure they exist because of NASA, Disclosure Project and other propaganda programs:
Hey John, you're absolutely right about debating with ball-Earthers. Most of them have no idea why they believe what they believe, and the few who are up-to-date on the latest lies just believe with that much more vigor that they must be right. There couldn't possibly be a conspiracy without their knowing! As for our Lord and Savior Steven Christ, he actually came onto one of my first flat Earth videos and said, "You think MY Earth is flat? WTF is wrong with you? Get in fucking gear and repent, you are in my concave world."
To which I replied: "Oh my heavens, it's Lord Steven Christ, Messiah-complexed crypto-Mason of the Concave Earth theory! Using profanity to preach repentance makes about as much sense as the lame controlled-opposition psy-op you run. How's that whole "Lord Christ" gig doing for you? A lot of people like really buying it and respecting you for it? Oh, really, no? Well, don't worry man, it's too late to back out now, you saw what it did to David Icke, might as well just go full-on and call yourself Son of the Godhead Lord Buddha Mohammed Steven Christ Allah Krishna McDonald Sandwich, you know, because fuck what people think, they're in YOUR concave world Steven! They need to fucking repent! Yeah man, Yeah. I like you. You're like, so enlightened and shit."
Then he said, and Matt Boylan has confirmed he threatens many with this, that he "is going to send the NSA my details."
Hi Eric, Thanks for the reply. I was put on the NSA watchlist myself when I last tried interacting with Lord Steven - I do, however, think that super-inflated ego of his is just an act/form of self-defense. Having watched a few of his Skype conversations he's posted on yt he does seem much more cordial "face-to-face" and less inclined to bring up his perceived "godness". Putting his living son of God insanity to one side I think he has some fairly interesting points to make about the shape of the earth. Even if he is a crypto-mason surely you can still see the benefit in 'reading between the lies' so to speak?
The Earth is provably not concave though John, what interesting points do you think he makes? He cannot even tell you the supposed upward curvature rate or explain why we cannot see or measure it. Also for Michael, I copied/pasted that "motive" answer and just saw it included a part that says, "You claim "a flat Earth theory cannot be used to devalue our spiritual sevles," yet this is exactly what has happened. Sorry, that was directed at someone else not you! Peace
All that remains to be said is, how do we prove, without doubt, our beautiful Mother Earth is NOT a ball.
Terry Pratchett's fantastic work of fiction, "Small Gods" has a brilliant finale which demonstrates the best way for the masses to change their perception is, as you say in your reply, to see with their own eyes. To see and witness an event that is without doubt real, is all it takes..
Even in this cynical, jaded pardigm of psychological repression that our physical and mental selves have become trapped in, seeing is believing.
I want nothing more than to believe wholeheartedly the teaching of our earths shape has been bent out of all recognition. I want to see it with my own eyes.
Perhaps this cataclysmic event would allow the proletariat to finally believe everything is not what it seems and the illusion of reality created through manipulation is just that, an illusion. I have often thought all it would take is one piece of irrefutable evidence (preferably live to the world!) would be enough.
I would love that evidence to be the very shape of our world, our home, our everything.
You constantly confuse the flat earth and the heliocentric arguments. These are two separate theories, and while your explanation of the 'reason Masons lied about flat earth' only mention the 'center of the universe' side of that. I get that. Geocentric vs Heliocentric
Thank you for explaining all the questions. But yet I have another.
If the earth was shaped like in the U.N. flags, wouldn't people traveling in the southern hemisphere need to go on a longer distance? People will notice this and all the masonic scam will be quite easy to disproven.
Hi Eric, I'm certainly no expert, a few months ago I didn't even know the shape of the earth was in question. I'm still trying to piece it all together in my head. I suppose his video on Pole Star Comparison was the one I found most interesting. Have you seen that one? Thanks, John.
I like the comments lol. Actually that guy who calls himself Lord Steven Christ was the first one i listened to before he started saying he was the son of god or some crazy religious statement. The flat earth theory has much more evidence . These new age movements are decieving alot of people talking about the universe and how many planets are in different galxies, all types of nonsense. I knew it was something special about your site, its like it was fate for me to keep exploring for the truth. NASA are a bunch of Freemason liars who work togeather with the powers that were. The difference I see in your work and others is, your evidence is much more solid and accurate than I see in other works. I also believe what people call universes and galxies are just different dimensions that you can explore in the astral realms.
Say our world is a kind of enclosure - as you see it, a flat disk with a dome over it - where does the idea that it's the "center of the universe" come from? Why would whoever built this stop at just one? We could be in one of many such "domes".
Hi Eric and all, I would like to announce here, right now,the creation of a new website,inspired by Eric's work:
aplanetruth.info.
This website will hopefully compliment others work and provide a vehicle for research inquiry and self discovery.
Comments welcome for discussion purposes but please keep tone and words respectful and kind to those of us searching for truths wherever it may lead us.
Thanks Michael, Anon, I've answered your question you keep asking more than once, I'm not answering you the same thing over and over. If you don't like my answer it doesn't change by continually asking. Thanks for the links Rinon! And for the second Anon, you are right:
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. In other words, the circumference at10 degrees South latitude would comprise a smaller circle than at the equator, 20 degrees South latitude would comprise a circle smaller than 10, and so on. 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. 10 degrees South latitude will comprise a larger circle than the equator, 20 degrees South latitude will comprise a circle larger than 10, and so on. Likewise, if the Earth were a globe, lines of longitude would bubble out at the equator while converging at both poles. Whereas if the Earth is an extended plane, lines of longitude should simply expand straight outwards from the North Pole. So which is actually the case?
“Upon the principle, as taught by Scripture and common observation, that the world is not a Planet, but consists of vast masses of land stretched out upon level seas, the North being the centre of the system, it is evident that the degrees of longitude will gradually increase in width the whole way from the North centre to the icy boundary of the great Southern Circumference. In consequence of the difference between the actual extent of longitudes and that allowed for them by the Nautical Authorities, which difference, at the latitude of the Cape of Good Hope, has been estimated to amount to a great number of miles, many Ship-masters have lost their reckoning, and many vessels have been wrecked. Ship-captains, who have been educated in the globular theory, know not how to account for their getting so much out of their course in Southern latitudes, and generally put it down to currents; but this reason is futile, for although currents may exist, they do not usually run in opposite directions, and vessels are frequently wrecked, whether sailing East or West.” -David Wardlaw Scott, “Terra Firma” (102)
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, some days as much as 29 miles. Lieutenant Charles Wilkes commanded a United States Navy exploration expedition to the Antarctic from August 18th, 1838 to June 10th, 1842, almost four years spent “exploring and surveying the Southern ocean.” In his journals Lieutenant Wilkes also mentioned being consistently east of his reckoning, sometimes over 20 miles in less than 18 hours.
“The commanders of these various expeditions were, of course, with their education and belief in the earth's rotundity, unable to conceive of any other cause for the differences between log and chronometer results than the existence of currents. But one simple fact is entirely fatal to such an explanation, viz., that when the route taken is east or west the same results are experienced. The water of the southern region cannot be running in two opposite directions at the same time; and hence, although various local and variable currents have been noticed, they cannot be shown to be the cause of the discrepancies so generally observed in high southern latitudes between time and log results. The conclusion is one of necessity, forced upon us by the sum of the evidence collected that the degrees of longitude in any given southern latitude are larger than the degrees in any latitude nearer to the northern center; thus proving the already more than sufficiently demonstrated fact that the earth is a plane, having a northern center, in relation to which degrees of latitude are concentric, and from which degrees of longitude are diverging lines, continually increasing in their distance from each other as they are prolonged towards the great glacial southern circumference.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not a Globe!” (261)
“February 11th, 1822, at noon, in latitude 65.53. S. our chronometers gave 44 miles more westing than the log in three days. On 22nd of April (1822), in latitude 54.16. S. our longitude by chronometers was 46.49, and by D.R. (dead reckoning) 47° 11´: On 2nd May (1822), at noon, in latitude 53.46. S., our longitude by chronometers was 59° 27´, and by D.R. 61° 6´. October 14th, in latitude 58.6, longitude by chronometers 62° 46´, by account 65° 24´. In latitude 59.7. S., longitude by chronometers was 63° 28´, by account 66° 42´. In latitude 61.49. S., longitude by chronometers was 61° 53´, by account 66° 38´.” -Captain James Weddell, “Voyages Towards the South Pole”
“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,’ under circumstances which until now, have baffled every satisfactory explanation.” -Rev. Thomas Milner, “Tour Through Creation”
The equatorial circumference of the supposed ball-Earth is said to be 24,900 statute or 21,600 nautical miles. A nautical mile is the distance, following the supposed curvature of the Earth, from one minute of latitude to the next. A statue mile is the straight line distance between the two, not taking into account Earth’s alleged curvature.
The “Australian Handbook, Almanack, Shippers’ and Importers’ Directory” states that the distance between Sydney and Nelson is 1400 nautical or 1633 statute miles. Allowing a more than sufficient 83 miles as the distance for rounding Cape Farewell and sailing up Tasman Bay to Nelson leaves 1550 statute miles as the straight-line distance from the meridian of Sydney to the meridian of Nelson. Their given difference in longitude is 22 degrees 2’14”. Therefore if 22 degrees 2’14” out of 360 is 1550 miles, the entirety measures 25,182 miles. This is larger than the Earth is said to be at the equator, and 4262 miles greater than it would be at Sydney’s southern latitude on a globe of said proportions! One 360th part of 25,182 gives 70 miles as the distance between each degree of longitude at Sydney’s 34 degree Southern latitude. On a globe 25,000 miles in equatorial circumference, however, degrees of longitude at 34 degrees latitude would be only 58 miles, a full 12 miles per degree less than reality. This perfectly explains why Ross and other navigators in the deep South experienced 12+ mile daily discrepancies between their reckoning and reality, the farther South travelled the farther the divide.
“From near Cape Horn, Chile to Port Philip in Melbourne, Australia the distance is 9,000 miles. These two places are 143 degrees of longitude from each other. Therefore the whole extent of the Earth’s circumference is a mere arithmetical question. If 143 degrees make 9,000 miles, what will be the distance made by the whole 360 degrees into which the surface is divided? The answer is, 22,657 miles; or, 8357 miles more than the theory of rotundity would permit. It must be borne in mind, however, that the above distances are nautical measure, which, reduced to statute miles, gives the actual distance round the Southern region at a given latitude as 26,433 statute miles; or nearly 1,500 miles more than the largest circumference ever assigned to the Earth at the equator.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Earth Not a Globe, 2nd Edition” (52)
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.
“The above calculations are, as already stated, only proximate; but as liberal allowances have been made for irregularities of route, etc., they are sufficiently accurate to prove that the degrees of longitude, as we proceed south-wards, do not diminish, as they would upon a globe, but expand or increase, as they must if the earth is a plane; or, in other words, the farthest point, or greatest latitude south, must have the greatest circumference and degrees of longitude.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not a Globe!” (258)
The Hindu cosmology actually does say that there are an infinite number of "snow-globe" universes complete with a flat Earth/dome, so that certainly is a possibility. And Jamie Lee, great job once again with your work! Everyone be sure to check out his site there. It's shaping up to be great. Peace
A few questions. If the earth is flat then what causes the solar and lunar eclipses? What causes the phases of the moon? Wouldn't the sun when it sets on the horizon be elliptical vs a circle if it shines as a spotlight?
Thanks T. Patrick, Anon, 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. The idea is that 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.
“According to the globular theory, a lunar eclipse occurs when the sun, earth, and moon are in a direct line; but it is on record that since about the fifteenth century over fifty eclipses have occurred while both sun and moon have been visible above the horizon.” -F.H. Cook, “The Terrestrial Plane”
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. The Greenwich Royal Observatory recorded that “during the lunar eclipses of July 17th, 1590, November 3rd, 1648, June 16th, 1666, and May 26th, 1668 the moon rose eclipsed whilst the sun was still above the horizon.” McCulluch’s Geography recorded that “on September 20th, 1717 and April 20th, 1837 the moon appeared to rise eclipsed before the sun had set.” Sir Henry Holland also noted in his “Recollections of Past Life” the April 20th, 1837 phenomena where “the moon rose eclipsed before the sun set.” The Daily Telegraph recorded it happening again on January 17th, 1870, then again in July of the same year, and it continues to happen during lunar eclipses to this day. Therefore the eclipsor of the Moon cannot be the Earth/Earth's shadow and another explanation must be sought.
Solar eclipses are simply the Moon passing affront the Sun just as it appears. The phases of the Moon are NOT explained by the current model, see the following:
The Sun and Moon luminaries revolve around the Earth once every 24 hours illuminating like spotlights the areas over which they pass. 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. Their flawed current model even 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 much of the Earth. They say due to the ball-Earth’s tilt, different places receive different amounts of direct sunlight and that is what produces the seasonal and temperature changes. This makes little sense, however, because if the Sun’s heat travels over ninety million miles to reach the ball-Earth, how could a slight tilt, a mere few thousand miles maximum, negate the Sun’s ninety million mile journey, giving us simultaneous tropical summers and Antarctic winters?
“The earth is a stretched-out structure, which diverges from the central north in all directions towards the south. The equator, being midway between the north center and the southern circumference, divides the course of the sun into north and south declination. The longest circle round the world which the sun makes, is when it has reached its greatest southern declination. Gradually going northwards the circle is contracted. In about three months after the southern extremity of its path has been reached, the sun makes a circle round the equator. Still pursuing a northerly course as it goes round and above the world, in another three months the greatest northern declination is reached, when the sun again begins to go towards the south. In north latitudes, when the sun is going north, it rises earlier each day, is higher at noon and sets later; while in southern latitudes at the same time, the sun as a matter of course rises later, reaches a lesser altitude at noon and sets earlier. In northern latitudes during the southern summer, say from September to December, the sun rises later each day, is lower at noon and sets earlier; while in the south he rises earlier, reaches a higher altitude at noon, and sets later each day. This movement round the earth daily is the cause of the alternations of day and night; while his northerly and southerly courses produce the seasons. When the sun is south of the equator it is summer in the south and winter in the north; and vice versa. The fact of the alternation of the seasons flatly contradicts the Newtonian delusion that the earth revolves in an orbit round the sun. It is said that summer is caused by the earth being nearest the sun, and winter by its being farthest from the sun. But if the reader will follow the argument in any text book he will see that according to the theory, when the earth is nearest the sun there must be summer in both northern and southern latitudes; and in like manner when it is farthest from the sun, it must be winter all over the earth at the same time, because the whole of the globe-earth would then be farthest from the sun!!! In short, it is impossible to account for the recurrence of the seasons on the assumption that the earth is globular and that it revolves in an orbit around the sun.” -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (124-125)
“The seasons are caused by the Sun’s circuit round the Earth in a spiral ecliptic. In the Winter Solstice (December 21st), the Sun is vertical over the Tropic of Capricorn. Looking South from London, he appears to make a small circuit in the Southern sky, during the same period he is seen to cross the sky at almost overhead in Cape Town, thus causing Summer in the Southern Hemisphere. In the Summer Solstice (June 21st), the Sun is vertical over the Tropic of Cancer, (nearly overhead in London), while looking North from Cape Town, he appears to make a small circuit in the Northern sky, causing Winter in the Southern and Summer in the Northern Hemisphere.” -E. Eschini, “Foundations of Many Generations” (7)
Thanks for the response. The reason my brain wants to think the sun would appear elliptical on the horizon is that; the sun shines like a spotlight then it would be similar to looking at a flashlight. If I'm looking at a flashlight straight on it will be a perfect circle. Now if I move the flashlight a significant distance to the side the light will now have an elliptical appearance. Is the sun a sphere, just much less intense around the none earth facing edges?
So the moon is actually slightly closer then the sun and passes in front for a solar eclipse? Lunar eclipse and moon phases are yet not fully understood?
Eric, What do you think Bruce Lee was getting at when he was talking about remaining formless? As soon as you decide to put a price on your research you become symbiotically attached to it - you lose your formlessness and can no longer roll with the punches. Despite what new evidence may come to light you can’t toss away your flat earth beliefs now because that would be like a knife in the back to anyone who lost money on the book. I think before you go on accepting money for your flat earth research you should address the pole star conundrum and as a courtesy to those that have already given you money you should be more open to debating Lord Steven Christ lest your integrity be called into question.
Hey Dave, the Sun and a flashlight clearly have very different properties which make them an unfit comparison here. Look at the picture of the Sun here on the title banner of the IFERS: http://ifers.boards.net The light is not unidirectional like a flashlight, it seems to shoot out in all directions from a center point, unlike any other light we could try and use to imitate it. The Sun and Moon are not densely physical and so able to pass through or right by one another in a way that solid spheres could not.
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! On March 7th, 1794, four astronomers (3 in Norwich, 1 in London) wrote in “The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Astronomical Society” that they “saw a star in the dark part of the moon, which had not then attained the first quadrature; and from the representations which are given the star must have appeared very far advanced upon the disc.” Sir James South of the Royal Observatory in Kensington wrote in a letter to the Times newspaper April 7, 1848, that, "On the 15th of March, 1848, when the moon was seven and a half days old, I never saw her unillumined disc so beautifully. On my first looking into the telescope a star of about the 7th magnitude was some minutes of a degree distant from the moon's dark limb. I saw that its occultation by the moon was inevitable … The star, instead of disappearing the moment the moon's edge came in contact with it, apparently glided on the moon's dark face, as if it had been seen through a transparent moon; or, as if a star were between me and the moon … I have seen a similar apparent projection several times … The cause of this phenomenon is involved in impenetrable mystery." In the monthly notices of the Royal Astronomical Society for June 8, 1860, Thomas Gaunt stated that the "Occultation of Jupiter by the moon, on the 24th of May, 1860, was seen with an achromatic of 3.3 inches aperture, 50 inches focus; the immersion with a power of 50, and the emersion with a power of 70. At the immersion I could not see the dark limb of the moon until the planet appeared to touch it, and then only to the extent of the diameter of the planet; but what I was most struck with was the appearance on the moon as it passed over the planet. It appeared as though the planet was a dark object, and glided on to the moon instead of behind it; and the appearance continued until the planet was hid, when I suddenly lost the dark limb of the moon altogether.” I have personally also seen stars through the edge of the waxing/waning Moon. It actually happens fairly often; if you are diligent and specifically observing for the phenomenon on starry nights you can occasionally see it even with the naked eye.
“During a partial solar eclipse the sun's outline has many times been seen through the body of the moon. But those who have been taught to believe that the moon is a solid opaque sphere, are ever ready with ‘explanations,’ often of the most inconsistent character, rather than acknowledge the simple fact of semi-transparency. Not only has this been proved by the visibility of the sun's outline through segments, and sometimes the very centre of the moon, but often, at new moon, the outline of the whole, and even the several shades of light on the opposite and illuminated part have been distinctly seen. In other words we are often able to see through the dark side of the moon's body to light on the other side.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!” (337)
“That the moon is not a perfectly opaque body, but a crystallized substance, is shown from the fact that when a few hours old or even at quarter we can through the unilluminated portion see the light shining on the other side. Stars have also been observed through her surface!” -J. Atkinson, “Earth Review Magazine”
John, do you contact all authors complaining that you have to pay money for their books? I don't have "flat Earth beliefs," I know the Earth is flat/motionless and have proven it beyond any shadow of a doubt to everyone who has read my book. Unless you're just Lord ConCave himself here calling yourself "John," (which wouldn't surprise me in the least) I must say you are the first person I've ever heard of who would question my credibility over his! You say:
I think that super-inflated ego of his is just an act/form of self-defense.
Putting his living son of God insanity to one side...
Why would you put his "super-inflated ego" and "living son of God insanity to one side," as if his huge ego and messiah-complex are somehow irrelevant to the issue of his integrity? They are central to the issue, not irrelevant.
He does seem much more cordial "face-to-face" and less inclined to bring up his perceived "godness"
I think he has some fairly interesting points to make about the shape of the earth. Even if he is a crypto-mason surely you can still see the benefit in 'reading between the lies' so to speak?
No, there is no benefit "reading between the lies" or a liar. You expose lies and liars, not give them credence and attention by "debating" them. A conversation between Lord Cave and I would be a one-sided massacre, not a debate.
As for your "Pole Star Conundrum" you keep bringing up, I don't know what it is, but here's a real Polaris "conundrum" which proves the Earth is flat, motionless, and everything in the sky revolves around us:
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, heliocentric astronomers cannot adequately explain how Polaris manages to always remain almost perfectly aligned straight above the North Pole.
If the globe-Earth was really spinning West-East 1,000 mph, orbiting the Sun counter-clockwise at 67,000 mph, spiraling around the outer-arms of the Milky Way at 500,000 mph, while shooting through the Universe at 670,000,000 mph, how is it even conceptually possible that Polaris, 2 quadrillion miles away, day after day, year after year, always maintains its alignment straight above the North Pole!? That would mean from 2 quadrillion miles away, Polaris would have to be perfectly mirroring Earth’s several simultaneous wobbling, spinning, spiraling, and shooting motions. Polaris would have to be shooting the same direction through the Universe at exactly 670,000,000 mph; it would have to be following the same 500,000 mph, 225 million year spiral around the Milky Way, and mirroring the same 67,000 mph, 365 day orbit around our Sun! Or, the Earth is stationary - as common sense and everyday experience testifies.
“It is supposed in the regular course of the Newtonian theory that the Earth is, in June, about 190 millions of miles (190,000,000) away from its position in December. Now, 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.” -William Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe” (80)
Not only this, but viewed from a ball-Earth, Polaris, situated almost straight 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 approximately 23.5 degrees South latitude.
“If the Earth is a sphere and the pole star hangs over the northern axis, it would be impossible to see it for a single degree beyond the equator, or 90 degrees from the pole. The line-of-sight would become a tangent to the sphere, and consequently several thousand miles out of and divergent from the direction of the pole star. Many cases, however, are on record of the north polar star being visible far beyond the equator, as far even as the tropic of Capricorn.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Earth Not a Globe, 2nd Edition” (41)
“The astronomers' theory of a globular Earth necessitates the conclusion that, if we travel south of the equator, to see the North Star is an impossibility. Yet it is well known this star has been seen by navigators when they have been more than 20 degrees south of the equator. This fact, like hundreds of other facts, puts the theory to shame, and gives us a proof that the Earth is not a globe.” -William Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe” (71)
To account for this glaring problem in their model, desperate heliocentrists since the late 19th century have claimed the ball-Earth actually tilts a convenient 23.5 degrees back on its vertical axis. Even this brilliant revision to their theory cannot account for the visibility of many other constellations though. 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. 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. 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! An observer on a ball-Earth, regardless of any tilt or inclination, should not logically be able to see this far.
“Another thing is certain, that from within the equator the north pole star, and the constellations Ursa Major, Ursa Minor, and many others, can be seen from every meridian simultaneously; whereas in the south, from the equator, neither the so-called south pole star, nor the remarkable constellation of the Southern Cross, can be seen simultaneously from every meridian, showing that all the constellations of the south - pole star included - sweep over a great southern arc and across the meridian, from their rise in the evening to their setting in the morning. But if the earth is a globe, Sigma Octantis, a south pole star, and the Southern Cross, a southern circumpolar constellation, they would all be visible at the same time from every longitude on the same latitude, as is the case with the northern pole star and the northern circumpolar constellations. Such, however, is not the case.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!” (286)
Some heliocentrists have even 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. 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.
“If we select a flat street a mile long, containing a row of lamps, it will be noticed that from where we stand the lamps gradually decline to the ground, the last one being apparently quite on the ground. Take the lamp at the end of the street and walk away from it a hundred yards, and it will appear to be much nearer the ground than when we were close to it; keep on walking away from it and it will appear to be gradually depressed until it is last seen on the ground and then disappears. Now, according to the astronomers, the whole mile was only depressed about eight inches from one end to the other, so that this 8 in. could not account for the enormous depression of the light as we recede from it. This proves that the depression of the Pole Star can and does take place in relation to a flat surface, simply because we increase our distance from it, the same as from the street lamp. In other words, the further away we get from any object above us, as a star for example, the more it is depressed, and if we go far enough it will sink (or appear to sink) to the horizon and then disappear. The writer has tried the street lamp many times with the same result.” -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (34)
Thank you for the response. I'm having trouble comprehending the sun and moon. Everything else makes perfect sense to me. I'll just keep looking at and studying it and one day it should click.
You definitely seem like a guy with integrity, so I'm going to go ahead a buy your book. Perhaps in the prosess of reading it things will come together for me.
On a side note. Satalites. If they don't exist, how is it we have dish network, satalite radio, ect. Is there some kind of baloon they put up there?
Thanks so much for the support Dave! All supposed "satellite" technology is operated via ground based towers and technologies. Digital "Dish TV" IS analog signal just sent in a condensed package which mini-dishes pointed at the nearest tower pick up far better than rabbit-ears can. That is why most dishes point at an inclination of 45 degrees or less, when in reality if they were receiving signal from over 100 miles up in space, most dishes would point more or less straight up. Yet there are NO dishes which point straight up. It is all explained towards the end of the following video:
Ok, if we live on a flat plane how come no explorer in history has found and accurately documented the edge? Were the south pole explorations hoaxes as well?
In 1773 Captain Cook became the first modern explorer known to have breached the Antarctic Circle and reached the ice barrier. During three voyages, lasting three years and eight days, Captain Cook and crew sailed a total of 60,000 miles along the Antarctic coastline never once finding an inlet or path through or beyond the massive glacial wall! Captain Cook wrote: “The ice extended east and west far beyond the reach of our sight, while the southern half of the horizon was illuminated by rays of light which were reflected from the ice to a considerable height. It was indeed my opinion that this ice extends quite to the pole, or perhaps joins some land to which it has been fixed since creation.”
On October 5th, 1839 another explorer, James Clark Ross began a series of Antarctic voyages lasting a total of 4 years and 5 months. Ross and his crew sailed two heavily armored warships thousands of miles, losing many men from hurricanes and icebergs, looking for an entry point beyond the southern glacial wall. Upon first confronting the massive barrier Captain Ross wrote of the wall, “extending from its eastern extreme point as far as the eye could discern to the eastward. It presented an extraordinary appearance, gradually increasing in height, as we got nearer to it, and proving at length to be a perpendicular cliff of ice, between one hundred and fifty feet and two hundred feet above the level of the sea, perfectly flat and level at the top, and without any fissures or promontories on its even seaward face. We might with equal chance of success try to sail through the cliffs of Dover, as to penetrate such a mass.”
“Yes, but we can circumnavigate the South easily enough,’ is often said by those who don't know, The British Ship Challenger recently completed the circuit of the Southern region - indirectly, to be sure - but she was three years about it, and traversed nearly 69,000 miles - a stretch long enough to have taken her six times round on the globular hypothesis.” -William Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe” (78)
“If we now consider the fact that when we travel by land or sea, and from any part of the known world, in a direction towards the North polar star, we shall arrive at one and the same point, we are forced to the conclusion that what has hitherto been called the North Polar region, is really the center of the Earth. That from this northern center the land diverges and stretches out, of necessity, towards a circumference, which must now be called the Southern region: which is a vast circle, and not a pole or center … In this and other ways all the great navigators have been frustrated in their efforts, and have been more or less confounded in their attempts to sail round the Earth upon or beyond the Antarctic circle. But if the southern region is a pole or center, like the north, there would be little difficulty in circumnavigating it, for the distance round would be comparatively small. When it is seen that the Earth is not a sphere, but a plane, having only one center, the north; and that the south is the vast icy boundary of the world, the difficulties experienced by circumnavigators can be easily understood.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Earth Not a Globe, 2nd Edition” (21-23)
Antarctica is not the tiny “ice-continent” found confined to the underside antipode of astronomer’s globes. Quite the contrary, Antarctica literally surrounds us 360 degrees, encircles every continent, and acts as a barrier holding in the oceans. The most commonly asked questions, and the greatest mysteries yet to be solved are: how far does the Antarctic ice extend outwards? Is there a limit? What lies beyond, or is it just snow and ice forever? Thanks to U.N. treaties and constant military surveillance, the North Pole and Antarctica remain cloaked in government secrecy, both purported “no-fly/no-sail” zones, with several reports of civilian pilots and captains being shooed away and escorted back under threat of violence.
“How far the ice extends; how it terminates; and what exists beyond it, are questions to which no present human experience can reply. All we at present know is, that snow and hail, howling winds, and indescribable storms and hurricanes prevail; and that in every direction ‘human ingress is barred by unsealed escarpments of perpetual ice,’ extending farther than eye or telescope can penetrate, and becoming lost in gloom and darkness.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!” (91)
Earth is like a ring magnet with the north pole in the very center-point and the south "pole" being ALL points along the outer circumference. They claim to know where the "south pole" is, but using a compass you can only know where the north pole is. No matter where you are in Antarctica, the compass will point north towards the north pole and south will always be pointing further outwards along the Antarctica ice-plateau.
This is why they put the little red/white barbershop "south pole" with a globe on it somewhere that they ADMIT isn't the south pole! They didn't want tourists bringing their compasses to the little pole and saying, "hey, wait a minute, this isn't the south pole." So instead they claim "the real south pole" is several hundred meters away from the ceremonial pole they posted, that way you would have to spend hours outside your tour group with a compass scratching your head trying to figure out why the south pole clearly isn't the south pole.
Eric, No, I don't have a problem paying for books, what I'm saying is - since you've put a price on your research you can't throw it away if evidence to the contrary comes to light. You're stuck with it now. If you're not familiar with the pole star "conundrum" (and I only used that term once) you should watch Lord Steven's Pole Star "Comparison" video. This post is titled Flat-Earth Conspiracy Challenge, after all - I'm genuinely interested in your response to a video that claims to make Flat Earth entirely untenable. If the guy is onto something, then he's onto something - it really doesn't matter at all if he claims to be god or not. I'm more interested in the message than the messenger. Show me this post wasn't just an ad for your book and take him on.
If the earth is flat and you were on a airplane. You would fly off the edge of the earth unless you were flying around the circumference of a circular flat plane. If you flew across the radius of the plane theoretically you would fly off the edge of the earth.
Yes Steven, ahem "John," that's how books work. I have done years of research, fact-finding and fact-checking before publishing, don't worry about "contrary evidence coming to light," my entire book IS contrary evidence to the fake spinning-ball earth. You still haven't debunked or even mentioned MY Pole Star Conundrum "John." Refute all my points then I'll watch your, erm Steven's video.
Anonymous, see the Pole Star comments made previously for a full answer to your question. Due to the law of perspective you cannot see the entirety of the heavens from any one vantage point on Earth.
“What can be more common than the observation that, standing at one end of a long row of lamp-posts, those nearest to us seem to be the highest; and those farthest away the lowest; whilst, as we move along towards the opposite end of the series, those which we approach seem to get higher, and those we are leaving behind appear to gradually become lower … It is an ordinary effect of perspective for an object to appear lower and lower as the observer goes farther and farther away from it. Let any one try the experiment of looking at a light-house, church spire, monument, gas lamp, or other elevated object, from a distance of only a few yards, and notice the angle at which it is observed. On going farther away, the angle under which it is seen will diminish, and the object will appear lower and lower as the distance of the observer increases, until, at a certain point, the line of sight to the object, and the apparently uprising surface of the earth upon or over which it stands, will converge to the angle which constitutes the ‘vanishing point’ or the horizon; beyond which it will be invisible.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!” (230-1)
And Michael, yes you are right. East and West are circles, not straight lines. They keep us sailing/flying in circles. If anyone started going in a straight line from wherever on Earth and kept going straight, they would end up in Antarctica and eventually hit the edge/barrier/dome/or continue off into the infinite ice... and perhaps find there are other flat disc worlds along the same plane with their own Sun/Moon/stars encircling etc. Just speculating as that's still a mystery as far as I'm concerned. Peace
Or maybe the earth is round after all. If you travel in a plane in any direction on the earth, you will end up at your point of origin. The earth is round.
If you travel in a plane in any direction on the earth, you will end up at your point of origin.
No, in 2015 no North / South circumnavigation (or any such "straight line" circumnavigation) has ever been completed. The only way the Earth has been circumnavigated is East / West which are circles, not straight lines.
So where do the pyramids and their energy fit into flat earth. Just seen this and anything that NASA says leaves me suspicios. http://survincity.com/2010/10/pyramids-around-the-world-began-to-emit-beams-of/
Hi Eric, u said u r open to debate from non believers so I hope this comment gets through. I will try and debunk some of your specious reasoning.
If planes circumnavigate the earth plane by going around like on a plate then if going east to west they would have to constantly turn right and if going west to east would have to constantly turn left. This is obviously not the case.
Next point about Polaris at the centre of star trails proving the earth is the centre of the universe can also be shown to be bunk. Star trails can only be taken for a maximum of approx 12 hrs while its dark but still give the illusion of stars making a complete revolution because the trails overlap. If the star trails could be captured for a full 24hrs you would see Polaris would not be still in the same spot but had made a small imperfect circle that does not end where it started. This is due to the earth moving less than a degree per 24hrs around the sun. 360 degrees around the sun in 1 year divided by 365 days in a year is slightly less than 1 degree in 1 day. And in 12hrs or less (standard star trail) the earth will move less than 1/2 degree around the sun. This movement is hardly noticeable in a standard star trail giving the illusion that earth is at the center of the universe.
Future experiments might try to get a star trail going for 24, 36hrs to see this slight shift between the days therefore disproving geocentric theories.
As for satellites don't exist. Wow, can you tell me what I'm seeing orbiting in the sky then? The best time to see so called 'non-existent' satellites is just after the sun has set so the sky is getting dark but the sunlight is still able to illuminate the non-existent satellite. Therefore giving a high contrast between the bright satellite and dark sky.
I look forward to hearing your evidence to the contrary.
Hi Eric, the guy in that satellites don't exist video shows such a poor understanding of science. Can I ask what your background in science is?
He said if anyone can explain to him how a satellite made of metal with a melting point less than that of the thermosphere (up to 2000 degrees C) won't melt he would listen. Well it explained it pretty well in Wikipedia under the seeming contradiction that he read out. Maybe he doesn't want to listen or understand? Or maybe he didn't even pass junior science?
Let's say the temp of the thermosphere was 1 million degrees instead of 2000 it would make hardly any difference when only a few atoms in an almost vacuum are making contact with the satellite. You might get a few hundred atoms on the outside surface melt temporarily until the rest of the satellite absorbed the excess heat. Heat being the key issue here not temp. Very high temp but very little heat. Do u know how big a few hundred atoms are? U can't even see it, water off a ducks back.
Again so much of this flat earth conspiracy is based on specious reasoning. It seems to have taken a polarised view of flat earth + geocentric view = god vs globe earth + satellites = no god which has no correlation in reality only faith and a cult like following.
I look forward to hearing your rebuttal as always.
Hi Eric, I know u must b incredibly busy maintaining this website and your other interests, but when important questions r asked pointing out cracks in your theories they should b addressed. I know u have invested a lot of time in your book so understandably might not want to enter into dialogue exposing these cracks.
Your previous comment said rebuttal but I did not get one. The link did not address my question regarding seeing satellites with the naked eye, circumnavigating a flat earth by plane requiring turning either left or right continually, or the issue of the thermosphere not being able to melt metal.
The issue of circumnavigation in a plane on a globe earth according to u requires continually turning down to account for the curve of the earth, so to fix this u replaced the globe earth with a flat earth thinking problem solved, but now u need to either continually turn left or right depending whether going west-east or east-west. So all u have done is swap one problem with another. First crack.
You gave no comment or rebuttal on seeing satellites with the naked eye, and the whole thermosphere not melting metal was sufficiently explained by Wikipedia the important issue being heat not temperature! But if u don't come from a scientific background u might not understand the difference between temperature and heat. Another 2 cracks.
As for the correlation between god requiring a flat earth, and geocentricity I just don't get it please elaborate more. I guess u could say I believe in the standard globe earth heliocentric theory but I still believe in some kind of god or intelligence. I just don't get the connection u r trying to make. Another crack.
Lastly if the universe is infinite then the center should technically b everywhere. I still don't understand how that removes god or makes us any less special!
So many points I could make but will leave it there for now. I look forward to your rebuttal as always.
I discussed satellites, you cannot see them with the naked eye or a telescope, all you can see are moving lights, flying crafts. You cannot see something smaller than a bus hundreds of miles away. And all information about the thermo"sphere" comes from NASA so arguing temperature is just heresay either way. See the following:
Circumnavigation East/West does not involve "constantly turning" but rather constantly going straight with occasional very slight adjustments to stay at right angle to the pole. Keep researching Jason! Peace
Hi Eric, I must say this debate has really degenerated. Every time I bring up a crack in your theory u keep pointing to the same tired information that dosn't address my concerns.
If NASA said the sky was blue would that be wrong because it came from them? This whole specious reasoning thing is becoming a bit ridiculous. Seeing satellites with the naked eye is entirely within the realm of possibility especially just after dusk because of the light object contrasting against the dark sky. Seeing a bus as you say at 300km (low earth orbit) is not a problem when it's illuminated and the background is black.
Instead of providing EVIDENCE of why satellites don't exist u show a video of some scientifically illiterate guy 'disproving' the thermosphere, then u say satellites the size of buses can't b seen from 300km because u said so. They are only moving lights and flying craft because u said so. Where's the EVIDENCE? We just have to take your word for it?
You remind me of a charismatic cult leader appealing to scientifically illiterate followers. It's as if u had a predetermined conclusion and then had to make the evidence fit to support the conclusion, not the other way as it should be. Very unscientific. U accuse the mainstream of pseudo science the very same thing u r doing!
And as always u keep avoiding the central point that your theory revolves around. That a god requires a flat earth and geocentricity. Again what EVIDENCE? We just have to take your word again. Like I said previously I believe in some higher power but the divinity hasn't been beaten out of me just because I believe in a globe earth.
Is the idea of a globe earth, heliocentricity, an infinite universe and god co-existing in harmony such a scary thing? I would like you to elaborate with EVIDENCE the necessity of geocentricity for a god to exist.
Don't get me wrong Eric I agree there are negative forces steering the world in a certain direction, and I like a lot of your previous work. But u have taken 'conspiracy theory' paranoia to a whole new level and gone down the wrong rabbit hole. I will admit when I first viewed all your material it shook my world for a few days until I realised it didn't hold up to scrutiny.
I have an open mind as I'm sure most people in here do but u don't want your mind so open that your brain falls out! Please don't take offence to my comments I don't mean to be offensive I'm in pursuit of truth just as u r. Peace.
You're an indoctrinated NASA cult-member accusing me of being a "charismatic cult leader" when you can't even see through Tyson, Sagan, Aldrin, Newton, Copernicus and all the charismatic Freemasonic cult leaders who have brainwashed you! Of course the truth looks like lies when you've been fed nothing but lies and told it was truth your whole life. Again, keep researching Jason. I'm not that charismatic, but I am absolutely right about the flat, motionless Earth.
Hi Eric, me again. I'm no NASA cult member I have an open mind but as I said not so open that my brain falls out, I go where the EVIDENCE takes me and nothing u have said has any correlation in reality.
For example you said on a flat earth, due to the law of perspective that's why the sun sets into a vanishing point, which if we follow logic according to you the sun should get smaller and smaller and then should disappear into a point above the horizon. This is quite obviously and empirically demonstrated not to be the case. We can observe the sun's path accross the sky and it stays the same size from sunrise to sunset, and secondly it sets below the horizon which shouldn't happen in your flat earth model! First crack.
Secondly you say the moon is not a globe but a disk. This also has no correlation in reality. The phases of the moon i.e crescent, and gibbous moon quite clearly demonstrate the moon to be a globe. If it wasn't a globe a crescent and gibbous moon could not exist! Second crack.
Instead of giving us EVIDENCE of your theory you just give us wild speculation and we just need to take your word for it, even though empirical EVIDENCE shows the standard model to correlate with reality.
I will admit your theory would be quite seductive to scientifically illiterate people. If only the EVIDENCE supported it. Digging out books hundreds of years old to 'prove' your theory is not evidence when empirical EVIDENCE, real evidence says otherwise.
I know u will say I'm brainwashed by NASA, but here's some real empirical EVIDENCE everyone can collect at sunset today. Observe the sun does it get smaller and set above the horizon? Or does it stay the same size and set below the horizon? Your theory has so many holes it's starting to look like swiss cheese.
The Nazi's blamed the Jews for all of their problems, and now you are doing a similar thing trying to blame NASA freemasons for all of the world's problems. I will admit freemasons probably are responsible for a lot of things but this conspiracy theory of yours just goes too far. It's always easier to blame someone else or expect someone else to fix our lives than to look inside and realise our true power and potential. Christianity being another example of this. It all comes back to personal responsibility.
I look forward to your rebuttal as always Eric. Peace.
For the Sun questions, when light of any kind shines through a dense medium it appears larger, or rather gives a greater glare, at a given distance than when it is seen through a lighter medium. This is more remarkable when the medium holds aqueous particles or vapor in solution, as in a damp or foggy atmosphere. You can see this by standing within a few yards of a street lamp, and noticing the size of the light; on going away to many times the distance, the light upon the atmosphere will appear considerably larger. This phenomenon may be noticed, to a greater or less degree, at all times; but when the air is moist and vapory it is more intense. It is evident that at sunrise, and at sunset, the sun's light must shine through a greater length of atmospheric air than at mid-day; besides which, the air near the earth is both more dense, and holds more watery particles in solution, than the higher strata through which the sun shines at noonday; and hence the light must be dilated or magnified, as well as modified in color.
And for your Moon question, the phases don't work in the spinning ball-Earth model, they do in the flat:
Hi Eric, I would say most of the information you gave about Zionism is probably correct but that's all beside the point. I was just making a general observation that it's easier for people to blame other people than realise their own power and take responsibility, such as blaming Jews, Nazis or Freemasons. There is a saying that if you don't have your own plan you will become part of someone else's plan.
The Jews/Zionists aren't the only problem in the world this is also true of Christianity blaming the Jews and expecting Jesus to come and save the world. There seems to be a common theme of blame (Jews killed Jesus and Jesus the scapegoat who takes all our sins away) and then expecting someone else to fix everything (Jesus will return to make everything better). The very opposite of personal responsibility. This is all done to make us dependant on the thing that will make everything 'better', a system of control, by taking our personal responsibility away. This is similar to what your conspiracy theory is doing, blaming Freemasons for everything then expecting everything to be better by somehow understanding that we live in a snow globe looked down upon by god??
Anyway I have nothing good to say about religion, it's the politicization of spirituality. A prison of the mind used to divide and control people.
Besides all that u somehow manage to weasel your way around all the cracks I bring up everytime. U still haven't explained why the sun dosn't follow your flat earth predictions?? According to the flat earth model the sun should shrink into a vanishing point (your words) and 'set' (even though no setting would actually occur) ABOVE the horizon. Sunset implies going below the horizon which in your model it would never do.
In the globe earth model the sun would stay the same size across the sky and actually go below the horizon. How can u explain the sun when it is only half set and you can quite clearly see half the sun above the horizon and half below? In your model it should have shrunk and vanished by now above the horizon.
It seems as if you have bamboozled yourself so severely that you are unable to reconcile reality with your model and are consequently in a state of denial having put so much time and effort into this idea not to mention taking people's money based on a misunderstanding of reality.
As for the moon you have again bamboozled yourself and subsequently had to come up with a convoluted explanation to reconcile reality with your model.
Occums razor is there for a reason and not so we can come up with theocentric snow globe explanations of the world. Even though it makes you feel more special to believe so. You should stick to what u r good at philosophy and stay away from science. You wouldn't go to a chinese restaurant to buy french fries would you?
For what it's worth I genuinely think u r special and appreciate the work u do I just think u have gone down the wrong rabbit hole with this one. Anyone else reading please feel free to join the conversation.
I look forward to your rebuttal as always Eric. Peace.
I just finished watching the last video about the flat earth on your website. At the end it said that LA to Tokyo is the same flight duration as Tokyo to LA. In reality there is about 2 hrs of difference, the Westward headed flight is 2 hrs shorter. If the Earth is not spinning, why would that be?
Hi Eric. I was listening to an interview you did on the higherside chats and one thing that occurred to me was surely if the earth was flat then where ever you were on the planet it would be the same time of day. It couldn't be ,say, night in Australia and daytime in England at the same time.??? Look forward to your reply. Cheers , Bert.
First of all thank you for your diligent research in this area, it has truly been an eye-opening few weeks since I discovered this information, can't remember having my mind feel this blown since I realized 9/11 was a con in 2005 which activated my search for the truth.
Having reviewed the available online material, of which yours is the most useful, followed by Matt Boylan's, I do have some questions, one of which is primary. That one has been brought up in the comments already, but has not been satisfactorily addressed -- the Southern Pole Star conundrum.
If the stars are luminaries revolving around the Earth's North Pole as center of the Universe, we would expect to see ever larger concentric star trails in the night sky the farther South one is located. Instead, we do see the stars rotating around another focal point, to which the nearest star is Sigma Octantis. This phenomenon implies a spherical geometry. My mind is open and it hooks on this point. By this fact, either the planet must be sphere, or the night sky is a sphere rotating around the flat earth.
This geometry twists my brain, an infinite plain contained within a rotating sphere is difficult to picture. Not impossible, but complicated and therefore unlikely.
My other main question is meteorites, but I feel that this and the prior question may be ones that we simply don't have the answers for just yet. The mystery makes it fun though, eh?
I will be buying your book but haven't yet so please excuse my ignorance of pertinent facts you may have referenced therein.
Hello truth seekers. I just realised after several months of analysing all the available data on this subject that there is a way to end this debate once and for all. If the earth is a globe then the sun should take a curved path across the sky from sunrise to sunset. If on the other hand it's a plane then the sun will take a triangular path as the laws of perspective come into effect.
The path of the sun could be recorded with some kind of time lapse photography from sunrise to sunset. If the earth is a globe this curve effect would be most noticeable below the tropic of capricorn and above the tropic of cancer as you would be looking at the suns path from the side which should be curved. If you were to look at the suns path between the tropics you would be looking straight up and its path would be straight and unable to give us the effect we are looking for. If the earth is flat then time lapse photography taken either above the tropic of cancer or below the tropic of Capricorn should give us a triangular path.
Do u have any objections to discovering the ultimate truth of your theory Eric?
hey eric I just wanted to let you know that the whole flat earth idea Is a fact, and I thank you for opening my eyes to see that! I personally believe in the bible and a higher power and your evidence supports the creation that was described by GOD hiding what the earth actually looks like hides God and places a higher power at the bottom while raising nasa and all the freemason beliefs to the top! the only sad thing is that this deception is supposed to work therefore no matter what people will continue to believe in what nasa has taught them! you have a supporter right here thanks bro -DRANIKSOUF
It has been a year since I stumbled upon the "Flat Earth Conspiracy". It has been a wonderful adventure discovering that our beloved earth is flat, and our world is the center of creation. Thanks for all the videos and books. It truly shook the foundations of my world.
I think most people would grasp this concept better if they could place themselves more accurately as to where we are in the current situation. According to the best of my ability to discern we are in a quasi nuclear[ close to the center] universe field near the origin core universe. This origin core universe first family as part of a natural progression found the sentient calculus instantiated high level numbers that represent sentients and were again part of the natural progression hijacked. The hijackers were themselves hijacked a few times until we reached a stable hegemony of the hijackers over the known instantiated plane. They branched out from the origin core universe exploring the supraverse cracking new universes, that gets boring so as part of a natural progression they crack new universes in such a way as to hopefully create a religious relic at inception [akin to building a house with nuclear bombs], this leads to universes being with cracked with flawed physics. This is one such universe, we are missing the destructive force portion of Universal Rewrite. When you roll a ball across the table a physical process is destroying the ball and recreating it very close by. In this universe the destructive force was missing so they provide it artificially, it is also known as a natural containment universe. This is where they put on the thieves and monsters they've found in the sentient calculus. If/when they are done with it, they simply stop providing the service of the destructive force and it collapses back into a cosmic soup of trails. There is a slight chance that a foreign entity could quantum entangly navigate to someplace close by where these homegrown thievery systems are generating data. If so, they wouldn't want them to be able to peer directly upon the world and see all the torture and torment going on. Again part of the natural progression, if you see a planet it's one thing to look at it on the surface[ receive light from it], yet to deep scan the entire block of supraversal space and examine every bit of it would be intrusive. So they put this thievery system INSIDE a rock, with a few harmless little bases with non-thieves on the outside to say look we're life "don't scan us it would be rude". Meanwhile in the interior deep under several hundred layers of crust/hull earth is a hollow concave sphere with a flat earth sitting on the bottom and buffering us from the wall is antarctica.
Shills and trolls abound here. Reading the comments proves not only are you right on Eric, but your really pissing off the powers that fight truth. I bought all your books and find them excellent reading. Those of us that know understand the whiny tribe behind the lies... we also understand evil and its grip on falsehood. Please keep it up brother. Also I do Wing Tsun ( leon tings) and I'm 3rd level learning dummy and Chi Sau:) nothing but love bro. And remember.... the more looneys that attack you means the more your irritating pure EVIL... keep it up. John and Jason you are obviously idiots and shills.... its apparent to anyone who studies truth.
I need some help understanding something. The point on the horizon where the sun sets in say May and December are actually 23.5degrees apart... and I have personally noted this where I live. Is it that there is a variation of 23.5 degrees in the suns movement throughout the year... please help me with this.
Posts
70 comments:
Kudos to this diligent author. A honest approach, carefully weighted arguments and continuum of works from early pioneers of Reality.
Rinon Hoxha,
Author of: With Your Step Towards Your Liberty.
I finished The Flat Earth Conspiracy a few weeks ago and I've been an avid reader of your blog, Atlantean Conspiracy dot com, for about 6 years.
You have probably been the single most influential factor in opening my mind. I truly believe I am now a better person, due to the knowledge I've gained from your work.
...There's one thing that I hope you can help me with though. For me it's not hard to reevaluate my opinion and change it. I used to think the earth was round and never gave it a second thought. But after reading your book, I realize the only reason I believed the world was round was because that's what I was told. Meaning that opinion was never truly my own. And with the knowledge I have, I can honestly decide for myself that I believe the earth is flat.
Now maybe my mind is just more opened than most, maybe because I'm young, maybe because I've spent a lot of time with our friend Mary Jane. I'm not really sure. But how can I get others to realize that if the only reason they believe something, is because that's what they were told, then it's not really their opinion?
...When your young you don't have the knowledge to make your own opinions. Your only choice is to believe what you are told, because you trust those who are telling you these things. But once you reach a certain age, you should be able to form your own opinion based on knowledge and facts....its just so hard to get people to do that sometimes. I suppose for some, ignorance truly is bliss.
Thanks so much guys! It's certainly difficult to express these ideas and open people's minds to this suppressed, taboo information. The Flat-Earth Conspiracy book and documentary are currently two of the most valuable tools I've found for helping awaken anyone who will sit down and watch/read. Many people are so sure of their ball-Earth beliefs, however, they refuse to do even that on the grounds that they "know better" and you are "wasting their time." Just keep planting seeds and researching further, eventually the truth will pass people's 3-stage defense mechanisms:
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Arthur Schopenhauer
Eric
Long time reader, sparse commentator.
I've watched with great interest your discussions through your comments page.
mlong12's opinion is not far from my own.. in the sense that he is taking time to form his own opinion, rather than regurgitating others views as his own..
Wherein the problem lies. My ball earth opinion is just a belief that has been indoctrinated to me throughout my life. A belief has no need for facts, it is just a belief.
The flat earth theory seems to need a similar thing, a leap of faith, if you will. Regardless of my doing a few archaic home experiments to prove/ disprove the flat earth/ ball earth. These experiments merely show that the results are conclusive with the original experiments findings.. they neither prove or disprove if the earth is convex, concave, hollow, round..BANANA SHAPED..
I have watched many videos on many things, some of your videos included, and I must say, watching your interview with a guy from NZ/Oz (sorry, guys " down under", no offence meant, can't remember which)
and reading your blog has shown me without a doubt what a beautiful, tranquil, spiritual being you are. I mean that with the most sincerity.
So my real question is, why? Why dupe us with the shape of our world? To what aims/ ends?
What difference does it make to every-man/woman?
A conspiracy this monolithic would need such a vast amount of collaboration, from every govt. in the world.
In the days when the flat earth belief was the accepted "norm" was there not just as much deceit, sexual deviation and subversion, murder and war, torturous conditions, spiritual belief and religious vigour, compassion and empathy?
What has been achieved by the so called invention of the ball earth myth?
Thank you as ever, for your commitment, determination and bravery in shining a light into the darkest forgotten corners of mankind's existence.
"A seeker of the truth is infinitely better company than someone who believes they have found it". (Terry Pratchett)
Hi Eric,
The thing with debating ball-earthers is they don't put the research in beforehand and as such don't offer much in terms of constructive dialogue - as I'm sure you've encountered, they'll just pass it off, hide behind the numbers of people that agree with them and offhandedly reject any truly scientific evidence you present. I think you'll have a far more interesting and productive debate with a concave-earth believer. Or maybe a three-way-dance to settle it once and for all (in our eyes). From what I can gather, Lord Steven Christ is always on the lookout for a debate - have you tried him?
Cheers, John
Thanks for the comments Michael and John! I appreciate your compliments regarding the Vinny Eastwood interview as well. As for your question of motive behind the conspiracy, I have explained as follows:
NASA is the biggest black budget black hole in existence sucking in over 30 billion dollars taxpayer money for the fake moon landings alone. But it is about much more than just money. You claim "a flat Earth theory cannot be used to devalue our spiritual sevles," yet this is exactly what has happened.
The modern Atheist Big Bang Heliocentric Globe-Earth Chance Evolution paradigm spiritually controls humanity by removing God, or any sort of intelligent design, and replacing purposeful divine creation with haphazard random cosmic coincidence.
“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." -Morris Kline
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.
Our eyes and experience tell us the Earth is flat and motionless, and everything in the sky revolves around us. When we cease to believe our own eyes and experience we must prostrate ourselves at the feet of the very pseudo-scientists who blinded us, to treat them as "experts," astronomical "priests" who have special knowledge only they can access, like the Hubble telescope. By brainwashing us of something so gigantic and fundamental, it makes every other kind of lesser indoctrination a piece of cake!
Earth being the flat, fixed center of the universe, around which everything in the heavens revolves denotes a special importance and significance not only the Earth, but to us humans, the most intelligent among the intelligent designer's designs. By turning Earth into a spinning ball thrown around the Sun and shot through infinite space from a Godless Big Bang they turn humanity into a random meaningless, purposeless accident of a blind, dumb universe! It's trauma-based mind-control! They beat the divinity out of us with their mental manipulations.
And the end-game of this deception is world domination which they plan on ushering in based on a fake alien invasion like in ID4 and other sci-fi movies. A hundreds years ago nobody believed in "aliens." Nowadays everyone's sure they exist because of NASA, Disclosure Project and other propaganda programs:
Alien Invasion Agenda Exposed
Hey John, you're absolutely right about debating with ball-Earthers. Most of them have no idea why they believe what they believe, and the few who are up-to-date on the latest lies just believe with that much more vigor that they must be right. There couldn't possibly be a conspiracy without their knowing! As for our Lord and Savior Steven Christ, he actually came onto one of my first flat Earth videos and said, "You think MY Earth is flat? WTF is wrong with you? Get in fucking gear and repent, you are in my concave world."
To which I replied: "Oh my heavens, it's Lord Steven Christ, Messiah-complexed crypto-Mason of the Concave Earth theory! Using profanity to preach repentance makes about as much sense as the lame controlled-opposition psy-op you run. How's that whole "Lord Christ" gig doing for you? A lot of people like really buying it and respecting you for it? Oh, really, no? Well, don't worry man, it's too late to back out now, you saw what it did to David Icke, might as well just go full-on and call yourself Son of the Godhead Lord Buddha Mohammed Steven Christ Allah Krishna McDonald Sandwich, you know, because fuck what people think, they're in YOUR concave world Steven! They need to fucking repent! Yeah man, Yeah. I like you. You're like, so enlightened and shit."
Then he said, and Matt Boylan has confirmed he threatens many with this, that he "is going to send the NSA my details."
Hi Eric,
Thanks for the reply. I was put on the NSA watchlist myself when I last tried interacting with Lord Steven - I do, however, think that super-inflated ego of his is just an act/form of self-defense. Having watched a few of his Skype conversations he's posted on yt he does seem much more cordial "face-to-face" and less inclined to bring up his perceived "godness". Putting his living son of God insanity to one side I think he has some fairly interesting points to make about the shape of the earth. Even if he is a crypto-mason surely you can still see the benefit in 'reading between the lies' so to speak?
The Earth is provably not concave though John, what interesting points do you think he makes? He cannot even tell you the supposed upward curvature rate or explain why we cannot see or measure it. Also for Michael, I copied/pasted that "motive" answer and just saw it included a part that says, "You claim "a flat Earth theory cannot be used to devalue our spiritual sevles," yet this is exactly what has happened. Sorry, that was directed at someone else not you! Peace
Eric
Thank you for your excellent, eloquent reply.
All that remains to be said is, how do we prove, without doubt, our beautiful Mother Earth is NOT a ball.
Terry Pratchett's fantastic work of fiction, "Small Gods" has a brilliant finale which demonstrates the best way for the masses to change their perception is, as you say in your reply, to see with their own eyes. To see and witness an event that is without doubt real, is all it takes..
Even in this cynical, jaded pardigm of psychological repression that our physical and mental selves have become trapped in, seeing is believing.
I want nothing more than to believe wholeheartedly the teaching of our earths shape has been bent out of all recognition. I want to see it with my own eyes.
Perhaps this cataclysmic event would allow the proletariat to finally believe everything is not what it seems and the illusion of reality created through manipulation is just that, an illusion. I have often thought all it would take is one piece of irrefutable evidence (preferably live to the world!) would be enough.
I would love that evidence to be the very shape of our world, our home, our everything.
Peace to you
One love x
You constantly confuse the flat earth and the heliocentric arguments. These are two separate theories, and while your explanation of the 'reason Masons lied about flat earth' only mention the 'center of the universe' side of that. I get that. Geocentric vs Heliocentric
Why lie that it is a ball vs flat?
Fresh finding: What is the meaning of Rainbow?
http://www.zgjidhja.com/?p=1258
R.
New Approach to find the shape of Earth:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=va5EMPqh5o0
R.
Hi, Eric
Thank you for explaining all the questions. But yet I have another.
If the earth was shaped like in the U.N. flags, wouldn't people traveling in the southern hemisphere need to go on a longer distance? People will notice this and all the masonic scam will be quite easy to disproven.
Thank you.
Hi Eric,
I'm certainly no expert, a few months ago I didn't even know the shape of the earth was in question. I'm still trying to piece it all together in my head. I suppose his video on Pole Star Comparison was the one I found most interesting. Have you seen that one?
Thanks, John.
I like the comments lol. Actually that guy who calls himself Lord Steven Christ was the first one i listened to before he started saying he was the son of god or some crazy religious statement. The flat earth theory has much more evidence . These new age movements are decieving alot of people talking about the universe and how many planets are in different galxies, all types of nonsense. I knew it was something special about your site, its like it was fate for me to keep exploring for the truth. NASA are a bunch of Freemason liars who work togeather with the powers that were. The difference I see in your work and others is, your evidence is much more solid and accurate than I see in other works. I also believe what people call universes and galxies are just different dimensions that you can explore in the astral realms.
Say our world is a kind of enclosure - as you see it, a flat disk with a dome over it - where does the idea that it's the "center of the universe" come from? Why would whoever built this stop at just one? We could be in one of many such "domes".
Hi Eric and all,
I would like to announce here, right now,the creation of a new website,inspired by Eric's work:
aplanetruth.info.
This website will hopefully compliment others work and provide a vehicle for research inquiry and self discovery.
Comments welcome for discussion purposes but please keep tone and words respectful and kind to those of us searching for truths wherever it may lead us.
Thanks Michael, Anon, I've answered your question you keep asking more than once, I'm not answering you the same thing over and over. If you don't like my answer it doesn't change by continually asking. Thanks for the links Rinon! And for the second Anon, you are right:
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. In other words, the circumference at10 degrees South latitude would comprise a smaller circle than at the equator, 20 degrees South latitude would comprise a circle smaller than 10, and so on. 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. 10 degrees South latitude will comprise a larger circle than the equator, 20 degrees South latitude will comprise a circle larger than 10, and so on. Likewise, if the Earth were a globe, lines of longitude would bubble out at the equator while converging at both poles. Whereas if the Earth is an extended plane, lines of longitude should simply expand straight outwards from the North Pole. So which is actually the case?
“Upon the principle, as taught by Scripture and common observation, that the world is not a Planet, but consists of vast masses of land stretched out upon level seas, the North being the centre of the system, it is evident that the degrees of longitude will gradually increase in width the whole way from the North centre to the icy boundary of the great Southern Circumference. In consequence of the difference between the actual extent of longitudes and that allowed for them by the Nautical Authorities, which difference, at the latitude of the Cape of Good Hope, has been estimated to amount to a great number of miles, many Ship-masters have lost their reckoning, and many vessels have been wrecked. Ship-captains, who have been educated in the globular theory, know not how to account for their getting so much out of their course in Southern latitudes, and generally put it down to currents; but this reason is futile, for although currents may exist, they do not usually run in opposite directions, and vessels are frequently wrecked, whether sailing East or West.” -David Wardlaw Scott, “Terra Firma” (102)
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, some days as much as 29 miles. Lieutenant Charles Wilkes commanded a United States Navy exploration expedition to the Antarctic from August 18th, 1838 to June 10th, 1842, almost four years spent “exploring and surveying the Southern ocean.” In his journals Lieutenant Wilkes also mentioned being consistently east of his reckoning, sometimes over 20 miles in less than 18 hours.
“The commanders of these various expeditions were, of course, with their education and belief in the earth's rotundity, unable to conceive of any other cause for the differences between log and chronometer results than the existence of currents. But one simple fact is entirely fatal to such an explanation, viz., that when the route taken is east or west the same results are experienced. The water of the southern region cannot be running in two opposite directions at the same time; and hence, although various local and variable currents have been noticed, they cannot be shown to be the cause of the discrepancies so generally observed in high southern latitudes between time and log results. The conclusion is one of necessity, forced upon us by the sum of the evidence collected that the degrees of longitude in any given southern latitude are larger than the degrees in any latitude nearer to the northern center; thus proving the already more than sufficiently demonstrated fact that the earth is a plane, having a northern center, in relation to which degrees of latitude are concentric, and from which degrees of longitude are diverging lines, continually increasing in their distance from each other as they are prolonged towards the great glacial southern circumference.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not a Globe!” (261)
“February 11th, 1822, at noon, in latitude 65.53. S. our chronometers gave 44 miles more westing than the log in three days. On 22nd of April (1822), in latitude 54.16. S. our longitude by chronometers was 46.49, and by D.R. (dead reckoning) 47° 11´: On 2nd May (1822), at noon, in latitude 53.46. S., our longitude by chronometers was 59° 27´, and by D.R. 61° 6´. October 14th, in latitude 58.6, longitude by chronometers 62° 46´, by account 65° 24´. In latitude 59.7. S., longitude by chronometers was 63° 28´, by account 66° 42´. In latitude 61.49. S., longitude by chronometers was 61° 53´, by account 66° 38´.” -Captain James Weddell, “Voyages Towards the South Pole”
“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,’ under circumstances which until now, have baffled every satisfactory explanation.” -Rev. Thomas Milner, “Tour Through Creation”
The equatorial circumference of the supposed ball-Earth is said to be 24,900 statute or 21,600 nautical miles. A nautical mile is the distance, following the supposed curvature of the Earth, from one minute of latitude to the next. A statue mile is the straight line distance between the two, not taking into account Earth’s alleged curvature.
The “Australian Handbook, Almanack, Shippers’ and Importers’ Directory” states that the distance between Sydney and Nelson is 1400 nautical or 1633 statute miles. Allowing a more than sufficient 83 miles as the distance for rounding Cape Farewell and sailing up Tasman Bay to Nelson leaves 1550 statute miles as the straight-line distance from the meridian of Sydney to the meridian of Nelson. Their given difference in longitude is 22 degrees 2’14”. Therefore if 22 degrees 2’14” out of 360 is 1550 miles, the entirety measures 25,182 miles. This is larger than the Earth is said to be at the equator, and 4262 miles greater than it would be at Sydney’s southern latitude on a globe of said proportions! One 360th part of 25,182 gives 70 miles as the distance between each degree of longitude at Sydney’s 34 degree Southern latitude. On a globe 25,000 miles in equatorial circumference, however, degrees of longitude at 34 degrees latitude would be only 58 miles, a full 12 miles per degree less than reality. This perfectly explains why Ross and other navigators in the deep South experienced 12+ mile daily discrepancies between their reckoning and reality, the farther South travelled the farther the divide.
“From near Cape Horn, Chile to Port Philip in Melbourne, Australia the distance is 9,000 miles. These two places are 143 degrees of longitude from each other. Therefore the whole extent of the Earth’s circumference is a mere arithmetical question. If 143 degrees make 9,000 miles, what will be the distance made by the whole 360 degrees into which the surface is divided? The answer is, 22,657 miles; or, 8357 miles more than the theory of rotundity would permit. It must be borne in mind, however, that the above distances are nautical measure, which, reduced to statute miles, gives the actual distance round the Southern region at a given latitude as 26,433 statute miles; or nearly 1,500 miles more than the largest circumference ever assigned to the Earth at the equator.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Earth Not a Globe, 2nd Edition” (52)
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.
“The above calculations are, as already stated, only proximate; but as liberal allowances have been made for irregularities of route, etc., they are sufficiently accurate to prove that the degrees of longitude, as we proceed south-wards, do not diminish, as they would upon a globe, but expand or increase, as they must if the earth is a plane; or, in other words, the farthest point, or greatest latitude south, must have the greatest circumference and degrees of longitude.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not a Globe!” (258)
Hey John, no I'm not familiar with that. Thanks Rahsaan, Rampler, check out the following:
Earth is the Center of the Universe
The Hindu cosmology actually does say that there are an infinite number of "snow-globe" universes complete with a flat Earth/dome, so that certainly is a possibility. And Jamie Lee, great job once again with your work! Everyone be sure to check out his site there. It's shaping up to be great. Peace
A few questions. If the earth is flat then what causes the solar and lunar eclipses? What causes the phases of the moon? Wouldn't the sun when it sets on the horizon be elliptical vs a circle if it shines as a spotlight?
Eric
I am a filmmaker who is making a flat earth film
Please email me filmstudios@icloud.com
Subject line- flat earth
Thanks
T.
Thanks T. Patrick, Anon, 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. The idea is that 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.
“According to the globular theory, a lunar eclipse occurs when the sun, earth, and moon are in a direct line; but it is on record that since about the fifteenth century over fifty eclipses have occurred while both sun and moon have been visible above the horizon.” -F.H. Cook, “The Terrestrial Plane”
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. The Greenwich Royal Observatory recorded that “during the lunar eclipses of July 17th, 1590, November 3rd, 1648, June 16th, 1666, and May 26th, 1668 the moon rose eclipsed whilst the sun was still above the horizon.” McCulluch’s Geography recorded that “on September 20th, 1717 and April 20th, 1837 the moon appeared to rise eclipsed before the sun had set.” Sir Henry Holland also noted in his “Recollections of Past Life” the April 20th, 1837 phenomena where “the moon rose eclipsed before the sun set.” The Daily Telegraph recorded it happening again on January 17th, 1870, then again in July of the same year, and it continues to happen during lunar eclipses to this day. Therefore the eclipsor of the Moon cannot be the Earth/Earth's shadow and another explanation must be sought.
Solar eclipses are simply the Moon passing affront the Sun just as it appears. The phases of the Moon are NOT explained by the current model, see the following:
Flat Earth Not Fazed by Moon
Flat Earth and the Artist with the Moon
Flat Earth and the Silver Moon
As for your assertion that the Sun should change into an ellipse as it appears to set, what do you base this on?
Hi Eric,
One question, how do the seasons work with the flat earth ?
The Sun and Moon luminaries revolve around the Earth once every 24 hours illuminating like spotlights the areas over which they pass. 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. Their flawed current model even 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 much of the Earth. They say due to the ball-Earth’s tilt, different places receive different amounts of direct sunlight and that is what produces the seasonal and temperature changes. This makes little sense, however, because if the Sun’s heat travels over ninety million miles to reach the ball-Earth, how could a slight tilt, a mere few thousand miles maximum, negate the Sun’s ninety million mile journey, giving us simultaneous tropical summers and Antarctic winters?
“The earth is a stretched-out structure, which diverges from the central north in all directions towards the south. The equator, being midway between the north center and the southern circumference, divides the course of the sun into north and south declination. The longest circle round the world which the sun makes, is when it has reached its greatest southern declination. Gradually going northwards the circle is contracted. In about three months after the southern extremity of its path has been reached, the sun makes a circle round the equator. Still pursuing a northerly course as it goes round and above the world, in another three months the greatest northern declination is reached, when the sun again begins to go towards the south. In north latitudes, when the sun is going north, it rises earlier each day, is higher at noon and sets later; while in southern latitudes at the same time, the sun as a matter of course rises later, reaches a lesser altitude at noon and sets earlier. In northern latitudes during the southern summer, say from September to December, the sun rises later each day, is lower at noon and sets earlier; while in the south he rises earlier, reaches a higher altitude at noon, and sets later each day. This movement round the earth daily is the cause of the alternations of day and night; while his northerly and southerly courses produce the seasons. When the sun is south of the equator it is summer in the south and winter in the north; and vice versa. The fact of the alternation of the seasons flatly contradicts the Newtonian delusion that the earth revolves in an orbit round the sun. It is said that summer is caused by the earth being nearest the sun, and winter by its being farthest from the sun. But if the reader will follow the argument in any text book he will see that according to the theory, when the earth is nearest the sun there must be summer in both northern and southern latitudes; and in like manner when it is farthest from the sun, it must be winter all over the earth at the same time, because the whole of the globe-earth would then be farthest from the sun!!! In short, it is impossible to account for the recurrence of the seasons on the assumption that the earth is globular and that it revolves in an orbit around the sun.” -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (124-125)
“The seasons are caused by the Sun’s circuit round the Earth in a spiral ecliptic. In the Winter Solstice (December 21st), the Sun is vertical over the Tropic of Capricorn. Looking South from London, he appears to make a small circuit in the Southern sky, during the same period he is seen to cross the sky at almost overhead in Cape Town, thus causing Summer in the Southern Hemisphere. In the Summer Solstice (June 21st), the Sun is vertical over the Tropic of Cancer, (nearly overhead in London), while looking North from Cape Town, he appears to make a small circuit in the Northern sky, causing Winter in the Southern and Summer in the Northern Hemisphere.” -E. Eschini, “Foundations of Many Generations” (7)
Thanks for the response. The reason my brain wants to think the sun would appear elliptical on the horizon is that; the sun shines like a spotlight then it would be similar to looking at a flashlight. If I'm looking at a flashlight straight on it will be a perfect circle. Now if I move the flashlight a significant distance to the side the light will now have an elliptical appearance. Is the sun a sphere, just much less intense around the none earth facing edges?
So the moon is actually slightly closer then the sun and passes in front for a solar eclipse? Lunar eclipse and moon phases are yet not fully understood?
Thank you for your time and answers.
Dave
Eric,
What do you think Bruce Lee was getting at when he was talking about remaining formless?
As soon as you decide to put a price on your research you become symbiotically attached to it - you lose your formlessness and can no longer roll with the punches. Despite what new evidence may come to light you can’t toss away your flat earth beliefs now because that would be like a knife in the back to anyone who lost money on the book. I think before you go on accepting money for your flat earth research you should address the pole star conundrum and as a courtesy to those that have already given you money you should be more open to debating Lord Steven Christ lest your integrity be called into question.
Hey Dave, the Sun and a flashlight clearly have very different properties which make them an unfit comparison here. Look at the picture of the Sun here on the title banner of the IFERS: http://ifers.boards.net The light is not unidirectional like a flashlight, it seems to shoot out in all directions from a center point, unlike any other light we could try and use to imitate it. The Sun and Moon are not densely physical and so able to pass through or right by one another in a way that solid spheres could not.
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! On March 7th, 1794, four astronomers (3 in Norwich, 1 in London) wrote in “The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Astronomical Society” that they “saw a star in the dark part of the moon, which had not then attained the first quadrature; and from the representations which are given the star must have appeared very far advanced upon the disc.” Sir James South of the Royal Observatory in Kensington wrote in a letter to the Times newspaper April 7, 1848, that, "On the 15th of March, 1848, when the moon was seven and a half days old, I never saw her unillumined disc so beautifully. On my first looking into the telescope a star of about the 7th magnitude was some minutes of a degree distant from the moon's dark limb. I saw that its occultation by the moon was inevitable … The star, instead of disappearing the moment the moon's edge came in contact with it, apparently glided on the moon's dark face, as if it had been seen through a transparent moon; or, as if a star were between me and the moon … I have seen a similar apparent projection several times … The cause of this phenomenon is involved in impenetrable mystery." In the monthly notices of the Royal Astronomical Society for June 8, 1860, Thomas Gaunt stated that the "Occultation of Jupiter by the moon, on the 24th of May, 1860, was seen with an achromatic of 3.3 inches aperture, 50 inches focus; the immersion with a power of 50, and the emersion with a power of 70. At the immersion I could not see the dark limb of the moon until the planet appeared to touch it, and then only to the extent of the diameter of the planet; but what I was most struck with was the appearance on the moon as it passed over the planet. It appeared as though the planet was a dark object, and glided on to the moon instead of behind it; and the appearance continued until the planet was hid, when I suddenly lost the dark limb of the moon altogether.” I have personally also seen stars through the edge of the waxing/waning Moon. It actually happens fairly often; if you are diligent and specifically observing for the phenomenon on starry nights you can occasionally see it even with the naked eye.
“During a partial solar eclipse the sun's outline has many times been seen through the body of the moon. But those who have been taught to believe that the moon is a solid opaque sphere, are ever ready with ‘explanations,’ often of the most inconsistent character, rather than acknowledge the simple fact of semi-transparency. Not only has this been proved by the visibility of the sun's outline through segments, and sometimes the very centre of the moon, but often, at new moon, the outline of the whole, and even the several shades of light on the opposite and illuminated part have been distinctly seen. In other words we are often able to see through the dark side of the moon's body to light on the other side.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!” (337)
“That the moon is not a perfectly opaque body, but a crystallized substance, is shown from the fact that when a few hours old or even at quarter we can through the unilluminated portion see the light shining on the other side. Stars have also been observed through her surface!” -J. Atkinson, “Earth Review Magazine”
John, do you contact all authors complaining that you have to pay money for their books? I don't have "flat Earth beliefs," I know the Earth is flat/motionless and have proven it beyond any shadow of a doubt to everyone who has read my book. Unless you're just Lord ConCave himself here calling yourself "John," (which wouldn't surprise me in the least) I must say you are the first person I've ever heard of who would question my credibility over his! You say:
I think that super-inflated ego of his is just an act/form of self-defense.
Putting his living son of God insanity to one side...
Why would you put his "super-inflated ego" and "living son of God insanity to one side," as if his huge ego and messiah-complex are somehow irrelevant to the issue of his integrity? They are central to the issue, not irrelevant.
He does seem much more cordial "face-to-face" and less inclined to bring up his perceived "godness"
I think he has some fairly interesting points to make about the shape of the earth. Even if he is a crypto-mason surely you can still see the benefit in 'reading between the lies' so to speak?
No, there is no benefit "reading between the lies" or a liar. You expose lies and liars, not give them credence and attention by "debating" them. A conversation between Lord Cave and I would be a one-sided massacre, not a debate.
As for your "Pole Star Conundrum" you keep bringing up, I don't know what it is, but here's a real Polaris "conundrum" which proves the Earth is flat, motionless, and everything in the sky revolves around us:
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, heliocentric astronomers cannot adequately explain how Polaris manages to always remain almost perfectly aligned straight above the North Pole.
If the globe-Earth was really spinning West-East 1,000 mph, orbiting the Sun counter-clockwise at 67,000 mph, spiraling around the outer-arms of the Milky Way at 500,000 mph, while shooting through the Universe at 670,000,000 mph, how is it even conceptually possible that Polaris, 2 quadrillion miles away, day after day, year after year, always maintains its alignment straight above the North Pole!? That would mean from 2 quadrillion miles away, Polaris would have to be perfectly mirroring Earth’s several simultaneous wobbling, spinning, spiraling, and shooting motions. Polaris would have to be shooting the same direction through the Universe at exactly 670,000,000 mph; it would have to be following the same 500,000 mph, 225 million year spiral around the Milky Way, and mirroring the same 67,000 mph, 365 day orbit around our Sun! Or, the Earth is stationary - as common sense and everyday experience testifies.
“It is supposed in the regular course of the Newtonian theory that the Earth is, in June, about 190 millions of miles (190,000,000) away from its position in December. Now, 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.” -William Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe” (80)
Star Trails Prove Earth is the Center of the Universe
Not only this, but viewed from a ball-Earth, Polaris, situated almost straight 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 approximately 23.5 degrees South latitude.
“If the Earth is a sphere and the pole star hangs over the northern axis, it would be impossible to see it for a single degree beyond the equator, or 90 degrees from the pole. The line-of-sight would become a tangent to the sphere, and consequently several thousand miles out of and divergent from the direction of the pole star. Many cases, however, are on record of the north polar star being visible far beyond the equator, as far even as the tropic of Capricorn.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Earth Not a Globe, 2nd Edition” (41)
“The astronomers' theory of a globular Earth necessitates the conclusion that, if we travel south of the equator, to see the North Star is an impossibility. Yet it is well known this star has been seen by navigators when they have been more than 20 degrees south of the equator. This fact, like hundreds of other facts, puts the theory to shame, and gives us a proof that the Earth is not a globe.” -William Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe” (71)
To account for this glaring problem in their model, desperate heliocentrists since the late 19th century have claimed the ball-Earth actually tilts a convenient 23.5 degrees back on its vertical axis. Even this brilliant revision to their theory cannot account for the visibility of many other constellations though. 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. 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. 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! An observer on a ball-Earth, regardless of any tilt or inclination, should not logically be able to see this far.
“Another thing is certain, that from within the equator the north pole star, and the constellations Ursa Major, Ursa Minor, and many others, can be seen from every meridian simultaneously; whereas in the south, from the equator, neither the so-called south pole star, nor the remarkable constellation of the Southern Cross, can be seen simultaneously from every meridian, showing that all the constellations of the south - pole star included - sweep over a great southern arc and across the meridian, from their rise in the evening to their setting in the morning. But if the earth is a globe, Sigma Octantis, a south pole star, and the Southern Cross, a southern circumpolar constellation, they would all be visible at the same time from every longitude on the same latitude, as is the case with the northern pole star and the northern circumpolar constellations. Such, however, is not the case.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!” (286)
Some heliocentrists have even 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. 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.
“If we select a flat street a mile long, containing a row of lamps, it will be noticed that from where we stand the lamps gradually decline to the ground, the last one being apparently quite on the ground. Take the lamp at the end of the street and walk away from it a hundred yards, and it will appear to be much nearer the ground than when we were close to it; keep on walking away from it and it will appear to be gradually depressed until it is last seen on the ground and then disappears. Now, according to the astronomers, the whole mile was only depressed about eight inches from one end to the other, so that this 8 in. could not account for the enormous depression of the light as we recede from it. This proves that the depression of the Pole Star can and does take place in relation to a flat surface, simply because we increase our distance from it, the same as from the street lamp. In other words, the further away we get from any object above us, as a star for example, the more it is depressed, and if we go far enough it will sink (or appear to sink) to the horizon and then disappear. The writer has tried the street lamp many times with the same result.” -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (34)
Thank you for the response. I'm having trouble comprehending the sun and moon. Everything else makes perfect sense to me. I'll just keep looking at and studying it and one day it should click.
You definitely seem like a guy with integrity, so I'm going to go ahead a buy your book. Perhaps in the prosess of reading it things will come together for me.
On a side note. Satalites. If they don't exist, how is it we have dish network, satalite radio, ect. Is there some kind of baloon they put up there?
Thanks
Dave
Thanks so much for the support Dave! All supposed "satellite" technology is operated via ground based towers and technologies. Digital "Dish TV" IS analog signal just sent in a condensed package which mini-dishes pointed at the nearest tower pick up far better than rabbit-ears can. That is why most dishes point at an inclination of 45 degrees or less, when in reality if they were receiving signal from over 100 miles up in space, most dishes would point more or less straight up. Yet there are NO dishes which point straight up. It is all explained towards the end of the following video:
Satellite Hoax - Satellites Do Not Exist!
Ok, if we live on a flat plane how come no explorer in history has found and accurately documented the edge? Were the south pole explorations hoaxes as well?
In 1773 Captain Cook became the first modern explorer known to have breached the Antarctic Circle and reached the ice barrier. During three voyages, lasting three years and eight days, Captain Cook and crew sailed a total of 60,000 miles along the Antarctic coastline never once finding an inlet or path through or beyond the massive glacial wall! Captain Cook wrote: “The ice extended east and west far beyond the reach of our sight, while the southern half of the horizon was illuminated by rays of light which were reflected from the ice to a considerable height. It was indeed my opinion that this ice extends quite to the pole, or perhaps joins some land to which it has been fixed since creation.”
On October 5th, 1839 another explorer, James Clark Ross began a series of Antarctic voyages lasting a total of 4 years and 5 months. Ross and his crew sailed two heavily armored warships thousands of miles, losing many men from hurricanes and icebergs, looking for an entry point beyond the southern glacial wall. Upon first confronting the massive barrier Captain Ross wrote of the wall, “extending from its eastern extreme point as far as the eye could discern to the eastward. It presented an extraordinary appearance, gradually increasing in height, as we got nearer to it, and proving at length to be a perpendicular cliff of ice, between one hundred and fifty feet and two hundred feet above the level of the sea, perfectly flat and level at the top, and without any fissures or promontories on its even seaward face. We might with equal chance of success try to sail through the cliffs of Dover, as to penetrate such a mass.”
“Yes, but we can circumnavigate the South easily enough,’ is often said by those who don't know, The British Ship Challenger recently completed the circuit of the Southern region - indirectly, to be sure - but she was three years about it, and traversed nearly 69,000 miles - a stretch long enough to have taken her six times round on the globular hypothesis.” -William Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe” (78)
“If we now consider the fact that when we travel by land or sea, and from any part of the known world, in a direction towards the North polar star, we shall arrive at one and the same point, we are forced to the conclusion that what has hitherto been called the North Polar region, is really the center of the Earth. That from this northern center the land diverges and stretches out, of necessity, towards a circumference, which must now be called the Southern region: which is a vast circle, and not a pole or center … In this and other ways all the great navigators have been frustrated in their efforts, and have been more or less confounded in their attempts to sail round the Earth upon or beyond the Antarctic circle. But if the southern region is a pole or center, like the north, there would be little difficulty in circumnavigating it, for the distance round would be comparatively small. When it is seen that the Earth is not a sphere, but a plane, having only one center, the north; and that the south is the vast icy boundary of the world, the difficulties experienced by circumnavigators can be easily understood.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Earth Not a Globe, 2nd Edition” (21-23)
Antarctica is not the tiny “ice-continent” found confined to the underside antipode of astronomer’s globes. Quite the contrary, Antarctica literally surrounds us 360 degrees, encircles every continent, and acts as a barrier holding in the oceans. The most commonly asked questions, and the greatest mysteries yet to be solved are: how far does the Antarctic ice extend outwards? Is there a limit? What lies beyond, or is it just snow and ice forever? Thanks to U.N. treaties and constant military surveillance, the North Pole and Antarctica remain cloaked in government secrecy, both purported “no-fly/no-sail” zones, with several reports of civilian pilots and captains being shooed away and escorted back under threat of violence.
“How far the ice extends; how it terminates; and what exists beyond it, are questions to which no present human experience can reply. All we at present know is, that snow and hail, howling winds, and indescribable storms and hurricanes prevail; and that in every direction ‘human ingress is barred by unsealed escarpments of perpetual ice,’ extending farther than eye or telescope can penetrate, and becoming lost in gloom and darkness.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!” (91)
Antarctica Has No South Pole
Earth is like a ring magnet with the north pole in the very center-point and the south "pole" being ALL points along the outer circumference. They claim to know where the "south pole" is, but using a compass you can only know where the north pole is. No matter where you are in Antarctica, the compass will point north towards the north pole and south will always be pointing further outwards along the Antarctica ice-plateau.
This is why they put the little red/white barbershop "south pole" with a globe on it somewhere that they ADMIT isn't the south pole! They didn't want tourists bringing their compasses to the little pole and saying, "hey, wait a minute, this isn't the south pole." So instead they claim "the real south pole" is several hundred meters away from the ceremonial pole they posted, that way you would have to spend hours outside your tour group with a compass scratching your head trying to figure out why the south pole clearly isn't the south pole.
Eric,
No, I don't have a problem paying for books, what I'm saying is - since you've put a price on your research you can't throw it away if evidence to the contrary comes to light. You're stuck with it now. If you're not familiar with the pole star "conundrum" (and I only used that term once) you should watch Lord Steven's Pole Star "Comparison" video. This post is titled Flat-Earth Conspiracy Challenge, after all - I'm genuinely interested in your response to a video that claims to make Flat Earth entirely untenable. If the guy is onto something, then he's onto something - it really doesn't matter at all if he claims to be god or not. I'm more interested in the message than the messenger. Show me this post wasn't just an ad for your book and take him on.
May I ask why the star constellations are different in the UK as opposed to Australia, shouldn't we all see the same patterns at night?
If the earth is flat and you were on a airplane. You would fly off the edge of the earth unless you were flying around the circumference of a circular flat plane. If you flew across the radius of the plane theoretically you would fly off the edge of the earth.
Yes Steven, ahem "John," that's how books work. I have done years of research, fact-finding and fact-checking before publishing, don't worry about "contrary evidence coming to light," my entire book IS contrary evidence to the fake spinning-ball earth. You still haven't debunked or even mentioned MY Pole Star Conundrum "John." Refute all my points then I'll watch your, erm Steven's video.
Anonymous, see the Pole Star comments made previously for a full answer to your question. Due to the law of perspective you cannot see the entirety of the heavens from any one vantage point on Earth.
“What can be more common than the observation that, standing at one end of a long row of lamp-posts, those nearest to us seem to be the highest; and those farthest away the lowest; whilst, as we move along towards the opposite end of the series, those which we approach seem to get higher, and those we are leaving behind appear to gradually become lower … It is an ordinary effect of perspective for an object to appear lower and lower as the observer goes farther and farther away from it. Let any one try the experiment of looking at a light-house, church spire, monument, gas lamp, or other elevated object, from a distance of only a few yards, and notice the angle at which it is observed. On going farther away, the angle under which it is seen will diminish, and the object will appear lower and lower as the distance of the observer increases, until, at a certain point, the line of sight to the object, and the apparently uprising surface of the earth upon or over which it stands, will converge to the angle which constitutes the ‘vanishing point’ or the horizon; beyond which it will be invisible.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!” (230-1)
And Michael, yes you are right. East and West are circles, not straight lines. They keep us sailing/flying in circles. If anyone started going in a straight line from wherever on Earth and kept going straight, they would end up in Antarctica and eventually hit the edge/barrier/dome/or continue off into the infinite ice... and perhaps find there are other flat disc worlds along the same plane with their own Sun/Moon/stars encircling etc. Just speculating as that's still a mystery as far as I'm concerned. Peace
Or maybe the earth is round after all. If you travel in a plane in any direction on the earth, you will end up at your point of origin. The earth is round.
If you travel in a plane in any direction on the earth, you will end up at your point of origin.
No, in 2015 no North / South circumnavigation (or any such "straight line" circumnavigation) has ever been completed. The only way the Earth has been circumnavigated is East / West which are circles, not straight lines.
So where do the pyramids and their energy fit into flat earth. Just seen this and anything that NASA says leaves me suspicios. http://survincity.com/2010/10/pyramids-around-the-world-began-to-emit-beams-of/
Hi Eric, u said u r open to debate from non believers so I hope this comment gets through. I will try and debunk some of your specious reasoning.
If planes circumnavigate the earth plane by going around like on a plate then if going east to west they would have to constantly turn right and if going west to east would have to constantly turn left. This is obviously not the case.
Next point about Polaris at the centre of star trails proving the earth is the centre of the universe can also be shown to be bunk. Star trails can only be taken for a maximum of approx 12 hrs while its dark but still give the illusion of stars making a complete revolution because the trails overlap. If the star trails could be captured for a full 24hrs you would see Polaris would not be still in the same spot but had made a small imperfect circle that does not end where it started. This is due to the earth moving less than a degree per 24hrs around the sun. 360 degrees around the sun in 1 year divided by 365 days in a year is slightly less than 1 degree in 1 day. And in 12hrs or less (standard star trail) the earth will move less than 1/2 degree around the sun. This movement is hardly noticeable in a standard star trail giving the illusion that earth is at the center of the universe.
Future experiments might try to get a star trail going for 24, 36hrs to see this slight shift between the days therefore disproving geocentric theories.
As for satellites don't exist. Wow, can you tell me what I'm seeing orbiting in the sky then? The best time to see so called 'non-existent' satellites is just after the sun has set so the sky is getting dark but the sunlight is still able to illuminate the non-existent satellite. Therefore giving a high contrast between the bright satellite and dark sky.
I look forward to hearing your evidence to the contrary.
Hi Eric, the guy in that satellites don't exist video shows such a poor understanding of science. Can I ask what your background in science is?
He said if anyone can explain to him how a satellite made of metal with a melting point less than that of the thermosphere (up to 2000 degrees C) won't melt he would listen. Well it explained it pretty well in Wikipedia under the seeming contradiction that he read out. Maybe he doesn't want to listen or understand? Or maybe he didn't even pass junior science?
Let's say the temp of the thermosphere was 1 million degrees instead of 2000 it would make hardly any difference when only a few atoms in an almost vacuum are making contact with the satellite. You might get a few hundred atoms on the outside surface melt temporarily until the rest of the satellite absorbed the excess heat. Heat being the key issue here not temp. Very high temp but very little heat. Do u know how big a few hundred atoms are? U can't even see it, water off a ducks back.
Again so much of this flat earth conspiracy is based on specious reasoning. It seems to have taken a polarised view of flat earth + geocentric view = god vs globe earth + satellites = no god which has no correlation in reality only faith and a cult like following.
I look forward to hearing your rebuttal as always.
My rebuttal:
Eric Dubay Real Flat Earther Interview
Hi Eric, I know u must b incredibly busy maintaining this website and your other interests, but when important questions r asked pointing out cracks in your theories they should b addressed. I know u have invested a lot of time in your book so understandably might not want to enter into dialogue exposing these cracks.
Your previous comment said rebuttal but I did not get one. The link did not address my question regarding seeing satellites with the naked eye, circumnavigating a flat earth by plane requiring turning either left or right continually, or the issue of the thermosphere not being able to melt metal.
The issue of circumnavigation in a plane on a globe earth according to u requires continually turning down to account for the curve of the earth, so to fix this u replaced the globe earth with a flat earth thinking problem solved, but now u need to either continually turn left or right depending whether going west-east or east-west. So all u have done is swap one problem with another. First crack.
You gave no comment or rebuttal on seeing satellites with the naked eye, and the whole thermosphere not melting metal was sufficiently explained by Wikipedia the important issue being heat not temperature! But if u don't come from a scientific background u might not understand the difference between temperature and heat. Another 2 cracks.
As for the correlation between god requiring a flat earth, and geocentricity I just don't get it please elaborate more. I guess u could say I believe in the standard globe earth heliocentric theory but I still believe in some kind of god or intelligence. I just don't get the connection u r trying to make. Another crack.
Lastly if the universe is infinite then the center should technically b everywhere. I still don't understand how that removes god or makes us any less special!
So many points I could make but will leave it there for now. I look forward to your rebuttal as always.
I discussed satellites, you cannot see them with the naked eye or a telescope, all you can see are moving lights, flying crafts. You cannot see something smaller than a bus hundreds of miles away. And all information about the thermo"sphere" comes from NASA so arguing temperature is just heresay either way. See the following:
Satellites Do Not Exist
Circumnavigation East/West does not involve "constantly turning" but rather constantly going straight with occasional very slight adjustments to stay at right angle to the pole. Keep researching Jason! Peace
Hi Eric, I must say this debate has really degenerated. Every time I bring up a crack in your theory u keep pointing to the same tired information that dosn't address my concerns.
If NASA said the sky was blue would that be wrong because it came from them? This whole specious reasoning thing is becoming a bit ridiculous. Seeing satellites with the naked eye is entirely within the realm of possibility especially just after dusk because of the light object contrasting against the dark sky. Seeing a bus as you say at 300km (low earth orbit) is not a problem when it's illuminated and the background is black.
Instead of providing EVIDENCE of why satellites don't exist u show a video of some scientifically illiterate guy 'disproving' the thermosphere, then u say satellites the size of buses can't b seen from 300km because u said so. They are only moving lights and flying craft because u said so. Where's the EVIDENCE? We just have to take your word for it?
You remind me of a charismatic cult leader appealing to scientifically illiterate followers. It's as if u had a predetermined conclusion and then had to make the evidence fit to support the conclusion, not the other way as it should be. Very unscientific. U accuse the mainstream of pseudo science the very same thing u r doing!
And as always u keep avoiding the central point that your theory revolves around. That a god requires a flat earth and geocentricity. Again what EVIDENCE? We just have to take your word again. Like I said previously I believe in some higher power but the divinity hasn't been beaten out of me just because I believe in a globe earth.
Is the idea of a globe earth, heliocentricity, an infinite universe and god co-existing in harmony such a scary thing? I would like you to elaborate with EVIDENCE the necessity of geocentricity for a god to exist.
Don't get me wrong Eric I agree there are negative forces steering the world in a certain direction, and I like a lot of your previous work. But u have taken 'conspiracy theory' paranoia to a whole new level and gone down the wrong rabbit hole. I will admit when I first viewed all your material it shook my world for a few days until I realised it didn't hold up to scrutiny.
I have an open mind as I'm sure most people in here do but u don't want your mind so open that your brain falls out! Please don't take offence to my comments I don't mean to be offensive I'm in pursuit of truth just as u r. Peace.
You're an indoctrinated NASA cult-member accusing me of being a "charismatic cult leader" when you can't even see through Tyson, Sagan, Aldrin, Newton, Copernicus and all the charismatic Freemasonic cult leaders who have brainwashed you! Of course the truth looks like lies when you've been fed nothing but lies and told it was truth your whole life. Again, keep researching Jason. I'm not that charismatic, but I am absolutely right about the flat, motionless Earth.
Hi Eric, me again. I'm no NASA cult member I have an open mind but as I said not so open that my brain falls out, I go where the EVIDENCE takes me and nothing u have said has any correlation in reality.
For example you said on a flat earth, due to the law of perspective that's why the sun sets into a vanishing point, which if we follow logic according to you the sun should get smaller and smaller and then should disappear into a point above the horizon. This is quite obviously and empirically demonstrated not to be the case. We can observe the sun's path accross the sky and it stays the same size from sunrise to sunset, and secondly it sets below the horizon which shouldn't happen in your flat earth model! First crack.
Secondly you say the moon is not a globe but a disk. This also has no correlation in reality. The phases of the moon i.e crescent, and gibbous moon quite clearly demonstrate the moon to be a globe. If it wasn't a globe a crescent and gibbous moon could not exist! Second crack.
Instead of giving us EVIDENCE of your theory you just give us wild speculation and we just need to take your word for it, even though empirical EVIDENCE shows the standard model to correlate with reality.
I will admit your theory would be quite seductive to scientifically illiterate people. If only the EVIDENCE supported it. Digging out books hundreds of years old to 'prove' your theory is not evidence when empirical EVIDENCE, real evidence says otherwise.
I know u will say I'm brainwashed by NASA, but here's some real empirical EVIDENCE everyone can collect at sunset today. Observe the sun does it get smaller and set above the horizon? Or does it stay the same size and set below the horizon? Your theory has so many holes it's starting to look like swiss cheese.
The Nazi's blamed the Jews for all of their problems, and now you are doing a similar thing trying to blame NASA freemasons for all of the world's problems. I will admit freemasons probably are responsible for a lot of things but this conspiracy theory of yours just goes too far. It's always easier to blame someone else or expect someone else to fix our lives than to look inside and realise our true power and potential. Christianity being another example of this. It all comes back to personal responsibility.
I look forward to your rebuttal as always Eric. Peace.
The Jews blamed the Nazis for everything, not the other way around. You've been brainwashed by Hollywood and the winners who write history:
Zionism/Judaism
For the Sun questions, when light of any kind shines through a dense medium it appears larger, or rather gives a greater glare, at a given distance than when it is seen through a lighter medium. This is more remarkable when the medium holds aqueous particles or vapor in solution, as in a damp or foggy atmosphere. You can see this by standing within a few yards of a street lamp, and noticing the size of the light; on going away to many times the distance, the light upon the atmosphere will appear considerably larger. This phenomenon may be noticed, to a greater or less degree, at all times; but when the air is moist and vapory it is more intense. It is evident that at sunrise, and at sunset, the sun's light must shine through a greater length of atmospheric air than at mid-day; besides which, the air near the earth is both more dense, and holds more watery particles in solution, than the higher strata through which the sun shines at noonday; and hence the light must be dilated or magnified, as well as modified in color.
And for your Moon question, the phases don't work in the spinning ball-Earth model, they do in the flat:
Flat Earth Not Fazed by the Moon
Flat Earth and Artist with the Moon
Flat Earth and the Silver Moon
Hi Eric, I would say most of the information you gave about Zionism is probably correct but that's all beside the point. I was just making a general observation that it's easier for people to blame other people than realise their own power and take responsibility, such as blaming Jews, Nazis or Freemasons. There is a saying that if you don't have your own plan you will become part of someone else's plan.
The Jews/Zionists aren't the only problem in the world this is also true of Christianity blaming the Jews and expecting Jesus to come and save the world. There seems to be a common theme of blame (Jews killed Jesus and Jesus the scapegoat who takes all our sins away) and then expecting someone else to fix everything (Jesus will return to make everything better). The very opposite of personal responsibility. This is all done to make us dependant on the thing that will make everything 'better', a system of control, by taking our personal responsibility away. This is similar to what your conspiracy theory is doing, blaming Freemasons for everything then expecting everything to be better by somehow understanding that we live in a snow globe looked down upon by god??
Anyway I have nothing good to say about religion, it's the politicization of spirituality. A prison of the mind used to divide and control people.
Besides all that u somehow manage to weasel your way around all the cracks I bring up everytime. U still haven't explained why the sun dosn't follow your flat earth predictions?? According to the flat earth model the sun should shrink into a vanishing point (your words) and 'set' (even though no setting would actually occur) ABOVE the horizon. Sunset implies going below the horizon which in your model it would never do.
In the globe earth model the sun would stay the same size across the sky and actually go below the horizon. How can u explain the sun when it is only half set and you can quite clearly see half the sun above the horizon and half below? In your model it should have shrunk and vanished by now above the horizon.
It seems as if you have bamboozled yourself so severely that you are unable to reconcile reality with your model and are consequently in a state of denial having put so much time and effort into this idea not to mention taking people's money based on a misunderstanding of reality.
As for the moon you have again bamboozled yourself and subsequently had to come up with a convoluted explanation to reconcile reality with your model.
Occums razor is there for a reason and not so we can come up with theocentric snow globe explanations of the world. Even though it makes you feel more special to believe so. You should stick to what u r good at philosophy and stay away from science. You wouldn't go to a chinese restaurant to buy french fries would you?
For what it's worth I genuinely think u r special and appreciate the work u do I just think u have gone down the wrong rabbit hole with this one. Anyone else reading please feel free to join the conversation.
I look forward to your rebuttal as always Eric. Peace.
Hi Eric,
I just finished watching the last video about the flat earth on your website.
At the end it said that LA to Tokyo is the same flight duration as Tokyo to LA. In reality there is about 2 hrs of difference, the Westward headed flight is 2 hrs shorter. If the Earth is not spinning, why would that be?
Thank you
Hi Eric. I was listening to an interview you did on the higherside chats and one thing that occurred to me was surely if the earth was flat then where ever you were on the planet it would be the same time of day. It couldn't be ,say, night in Australia and daytime in England at the same time.??? Look forward to your reply. Cheers , Bert.
Hi Eric, Surely if the earth was flat then why is it , say, night in Australia and daytime in England at the same time? Bert.
Is there an explanation in the flat earth theory to explain the arctic winter and summer, when we have 24 hours of night or day?
Hey Eric,
First of all thank you for your diligent research in this area, it has truly been an eye-opening few weeks since I discovered this information, can't remember having my mind feel this blown since I realized 9/11 was a con in 2005 which activated my search for the truth.
Having reviewed the available online material, of which yours is the most useful, followed by Matt Boylan's, I do have some questions, one of which is primary. That one has been brought up in the comments already, but has not been satisfactorily addressed -- the Southern Pole Star conundrum.
If the stars are luminaries revolving around the Earth's North Pole as center of the Universe, we would expect to see ever larger concentric star trails in the night sky the farther South one is located. Instead, we do see the stars rotating around another focal point, to which the nearest star is Sigma Octantis. This phenomenon implies a spherical geometry. My mind is open and it hooks on this point. By this fact, either the planet must be sphere, or the night sky is a sphere rotating around the flat earth.
This geometry twists my brain, an infinite plain contained within a rotating sphere is difficult to picture. Not impossible, but complicated and therefore unlikely.
My other main question is meteorites, but I feel that this and the prior question may be ones that we simply don't have the answers for just yet. The mystery makes it fun though, eh?
I will be buying your book but haven't yet so please excuse my ignorance of pertinent facts you may have referenced therein.
Thanks again,
- Mango
Hello truth seekers. I just realised after several months of analysing all the available data on this subject that there is a way to end this debate once and for all. If the earth is a globe then the sun should take a curved path across the sky from sunrise to sunset. If on the other hand it's a plane then the sun will take a triangular path as the laws of perspective come into effect.
The path of the sun could be recorded with some kind of time lapse photography from sunrise to sunset. If the earth is a globe this curve effect would be most noticeable below the tropic of capricorn and above the tropic of cancer as you would be looking at the suns path from the side which should be curved. If you were to look at the suns path between the tropics you would be looking straight up and its path would be straight and unable to give us the effect we are looking for. If the earth is flat then time lapse photography taken either above the tropic of cancer or below the tropic of Capricorn should give us a triangular path.
Do u have any objections to discovering the ultimate truth of your theory Eric?
hey eric I just wanted to let you know that the whole flat earth idea Is a fact, and I thank you for opening my eyes to see that! I personally believe in the bible and a higher power and your evidence supports the creation that was described by GOD
hiding what the earth actually looks like hides God and places a higher power at the bottom while raising nasa and all the freemason beliefs to the top! the only sad thing is that this deception is supposed to work therefore no matter what people will continue to believe in what nasa has taught them! you have a supporter right here thanks bro -DRANIKSOUF
Eric,
It has been a year since I stumbled upon the "Flat Earth Conspiracy". It has been a wonderful adventure discovering that our beloved earth is flat, and our world is the center of creation. Thanks for all the videos and books. It truly shook the foundations of my world.
Charles Lindell
I think most people would grasp this concept better if they could place themselves more accurately as to where we are in the current situation. According to the best of my ability to discern we are in a quasi nuclear[ close to the center] universe field near the origin core universe. This origin core universe first family as part of a natural progression found the sentient calculus instantiated high level numbers that represent sentients and were again part of the natural progression hijacked. The hijackers were themselves hijacked a few times until we reached a stable hegemony of the hijackers over the known instantiated plane. They branched out from the origin core universe exploring the supraverse cracking new universes, that gets boring so as part of a natural progression they crack new universes in such a way as to hopefully create a religious relic at inception [akin to building a house with nuclear bombs], this leads to universes being with cracked with flawed physics. This is one such universe, we are missing the destructive force portion of Universal Rewrite. When you roll a ball across the table a physical process is destroying the ball and recreating it very close by. In this universe the destructive force was missing so they provide it artificially, it is also known as a natural containment universe. This is where they put on the thieves and monsters they've found in the sentient calculus. If/when they are done with it, they simply stop providing the service of the destructive force and it collapses back into a cosmic soup of trails. There is a slight chance that a foreign entity could quantum entangly navigate to someplace close by where these homegrown thievery systems are generating data. If so, they wouldn't want them to be able to peer directly upon the world and see all the torture and torment going on. Again part of the natural progression, if you see a planet it's one thing to look at it on the surface[ receive light from it], yet to deep scan the entire block of supraversal space and examine every bit of it would be intrusive. So they put this thievery system INSIDE a rock, with a few harmless little bases with non-thieves on the outside to say look we're life "don't scan us it would be rude". Meanwhile in the interior deep under several hundred layers of crust/hull earth is a hollow concave sphere with a flat earth sitting on the bottom and buffering us from the wall is antarctica.
Shills and trolls abound here. Reading the comments proves not only are you right on Eric, but your really pissing off the powers that fight truth. I bought all your books and find them excellent reading. Those of us that know understand the whiny tribe behind the lies... we also understand evil and its grip on falsehood. Please keep it up brother. Also I do Wing Tsun ( leon tings) and I'm 3rd level learning dummy and Chi Sau:) nothing but love bro. And remember.... the more looneys that attack you means the more your irritating pure EVIL... keep it up. John and Jason you are obviously idiots and shills.... its apparent to anyone who studies truth.
I need some help understanding something. The point on the horizon where the sun sets in say May and December are actually 23.5degrees apart... and I have personally noted this where I live. Is it that there is a variation of 23.5 degrees in the suns movement throughout the year... please help me with this.
Post a Comment