Sun and Moon Equal Divine Balanced Opposites

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

With haughty arrogance the nearest hypnotized heliocentrist will then inform you that the Sun is 865,374 miles in diameter and 92,955,807 miles from the Earth, the Moon is 2,159 miles in diameter and 238,900 miles from Earth, and those just happen to be the EXACT diameters and distances necessary for a viewer from Earth to falsely perceive them as being the same size!  So, you see, silly Flat-Earther, it is all an illusion and the apparent equanimity of our day and night luminaries in the sky results from mere coincidental parallax perspective!  The Sun does not revolve around the Earth as it appears; rather the Earth spins 1,038 mph under your feet and revolves 67,108 mph around the Sun!  The Moon does indeed revolve around the Earth, but not as it appears!  Though it seems to move East to West just like the Sun and everything else in the heavens, the Moon actually spins West to East at 10.3 mph while orbiting Earth at 2,288 mph, which combined with the Earth’s 1,038mph spin and 67,108 mph orbit around the Sun coincidentally results in all motions perfectly cancelling out making the Moon seem to move across the heavens with similar path and similar speed as the Sun while always only showing us one side of its surface, and perpetually hiding its “dark side.”

“The Moon presented a special math problem for the construction of the heliocentricity model. The only way to make the Moon fit in with the other assumptions was to reverse its direction from that of what everyone who has ever lived has seen it go. The math model couldn’t just stop the Moon like it did the Sun, that wouldn’t work. And it couldn’t let it continue to go East to West as we see it go, either at the same speed or at a different speed. The only option was to reverse its observed East to West direction and change its speed from about 64,000 miles an hour to about 2,200 miles an hour. This reversal, along with the change in speed, were unavoidable assumptions that needed to be adopted if the model was to have any chance of mimicking reality.” -Bernard Brauer

“They want you to believe that the Moon's rotation is perfectly synchronized with its orbit so that's why we only ever see one side of the Moon, rather than conclude the obvious - that the Moon is simply NOT rotating. Moreover, they had to slow down the Moon's speed by 58,870 mph AND reverse its direction to West-East to successfully sell their phony heliocentricity system to a gullible public. I don't think there is one person in many, many thousands - regardless of education - who knows that the Copernican Model had to turn the Moon's observable direction around and give it a new speed to accommodate the phases and eclipses.” -Marshall Hall

“Astronomers tell us that the Moon goes round the Earth in about 28 days. Well, we may see her making her journey round every day, if we make use of our eyes and these are about the best things we have to use. The Moon falls behind in her daily motion as compared with that of the Sun to the extent of one revolution in the time specified; but that is not making a revolution. Failing to go as fast as other bodies go in one direction does not constitute a going round in the opposite one - as the astronomers would have us believe! And, since all this absurdity has been rendered necessary for no other purpose than to help other absurdities along, it is clear that the astronomers are on the wrong track.”  -William Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe” (82)

There are several theories about the relative size and distance of the Sun and Moon all with their points of evidence and points of contention.  Flat-Earthers throughout the ages have used sextants and plane trigonometry attempting to make such calculations, usually concluding the Sun and Moon both to be only about 32 miles in diameter and less than a few thousand miles from Earth.  Perhaps the least plausible model, certainly the most exaggerated and imaginative, is the reigning heliocentric theory claiming the Sun to be a whopping 865,374 miles in diameter, 92,955,807 miles from the Earth, and the Moon  2,159 miles in diameter, 238,900 miles from the Earth. 

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

“As the sun, according to ‘science’ may be anything from 3 to 104 million miles away, there is plenty of ‘space’ to choose from.  It is like the showman and the child.  You pay your money - for various astronomical works - and you take your choice as to what distance you wish the sun to be.  If you are a modest person, go in for a few millions; but if you wish to be ‘very scientific’ and to be ‘mathematically certain’ of your figures, then I advise you to make your choice somewhere about a hundred millions.  You will at least have plenty of ‘space’ to retreat into, should the next calculation be against the figures of your choice.  You can always add a few millions to ‘keep up with the times,’ or take off as many as may be required to adjust the distance to the ‘very latest’ accurate column of figures.  Talk about ridicule, the whole of modern astronomy is like a farcical comedy - full of surprises.  One never knows what monstrous or ludicrous absurdity may come forth next.  You must not apply the ordinary rules of common-sense to astronomical guesswork.  No, the thing would fall to pieces if you did.”  -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (115)

“Regiments of figures are paraded with all the learned jargon for which science is famous, but one might as well look at the changing clouds in the sky and seek for certainty there, as to expect to get it from the propounders of modern astronomy.  But is there no means of testing these ever-changing never-stable speculations and bringing them to the scrutiny of the hard logic of fact?  Indeed there is.  The distance of the sun can be measured with much precision, the same way as a tree or a house, or church steeple is measured, by plane triangulation.  It is the principle on which a house is built, a table made or a man-of-war constructed … The sun is always somewhere between the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn, a distance admitted to be less than 3,000 miles; how then can the sun if it be so many thousand miles in diameter, squeeze itself into a space of about 3,000 miles only?  But look at the distance, say the professors!  We have already done that and not one of the wise men we have so often challenged, has ever attempted to refute the principle on which we measure the sun’s distance … If the navigator neglects to apply the sun’s semi-diameter to his observation at sea, he is 16 nautical miles out in calculating the position his ship is in.  A minute of arc on the sextant represents a nautical mile, and if the semi-diameter be 16 miles, the diameter is of course 32 miles.  And as measured by the sextant, the sun’s diameter is 32 minutes of arc, that is 32 nautical miles in diameter.  Let him disprove this who can.  If ever disproof is attempted, it will be a literary curiosity, well worth framing.”  -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (114-120)

Measuring with sextants and calculating with plane trigonometry both the Sun and Moon figure to be only about 32 miles in diameter and approximately 3,000 miles away.  As shown last chapter, the Moon is actually a semi-transparent luminary and not the solid, spherical, desert planet that NASA would have us believe.  In fact, it is likely that both the Sun and Moon are not densely physical at all and are simply luminous flat discs able to pass by/through one another during eclipses.

“The results of recent research prove that the heavenly luminaries are not Worlds, but lights, and should cause all men who have been led to accept as proven Copernicus’ theory of the motions of the Earth, to reconsider this subject.”  -E. Eschini, “Foundations of Many Generations” (3)

“The satellites of the earth are not masses of matter. They are luminous and transparent discs without substance. The moon, in particular, conveys the impression of being an ethereal manifestation, and the uncertain and illusive character which is usually associated with this satellite results precisely from its immaterial nature. It was recognized from the earliest times that the satellites of the earth, particularly the sun and the moon, were not solid, opaque bodies. They were first, until Aristotle, considered to be souls or spirits, which does not imply a physical nature. To the ancients, they were simply lights, and they gave the sun and the moon a very apt name. They called them luminaries.”  -Gabrielle Henriet, “Heaven and Earth” (34-36)

In the Flat-Earth model, 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)

“The essential feature of the year is its division into two equal periods of six months, based first on the predominating length of the days over that of the nights, and vice versa, conditions which are governed by the varying hours of sunrise and sunset; and secondly, by the either high or low height reached by the sun in the heavens at mid-day. The first cycle, during which the days are longer than the nights and the sun reaches its culminating point of the year, extends from the spring equinox to the autumn equinox, i.e. March 21st to September 22nd; and the second cycle during which, inversely, the duration of the nights exceeds that of the days, and the sun descends to its lowest point of the year, extends from the autumn equinox to the spring equinox, i.e. September 23rd to March 20th. These two six-month periods are also characterized by an opposition of temperature. During the first cycle which corresponds to spring and summer, the heat gradually rises and falls, while during the second cycle which comprises autumn and winter, it is the intensity of the cold which progressively increases and decreases.”  -Gabrielle Henriet, “Heaven and Earth” (3-4)

In the Flat-Earth model, the Sun and Moon spotlights are perpetually hovering over and parallel to the surface of the Earth.  From our vantage point, due to the Law of Perspective, the day/night luminaries appear to rise up the Eastern horizon, curve peaking high overhead, and then sink below the Western horizon.  They do not escape to the underside of the Flat-Earth as one might imagine, but rather rotate concentric clockwise circles around the circumference from tropic to tropic.  The appearance of rising, peaking and setting is due to the common Law of Perspective where tall objects appear high overhead when nearby, but at a distance gradually lower towards the vanishing point.

“Although the Sun is at all times above and parallel to the Earth’s surface, he appears to ascend the firmament from morning until noon, and to descend and sink below the horizon at evening.  This arises from a simple and everywhere visible law of perspective.  A flock of birds, when passing over a flat or marshy country, always appears to descend as it recedes; and if the flock is extensive, the first bird appears lower, or nearer to the horizon than the last.  The farthest light in a row of lamps appears the lowest, although each one has the same altitude.  Bearing these phenomena in mind, it will easily be seen how the Sun, although always parallel to the surface of the Earth, must appear to ascend when approaching, and descend after leaving the meridian or noon-day position.”  -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Earth Not a Globe, 2nd Edition” (85)

“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)

Heliocentrists would have you believe the very opposite of what every human who has ever walked the Earth has seen with their own eyes.  It is obvious to any child and sovereign-minded adult that the Sun, Moon, stars and planets, every light in the sky above, revolves around the motionless Earth beneath our feet.  It is also plain to see that the Sun and Moon are both approximately the same size and situated relatively close to Earth, not 400 times divergent and millions upon millions of miles away.  To abandon your senses and every day experience in favor of such unfounded science-fiction fantasies is a fallacy of appeal to authority so extreme that it leaves the brain-washed believer impotent to trust his own natural instincts and forever thereafter chained to the fantastical explanations of astronomical charlatans.

“No one ever yet felt or saw the earth careering through space at the terrific rates it is credited with, but everyone who is not blind can see the sun move.  But the matter can be tested.  It may be known for certain whether the sun moves or not.  Take a school globe and place a stile on the semicircle that holds it in position.  Cause the globe to rotate against a lamp on a table, and you will find that the shadow left on the globe is always parallel to the equator, at whatever angle you may incline the globe.  Further, let the stile be of sufficient length to allow the shadow to fall on to a flat surface, moving the globe towards the lamp, and the shadow will be a straight line.  If, therefore, the shadow left on the earth by the sun be a straight line, then undoubtedly the sun is stationary.  Drive a stake into the ground in such a position as to expose it to the sun for the greater part of a day - the whole day if possible.  Mark the end of the shadow every quarter of an hour, and you will find that the marks form part of an elongated curve, clearly proving that the sun moves over a stationary earth.”  -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (113)

“The Path of the Sun is Concentric, expanding and contracting daily for six months alternately. This is easily proved by fixing a rod, say at noon on the 21st of December, so that, on looking along it, the line of vision will touch the lower edge of the Sun. This line of sight will continue for several days pretty much the same, but, on the ninth or tenth day, it will be found that the rod will have to be moved considerably toward the zenith, in order to touch the lower edge of the Sun, and every day afterwards it will have to be raised till the 22nd of June. Then there will be little change for a few days as before, but day by day afterwards the rod will have to be lowered till the 21st of December, when the Sun is farthest from the Northern Centre, and it is dark there. This expansion and contraction of the Sun's path continues every year, and is termed the Northern and Southern Declination, and should demonstrate to Modem Astronomers the absurdity of calling the World a Planet, as it remains stationary while the Sun continues circling round the heavens.”  -David Wardlaw Scott, “Terra Firma” (184-5)

Buy The Flat Earth Conspiracy 252-Page Paperback, eBook, or ePub

Total Eclipse of the Mind

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

“Those who are unacquainted with the methods of calculating eclipses and other phenomena, are prone to look upon the correctness of such calculations as powerful arguments in favour of the doctrine of the earth's rotundity and the Newtonian philosophy, generally. One of the most pitiful manifestations of ignorance of the true nature of theoretical astronomy is the ardent inquiry so often made, ‘How is it possible for that system to be false, which enables its professors to calculate to a second of time both solar and lunar eclipses for hundreds of years to come?’ The supposition that such calculations are an essential part of the Newtonian or any other theory is entirely gratuitous, and exceedingly fallacious and misleading. Whatever theory is adopted, or if all theories are discarded, the same calculations can be made.”  -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!” (151)

“The Chaldeans used to predict the eclipses three thousand years ago; with a degree of accuracy that is only surpassed by seconds in these days because we have wonderful clocks which they had not. Yet they had an entirely different theory of the universe than we have. The fact is that eclipses occur with a certain exact regularity just as Christmas and birthdays do, every so many years, days and minutes, so that anyone who has the records of the eclipses of thousands of years can predict them as well as the best astronomers, without any knowledge of their cause.”  -Gerrard Hickson, “Kings Dethroned” (40)

“The simplest method of ascertaining any future eclipse is to take the tables which have been formed during hundreds of years of careful observation; or each observer may form his own tables by collecting a number of old almanacks one for each of the last forty years; separate the times of the eclipses in each year, and arrange them in a tabular form. On looking over the various items he will soon discover parallel cases, or ‘cycles’ of eclipses; that is, taking the eclipses in the first year of his table, and examining those of each succeeding year, he will notice peculiarities in each year's phenomena; but on arriving to the items of the nineteenth and twentieth years, he will perceive that some of the eclipses in the earlier part of the table will have been now repeated--that is to say, the times and characters will be alike … Tables of the places of the sun and moon, of eclipses, and of kindred phenomena, have existed for thousands of years, and were formed independently of each other, by the Chaldean, Babylonian, Egyptian, Hindoo, Chinese, and other ancient astronomers. Modern science has had nothing to do with these.”  -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!” (153-154)

                                                      

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.

“The Newtonian hypothesis involves the necessity of the Sun, in the case of a lunar eclipse, being on the opposite side of a globular earth, to cast its shadow on the Moon: but, since eclipses of the Moon have taken place with both the Sun and the Moon above the horizon, it follows that it cannot be the shadow of the Earth that eclipses the Moon, and that the theory is a blunder.”  -William Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe” (57)

“That the eclipsor of the moon is a shadow at all is assumption--no proof whatever is offered. That the moon receives her light from the sun, and that therefore her surface is darkened by the earth intercepting the sun's light, is not proved. It is not proved that the earth moves in an orbit round the sun, and therefore, by being in different positions, conjunction of sun, earth, and moon, 'Day some-times occur.’ The contrary has been clearly proved--that the moon is not eclipsed by a shadow; that she is self-luminous, and not merely a reflector of solar light, and therefore could not possibly be obscured or eclipsed by a shadow from any object whatever; and that the earth is devoid of motion, either on axes or in an orbit through space. Hence to call that an argument for the earth's rotundity, where every necessary proposition is only assumed, and in relation to which direct and practical evidence to the contrary is abundant, is to stultify the judgment and every other reasoning faculty.”  -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!” (301)

“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.

“It is alleged by the learned that at a lunar eclipse the earth casts a shadow on the moon, by intercepting the light of the sun.  The shadow, it is alleged, is circular, and as only a globe can cast a circular shadow, and as that shadow is cast by the earth, of course the earth is a globe.  In fact, what better proof could any reasonable person require?  ‘Powerful reasoning,’ says the dupe.  Let us see.  I have already cited a case where sun and moon have been seen with the moon eclipsed, and as the earth was not between, or they both could not have been seen, the shadow said to be on the moon could not possibly have been cast by the earth.  But as refraction is charged with raising the moon above the horizon, when it is said to be really beneath, and the amount of refraction made to tally with what would be required to square the matter, let us see how refraction would act in regard to a shadow.  Refraction can only exist where the object and the observer are in different densities.  If a shilling be put in the bottom of a glass and observed there is no refraction.  Refraction casts the image of the shilling UPWARDS, but a shadow always downwards.  If a basin be taken and put near a light, so that the shadow will shorten inwards and DOWNWARDS; but if the rod is allowed to rest in the basin and water poured in, the rod will appear to be bent UPWARDS.  This places the matter beyond dispute and proves that it is out of the range of possibility that the shadow said to be on the moon could be that of the earth.”  -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (78)

In an attempt to explain away the inconsistencies in their theory, heliocentrists usually claim light refraction must be happening on a scale large enough to account for the phenomena.  George G. Carey in his “Astronomy and Astronomical Instruments” claims that this is the reason the full moon has sometimes been seen eclipsed above the horizon before the sunset, due to a “horizontal refraction of 36 or 37 minutes, generally about 33 minutes, which is equal to the diameter of the Sun or Moon.”  Even if this highly-implausible reverse-engineered damage-control explanation is accepted, it cannot explain how Earth-bound observers are supposedly able to see 12,000 miles 180 degrees around “the globe.” 

“Even if we admit refraction, and that to the extent seemingly required to prove that when the eclipsed moon is seen above the horizon, we are still confronted with a fact which entirely annihilates every theory propounded to account for the phenomenon.  Taking the astronomers’ own equation of 8” to the mile, varying inversely as the square of the distance, for the curvature of the earth, where sun and moon are both seen at a lunar eclipse, the center of the sun is said to be in a straight line with the centers of the earth and the moon, each luminary being 90 degrees from the observer.  This would give about 6,000 miles as the distance of each body from the observer.  Now, what is the curvature in 6,000 miles?  No less than 24,000,000 feet or 4,545 miles.  Therefore, according to the astronomers own showing an observer would have to get up into space 4,545 miles before he could see both sun and moon above his horizon at a lunar eclipse!!!  As lunar eclipses have been seen from the surface of the earth with sun and moon both above the horizon at the same time, it is conclusively proved THAT THERE IS NO ‘CURVATURE OF THE EARTH,’ and, therefore, that the world is a plane, and cannot by any possibility be globular.  This one proof alone demolishes forever the fabric of astronomical imagination and popular credulity.”  -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (78-9)

Buy The Flat Earth Conspiracy 252-Page Paperback, eBook, or ePub

Relativity Does Not Exist!

Around the turn of the 20th century, in order to save the dying heliocentric model from the conclusive experiments of Airy, Michelson, Morley, Gale, Sagnac, Kantor, Nordmeyer and others, Albert Einstein created his Special Theory of Relativity, a brilliant revision of heliocentricism which in one philosophical swoop banished the universal aether from scientific study replacing it with a form of relativism which allowed for heliocentricism and geocentricism to hold equal merit.  If there is no absolute aetheric medium within which all things exist, then hypothetically one can postulate complete relativism with regard to the movement of two objects, such as the Earth and Sun.  At the time, the Michelson-Morley and Michelson-Gale experiments had already long measured and proven the existence of the aether, but the church of heliocentricism was not to be deterred, Einstein never tried to refute the experiments scientifically, choosing instead to object philosophically with his notion of “absolute relativity,” claiming that all uniform motion is relative and there exists no absolute state of rest anywhere in the universe.  Nowadays, just like the theory of heliocentricism, Einstein’s theory of relativity is accepted worldwide as gospel truth, even though he himself admitted geocentricism is equally justifiable:

“The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either coordinate system could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves,' or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest,' would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems.” -Albert Einstein

“People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations. For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.” -George Ellis, “Thinking Globally, Acting Universally”

Einstein’s necessary modification to the heliocentric theory ultimately resulted in transforming it into the “acentric” theory of the universe, because the Sun was no longer the center of anything, and all motion was only relative.  Acentrists soon began postulating that not only is the Earth spinning 1,000 mph and revolving 67,000 mph around the Sun, but the  Earth, Sun and entire solar system as a whole are simultaneously rotating around the Milky Way galaxy at 500,000 mph!  Furthermore, the entire galaxy, with the Earth, Sun and entire solar system, are also simultaneously shooting 670,000,000 mph through the universe away from a Big Bang explosion at the beginning of time! 

“The theory of the three [now four] motions of the Earth and subsequent ‘relativity,’ is the result of trying to cover up one lie by another. They say that as we whirl in London at the rate of nearly eleven miles a minute, we are shooting into space around the Sun at nearly twenty miles a second, and the Sun itself moves around a point in space, at the immense speed of 150,000,000 miles in a year, pulling our poor Earth with him at the added speed - the distance that separates us from the Sun - and in this maddening whirlwind of motions they try to apply Euclid’s spherical trigonometry to locate distances - which data was intended by Euclid to determine fixed points only - with the result that they have brought out wild calculations which have been fostered dogmatically on a gullible World, but are about as infallible as the utterances of Borgia.”  -E. Eschini, “Foundations of Many Generations” (7)

“Most people who accept that the Earth is in motion believe it is a proven fact. They do not realize that not only has the motion of the Earth never been proven, but by the constructs of modern physics and cosmology cannot be proven. Again, even modern cosmology does not claim to be able to prove that the Earth is in motion. In fact the very best argument for Earth’s motion is based on pure ‘modesty’ not logic, observation and experience. If anyone could prove the Earth’s motion, that someone would become more famous than Einstein, Hawking and others. They may all be fools but even they would not make such an ignorant claim to proof of Earth’s motions, and those who do so don’t realize just how ignorant of physics they really are! Before folks go demonstrating how ignorant they are, they should consider: 1. The relationship between Mach’s principle and relativity. 2. The relationship between Gravity and Inertia, and Gravity and Acceleration (and the paradoxes that exist). 3. Relativity does not claim to prove Earth’s motions, in fact it ‘dictates’ the ridiculous idea that motion cannot be proven period. 4. Relativity proposes motion, it does not nor can it claim to disprove that the Earth is the center of the universe! 5. Only those who are ignorant of physics attempt to make arguments based on weather patterns, ballistic trajectories, geosynchronous satellites, and Foucault’s pendulums for evidence of Earth’s motions! For all those ‘geniuses’ out there, not even Einstein would claim such stupidity.” -Allen Daves

When Einstein first introduced his theory of relativity to the world, he often used the analogy of a wagon rolling along the street as an illustration.  “What we mean by relative motion,” he stated in a Princeton University lecture, “in a general sense is perfectly plain to everyone.  If we think of a wagon moving along a street we know that it is possible to speak of the wagon at rest, and the street in motion, just as well as it is to speak of the wagon in motion and the street at rest.  That, however, is a very special part of the ideas involved in the principle of Relativity.”  

“That would be amusing if we read it in a comic paper, but when Professor Einstein says it in a lecture at the Princeton University, we are expected not to laugh; that is the only difference. It is silly, but I may not dismiss the matter with that remark, and so I will answer quite seriously that it is only possible for me to speak of the street moving while the wagon remains still - and to believe it - when I cast away all the experience of a lifetime and am  no longer able to understand the evidence of my senses; which is insanity … Such self-deception as this is not reasoning; it is the negation of reason; which is the faculty of forming correct conclusions from things observed, judged by the light of experience. It is unworthy of our intelligence and a waste of our greatest gift; but that introduction serves very well to illustrate the kind of illusion that lies at the root of Relativity.  When he suggested that the street might be moving while the wagon with its wheels revolving was standing still, he was asking us to imagine that in a similar manner the earth we stand upon might be moving while the stars that pass in the night stand still. It is a Case of Appeal, where Einstein appeals in the name of a convicted Copernican Astronomy against the judgment of Michelson - Morley, Nordmeyer, physics, fact, experience, observation and reason.”  -Gerrard Hickson, “Kings Dethroned” (65-66)

On the surface relativity may seem plausible enough, especially when presented by a charismatic character of Einstein’s caliber, but is it really so simple and straight-forward?  In fact Einstein’s theory of relativity is so complicated and convoluted that when it first came to the public’s attention, it was said that there were probably less than a dozen people on Earth capable of understanding it!  After Einstein presented his theory to the Royal Astronomical Society, philanthropist Eugene Higgins offered a prize of $5,000 for the best explanation of relativity, in essay form, describing it so the general public could understand what it was all about.  Prize winner Mr. L. Bolton himself admitted that “even when stated in its simplest form, it remains a tough proposition.”

Along with Einstein’s denial of the aether and anything absolute (except the absoluteness of relativity), he had to create a litany of new terms and ideas, each depending upon another and contributing to support the whole.  For example, Einstein claimed there was no aether, that time is a fourth spacial dimension, that “infinity” and “eternity” do not exist, and that light is a material thing.  This meant that time must be added to the three dimensions of length, breadth, and thickness, that “space” be renamed a “continuum,” and “points” in the “space-time continuum” be renamed to “events.”

“What we have always known as a ‘point’ in the terms of Euclid, Einstein calls an ‘event!’ but if words have any meaning a point and an event are two totally different things; for a point is a mark, a spot or place, and is only concerned in the consideration of material things; while an event is an occurrence, it is something that happens.  There is as much difference between them as there is between the sentence ‘This is a barrel of apples,’ and ‘These apples came from New Zealand.’  While claiming ‘time’ as a fourth dimension, Einstein explains that ‘by dimension we must understand merely one of four independent quantities which locate an event in space.’  This is to imply that the other three dimensions which are in common use are independent quantities, which is not the case; for length, breadth and thickness are essentially found in combination; they co-exist in each and every physical thing, so that they are related - hence they are not independent quantities.  On the contrary, time IS an independent quantity.  It is independent of any one, or all, the three proportions of material things, it is not in any way related; and therefore cannot be used as a fourth dimension.”  -Gerrard Hickson, “Kings Dethroned” (69-70)

Einstein’s theory of relativity claims that light is a material thing which therefore has weight and is subject to gravity.  This idea meant starlight could now bend under its own weight and curve its path based on the distance and mass of objects along its trajectory, which allowed heliocentrists like Einstein to claim stars are in reality not where they appear to be, and that with this new geometry the stars must be moved to much farther away than previously assumed.

“Consequently the heavenly bodies may be much further away than they have hitherto been supposed to be, and every method which is based upon the geometry of Euclid and the triangulation of Hipparchus will fail to discover the distance to a star; because its real position is no longer known.  Wherefore Einstein has invented a new kind of geometry, in order to calculate the positions of the stars by what is nothing more or less than metaphysics.”  -Gerrard Hickson, “Kings Dethroned” (66-67)

Einstein’s “Law of the Constancy of the Velocity of Light” states that light always travels at the same speed, 186,414 miles per second (671,090,400 miles per hour), but Einstein also claims that gravity causes light to bend towards massive objects along its trajectory.   If a ray of light can be said to bend, curve, or deviate from its course due to the gravitational pull of masses in its path, it must by necessity accelerate when approaching and decelerate when receding from these things.  However, if light can bend under its own weight, or under the law of gravitation, as Einstein claims it does, than it is not and cannot be absolute.

“Strangely enough, while Einstein claims that everything is in motion and nothing is stable, he allows one thing, and one thing only, to remain outside the realm of relativity, independent of everything else; He claims that the velocity of light is constant under all circumstances, and therefore is absolute.  This is a blunder of the first magnitude, but I do not imagine that he fell into it through any oversight; for it is quite evident that he was driven into this false position.  He was compelled to say that the velocity of light is constant, because, if he did not his new geometry would be useless … We are told that light is a material thing, and that a beam of light is deflected from a straight line by the gravitation of any and every thing that lies near its course as it passes within their sphere of influence; and we are further assured that light always maintains a uniform speed of 186,414 miles a second.  We have, however, to remind Professor Einstein that this was determined as the result of experiments by the physicists - Fizeau, Foucalt, Cornu, Michelson, and Newcomb, all of which experiments were conducted within the earth’s atmosphere, on terra-firma.  In all these experiments a ray of light was reflected between two mirrors several miles apart, so that it had to pass to and fro always through the atmosphere, and it is not to be supposed that light, or anything else, can travel at the same speed through the air as it would through the vacuum Einstein supposes space to be.  Let us reverse this in order to realize it better.  It is not to be supposed that any material thing travels at no greater speed through a vacuum than it does through air, which has a certain amount of density or opacity.  If anything does not distinguish the difference between air and a vacuum, then it is not a material thing; it cannot be matter.  On the other hand, anything that is matter must of necessity make such a distinction, and in that case its velocity cannot be constant.”  -Gerrard Hickson, “Kings Dethroned” (70)

Conventional wisdom before Einstein’s theory was that light was not a material thing, that it discharged in a straight line in every direction from the source, that it could not be influenced by gravity, could not bend, curve, or be deflected from its course by anything; As Lord Kelvin said, “Light diverges from a luminous center outwards in all directions.”  Its velocity may be affected according to the density of the medium through which it passes, but this fact simply proves Einstein’s “Law of the Constancy of the Velocity of Light” is incorrect.

“The length of the course used by Newcomb in the final determination of the Velocity of Light was 7.44242 kilometers.  If the ray of light had deviated by a hair’s-breadth from an absolutely straight line, it never could have passed through the interstices between the very fine teeth of his revolving wheel, or return precisely to the appointed spot on his sending and receiving mirrors, which were 3.72121 kilometers apart.  The fact that the ray of light did pass from mirror to mirror, and through the wheel, proves that it maintained a straight line; hence it is certain that it was not deflected from its course by the gravitation of the earth between the two mirrors; wherefore it is obvious that it was not affected by gravitation.  So we find that the very experiments by which the accepted 186,414 miles per second as the Velocity of Light was measured - experiments which were carried out with the utmost painstaking and minute attention to detail - prove that a ray of light is not influenced by the gravitation of the earth in the slightest degree.  Therefore, if those experiments were good enough to warrant all the world in accepting the ‘Velocity of Light’ they may be equally well adduced as proof that a ray of light does not bend by its own weight; and that light is not affected by gravitation.”  -Gerrard Hickson, “Kings Dethroned” (71)

"As for Einstein, if you want to believe that lengths shrink when an object moves, time changes in the process, and its mass increases, just so you can explain the anomalies of Michelson's experiment, that's your privilege, but I'd just as soon answer it by saying that mass, time and length stay the same and the Earth isn't moving, and I'm just as 'scientific' as you for saying so." -Robert Sungenis

“Relativity is clever; but it belongs to the same category as Newton’s Law of Gravitation and the Kant-Herschell-Laplace Nebular Hypothesis, in as far as it is a superfine effort of the imagination seeking to maintain an impossible theory of the universe in defiance of every fact against it.”  -Gerrard Hickson, “Kings Dethroned” (65)

Buy The Flat Earth Conspiracy 252-Page Paperback, eBook, or ePub