​
1. What are your reasons for making such claims that the earth is flat?
​
We propose three main "proofs" that the earth is flat. The first is that if the earth is round, with a circumference of 25,000 miles, it should have a very fixed mathematical rate of curvature. Once objects go past a certain point they should be partially or totally invisible. The problem is that they do not. With modern day technology we can use high zoom cameras to see this for ourselves. Experiments have been done to measure the curvature and have repeatedly found that it does not exist.
​
The second proof is the curvature of the horizon. The horizon on a 25,000 mile ball would certainly curve gently, but it should nonetheless be there. Nonetheless, our common everyday experience shows us that it is not. Take a plank of wood 6 feet long and line your eye with the centre to the horizon. Step back from it and look at the edges. If the earth was round you should see a dip equally on both sides. You do not. Because the earth is flat.
Thirdly, the horizon being the limit of our vision, should on a ball descend below our eyesight. What we see on the contrary is that the horizon rises with our level of vision. This is only consistent with a flat plane. A simple remembrance of being on a mountain top or airplane helps us to understand this.
​
2. Where's the Edge then?
​
The South Pole surrounds all of the Earth like a wall. Sacred scripture and the tradition of most ancient cultures indicate that there the firmament is solid and extends all the way down. It would thus form a dome over the earth.
​
3. If the earth is flat, how can you explain being able to circumnavigate the globe?
One of heliocentrist‟s favourite "proofs" of their ball-Earth theory is the ability for ships and planes to circumnavigate, to sail or fly at right angles to the North Pole and eventually return to their original location. Since the North Pole and Antarctica are covered in ice and guarded "no-fly" zones, however, no ships or planes have ever been known to circumnavigate the Earth in North/South directions, only East/West; And herein lies the rub, East or West-bound circumnavigation can just as easily be performed on a flat plane as it can a globular sphere. Just as a compass can place its center-point on a flat piece of paper and trace a circle either way around the "pole," so can a ship or plane circumnavigate a flat-Earth. The only kind of circumnavigation which could not happen on a flat-Earth is North/South-bound, which is likely the very reason for the heavily-enforced flight restrictions. Flight restrictions originating from none other than the United Nations, the same United Nations which haughtily uses a flat-Earth map as its official logo and flag!
​
4. Why do ships hulls disappear first over the horizon?
​
Another favorite "proof" of ball-Earthers is the appearance from an observer on shore of ships‟ hulls being obfuscated by the water and disappearing from view when sailing away towards the horizon. Their claim is that ship‟s hulls disappear before their mast-heads because the ship is beginning its declination around the convex curvature of the ball-Earth. Once again, however, their hasty conclusion is drawn from a faulty premise, namely that only on a ball-Earth can this phenomenon occur.
The fact of the matter is that the Law of Perspective on plane surfaces dictates and necessitates the exact same occurrence. For example a girl wearing a dress walking away towards the horizon will appear to sink into the Earth the farther away she walks. Her feet will disappear from view first and the distance between the ground and the bottom of her dress will gradually diminish until after about half a mile it seems like her dress is touching the ground as she walks on invisible legs. The same happens with cars speeding away, the axles gradually get lower and the wheels vanish until it appears as if the car is gliding along its body. Such is the case on plane surfaces, the lowest parts of objects receding from a given point of observation necessarily disappear before the highest.
"This law of Perspective meets us on every hand; and cannot be gainsaid. If, in a straight line, we look at a frozen lake from a certain distance, we shall observe people who appear to be skating on their knees, but, if we approach sufficiently near, we shall see them performing graceful motions on their feet. Farther, if we look through a straight tunnel, we shall notice that the roof and the roadway below converge to a point of light at the end. It is the same law which makes the hills sink, to the horizon, as the observer recedes, which explains how the ship's hull disappears in the offing. I would also remark that when the sea is undisturbed by waves, the hull can be restored to sight by the aid of a good telescope long after it has disappeared from the naked eye, thus proving that the ship had not gone down behind the watery hill of a convex globe, but is still sailing on the level of a Plane sea." -David Wardlaw Scott, "Terra Firma" (75)
Not only is the disappearance of ship‟s hulls explained by the Law of Perspective, it is proven undeniably true with the aid of a good telescope. If you watch a ship sailing away into the horizon with the naked eye until its hull has completely disappeared from view under the supposed "curvature of the Earth," then look through a telescope, you will notice the entire ship quickly zooms back into view, hull and all, proving that the disappearance was caused by the Law of Perspective, and not by a wall of curved water! "On any frozen lake or canal, notably on the „Bedford Canal,‟ in the county of Cambridge, in winter and on a clear day, skaters may be observed several miles away, seeming to glide along upon limbs without feet--skates and boots quite invisible to the unaided eye, but distinctly visible through a good telescope. But even on the sea, when the water is very calm, if a vessel is observed until it is just „hull down,‟ a powerful telescope turned upon it will restore the hull to sight. From which it must be concluded that the lower part of a receding ship disappears through the influence of perspective, and not from sinking behind the summit of a convex surface." -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, "Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!" (216)
​
5. How do Foucault Pendulums work?
​
In the mid 19th century a Frenchman named Léon Foucault became famous for swinging
pendulums and claiming their consequent motions were proof of the Earth‟s diurnal rotation. Since then "Foucault Pendulums" have regularly been swinging at museums and exposition halls worldwide purporting to provide everlasting perpetual proof of the heliocentric spinning ball-Earth theory. The truth is, however, unbeknownst to most of the duped public, that Foucault‟s pendulum is a failed experiment which proves nothing but how easy it is for pseudo-science to deceive the malleable masses.
"This pendulum, modern scientists tell us, affords a visible proof that we are living on a whirling globe, which, according to a „work on science‟ now before me, is spinning upon its so-called axis at the rate of over 1,000 miles an hour at the equator; and, in addition to other motions, is rushing on an everlasting tour round the sun (the diameter of which is said to be 813,000 miles, and its weight 354,936 times greater than the earth from which it is said to be about 93,000,000 miles distant,) at the rate of over 1,000 miles per minute. Now to prove that the earth really has these motions a pendulum is suspended at the show; the showman sets motion, and bids the gaping world of thoughtless men and women to „behold a proof‟ that we are living on a whirling globe which is rushing away through space!" -Lady Blount, "The Romance of Science" (7)
"Astronomers have made experiments with pendulums which have been suspended from the interior of high buildings, and have exulted over the idea of being able to prove the rotation of the Earth on its „axis,‟ by the varying direction taken by the pendulum over a prepared table underneath - asserting that the table moved round under the pendulum, instead of the pendulum shifting and oscillating in different directions over the table! But, since it has been found that, as often as not, the pendulum went round the wrong way for the „rotation‟ theory, chagrin has taken the place of exultation, and we have a proof of the failure of astronomers in their efforts to substantiate their theory." -William Carpenter, "100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe" (73) To begin with, Foucault‟s pendulums do not uniformly swing in any one direction. Sometimes they rotate clockwise and sometimes counter-clockwise, sometimes they fail to rotate and sometimes they rotate far too much. Scientists who have repeated variations of the experiment have conceded time and again that "it was difficult to avoid giving the pendulum some slight lateral bias at starting." The behavior of the pendulum actually depends on 1) the initial force beginning its swing and, 2) the ball-and-socket joint used which most-readily facilitates circular motion over any other. The supposed rotation of the Earth is completely inconsequential and irrelevant to the pendulum‟s swing. If the alleged constant rotation of the Earth affected pendulums in any way, then there should be no need to manually start pendulums in motion! If the Earth‟s diurnal rotation caused the 360 degree uniform diurnal rotation of pendulums, then there should not exist a stationary pendulum anywhere on Earth!
​
6. What about gravity?
​
If you fill a balloon with helium, a substance lighter than the nitrogen, oxygen and other elements which compose the air around it, the balloon will immediately fly upwards. If you fill a balloon with hydrogen, a substance even lighter than helium, the balloon will fly upwards even faster. If you blow a dandelion seed out of your hands, a substance just barely heavier than the air, it will float away and slowly but eventually fall to the ground. And if you drop an anvil from
your hands, something much heavier than the air, it will quickly and directly fall straight to the ground. Now, this has absolutely nothing to do with "gravity." The fact that light things rise up and heavy things fall down is simply a natural property of weight. That is very different from "gravity." Gravity is a hypothetical magnetic-like force possessed by large masses which Isaac Newton needed to help explain the heliocentric theory of the universe. "Most people in England have either read, or heard, that Sir Isaac Newton‟s theory of gravitation was originated by his seeing an apple fall to the earth from a tree in his garden. Persons gifted with ordinary common-sense would say that the apple fell down to the earth because, bulk for bulk, it was heavier than the surrounding air; but if, instead of the apple, a fluffy feather had been detached from the tree, a breeze would probably have sent the feather floating away, and the feather would not reach the earth until the surrounding air became so still that, by virtue of its own density, the feather would fall to the ground." -Lady Blount, "Clarion‟s Science Versus God‟s Truth" (40) Wilbur Voliva, a famous flat-Earther in the early 20th century, gave lectures all over America against Newtonian astronomy. He would begin by walking on stage with a book, a balloon, a feather and a brick, and ask the audience: "How is it that a law of gravitation can pull up a toy balloon and cannot put up a brick? I throw up this book. Why doesn‟t it go on up? That book went up as far as the force behind it forced it and it fell because it was heavier than the air and that is the only reason. I cut the string of a toy balloon. It rises, gets to a certain height and then it begins to settle. I take this brick and a feather. I blow the feather. Yonder it goes. Finally, it begins to settle and comes down. This brick goes up as far as the force forces it and then it comes down because it is heavier than the air. That is all." "Any object which is heavier than the air, and which is unsupported, has a natural tendency to fall by its own weight. Newton's famous apple at Woolsthorpe, or any other apple when ripe, loses hold of its stalk, and, being heavier than the air, drops as a matter of necessity, to the ground, totally irrespective of any attraction of the Earth. For, if such attraction existed, why does not the Earth attract the rising smoke which is not nearly so heavy as the apple? The answer is simple - because the smoke is lighter than the air, and, therefore, does not fall but ascends. Gravitation is only a subterfuge, employed by Newton in his attempt to prove that the Earth revolves round the Sun, and the quicker it is relegated to the tomb of all the Capulets, the better will it be for all classes of society." -David Wardlaw Scott, "Terra Firma" (8) "The „law of gravitation‟ is said by the advocates of the Newtonian system of astronomy, to be the greatest discovery of science, and the foundation of the whole of modern astronomy. If, therefore, it can be shown that gravitation is a pure assumption, and an imagination of the mind only, that it has no existence outside of the brains of its expounders and advocates, the whole of the hypotheses of this modern so-called science fall to the ground as flat as the surface of the ocean, and this „most exact of all sciences,‟ this wonderful „feat of the intellect‟ becomes at once the most ridiculous superstition and the most gigantic imposture to which ignorance and credulity could ever be exposed." -Thomas Winship, "Zetetic Cosmogeny" (36) Einstein‟s theory of relativity and the entire heliocentric model of the universe hinges upon Newton‟s "law of gravitation." Heliocentrists claim that the Sun is the most massive object in the
heavens, more massive even than the Earth, and therefore the Earth and other planets by "law" are caught up in the Sun‟s "gravity" and forced to orbit perpetual circles/ellipses around it. They claim that gravity also somehow allows people, buildings, the oceans, and all of nature to exist on the under-side of their "ball-Earth" without falling off. Now, even if gravity did exist, why would it cause both planets to orbit the Sun and people to stick to the Earth? Gravity should either cause people to float in suspended circular orbits around the Earth, or it should cause the Earth to be pulled and crash into the Sun! What sort of magic is "gravity" that it can glue people‟s feet to the ball-Earth, while causing Earth itself to revolve ellipses round the Sun? The two effects are very different yet the same cause is attributed to both. "If the sun is pulling with such power at the earth and all her sister planets, why do they not fall down upon him?" -A. Giberne, "Sun, Moon, and Stars" (27) Furthermore, this magnetic-like attraction of massive objects gravity is purported to have can be found nowhere in the natural world. There is no example in nature of a massive sphere or any other shaped-object which by virtue of its mass alone causes smaller objects to stick to or orbit around it! There is nothing on Earth massive enough that it can be shown to cause even a dust-bunny to stick to or orbit around it! Try spinning a wet tennis ball or any other spherical object with smaller things placed on its surface and you will find that everything falls or flies off, and nothing sticks to or orbits it. To claim the existence of a physical "law" without a single practical evidential example is hearsay, not science. "That bodies in some instances are seen to approach each other is a fact; but that their mutual approach is due to an „ attraction,‟ or pulling process, on the part of these bodies, is, after all, a mere theory. Hypotheses may be sometimes admissible, but when they are invented to support other hypotheses, they are not only to be doubted but discredited and discarded. The hypothesis of a universal force called Gravitation is based upon, and was indeed invented with a view to support another hypothesis, namely, that the earth and sea together make up a vast globe, whirling away through space, and therefore needing some force or forces to guide it in its mad career, and so control it as to make it conform to what is called its annual orbit round the sun! The theory first of all makes the earth to be a globe; then not a perfect globe, but an oblate spheroid, flattened at the „poles‟; then more oblate, until it was in danger of becoming so flattened that it would be like a cheese; and, passing over minor variations of form, we are finally told that the earth is pear-shaped, and that the „elipsoid has been replaced by an apoid!‟ What shape it may assume next we cannot tell; it will depend upon the whim or fancy of some astute and speculating „scientist.‟" -Lady Blount and Albert Smith, "Zetetic Astronomy" (14) How is it that "gravity" is so strong that it can hold all the oceans, buildings and people stuck to the under-side of the ball-Earth, but so weak that it allows birds, bugs, smoke, and balloons to casually evade its grips completely!? How is it that "gravity" holds our bodies clung to the under-side of the ball-Earth, but yet we can easily raise our legs and arms, walk or jump and feel no such constant downward pulling force? How is it that "gravity" can cause planets to revolve elliptical orbits around a single center of attraction? Ellipses by nature require two foci, and the force of gravitation would have to regularly increase and decrease to keep planets in constant orbit and prevent pulling them into direct collision courses!
7. How do the seasons work?
​
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 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) To quote Lion: "Now, when you say the whereabouts of the sun during the night, you do realize that during the night or what makes "the night" is that the sun's light has moved OFF of the area where you are." Also if the Sun is a flat 2D light moving away from us, once it is finally set beyond the horizon vanishing line of perspective it could not be brought back into view with a telescope because there is no substance or dimensionality to it. And if all that still doesn't satisfy, here is another explanation: Many cultures throughout the world for thousands of years have talked about a huge magnetic mountain at the North Pole center of our flat Earth disc. Some have even gone so far as to claim the mountain high enough that when the Sun/Moon travel "behind" it from your perspective, you can no longer see the luminaries or their lights until they come back around to the other side:
​
8. How does the sun appear to rise and set?
See previous question.
​
9. Why can't I see the sun at night?
​
See previous question
​
10. Why do the sun and moon appear larger near the horizon?
​
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. So the Sun as it sets towards the horizon, from a viewer's perspective on Earth, simultaneously gets bigger due to the reason given above, AND smaller due to the law of perspective. The net result is what you see. Notice how the distant lights have a brighter/bigger glare even though they're further away? Here they mention many contributing factors (wavelength, diffraction, air pressure, air temperature, width of aperature, altitude, humidity, clarity) all contributing to the net result. The amount/degree to which the Sun/Moon will be magnified (due to the above reasons) and shrink (due to law of perspective) will depend on all of the above. Hence why sometimes you'll see video of the Moon shrinking off into nothingness like here, and sometimes you'll see it magnified "The Moon‟s warm color when seen at lower angles is caused by the relatively larger amount of atmosphere through which one is observing it as compared to when the moon is right overhead. This additional atmosphere scatters the bluish component of the light of the moon, making the low-lying moon appear redder to the observer‟s eyes. If you look later when the moon is higher above the horizon, you‟ll see it appears much whiter than earlier in the evening." -ENature.com
​
11. How big and far away are the sun and moon?
​
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)
​
12. Why can't I see Polaris in the Southern Hemisphere?
​
All stars rotate East to West around Polaris just above the central North Pole like in a planetarium dome. The planetarium dome of our Earth however is so vast that the law of perspective doesn't allow you to see all the stars from any one vantage point. You can however see Polaris, Ursa Major/Minor and other Northern constellations from every point on Earth all the way to the Southern Tropic of Capricorn. The supposed "South Pole star," Southern Crux and other outer constellations conversely can NOT be seen from every point in the Southern Hemi"sphere" the way Polaris can from every point in the North. Nor do the Southern constellations circle around it West to East as is claimed. All stars rise more or less in the East and set in the West, with the angle/inclination being based on where you are on Earth and what direction you're facing. "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) "It has often been urged that the earth must be a globe, because the stars in the southern „hemisphere‟ move round a south polar star; in the same way that those of the north revolve round the northern pole star. This is another instance of the sacrifice of truth, and denial of the evidence of our senses for the purpose of supporting a theory which is in every sense false and unnatural. It is known to every observer that the north pole star is the centre of a number of constellations which move over the earth in a circular direction. Those nearest to it, as the „Great Bear,‟ etc. are always visible in England during their whole twenty-four hours' revolution. Those further away southwards rise north-north-east, and set south-south-west; still further south they rise east by north, and set west by north. The farthest south visible from England, the rising is more to the east and south-east, and the setting to the west and south-west. But all the stars visible from London rise and set in a way which is not compatible with the doctrine of rotundity. For instance, if we stand with our backs to the north, on the high land known as „Arthur's Seat,‟ near Edinburgh, and note the stars in the zenith of our position, and watch for several hours, the zenith stars will gradually recede to the north-west. If we do the same on Woodhouse Moor, near Leeds, or on any of the mountain tops in Yorkshire or Derbyshire, the same phenomenon is observed. The same thing may be seen from the top of Primrose Hill, near Regent's Park, London; from Hampstead Heath; or Shooter's Hill, near Woolwich. If we remain all night, we shall observe the same stars rising towards our position from the north-east, showing that the path of all the stars between ourselves and the northern centre move round the north pole-star as a common centre of rotation; just as they must do over a plane such as the earth is proved to be. It is undeniable that upon a globe zenith stars would rise, pass over head, and set in the plane of the observer's position. If now we carefully watch in the same way the zenith stars from the Rock of Gibraltar, the very same phenomenon is observed. The same is also the case from Cape of Good Hope, Sydney and Melbourne in Australia, in New Zealand, in Rio Janeiro, Monte Video, Valparaiso, and other places in the south. If then the zenith stars of all the places on the earth, where special observations have been made, rise from the morning horizon to the zenith of an observer, and descend to the evening horizon, not in a plane of the position of such observer, but in an arc of a circle concentric with the northern centre, the earth is thereby proved to be a plane, and rotundity altogether disproved - shown, indeed, to be impossible." -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, "Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!" (284-6)
​
13. What about the Coriolis effect?
​
The "Coriolis Effect" is often said to cause sinks and toilet bowls in the Northern Hemisphere to drain spinning in one direction while in the Southern Hemisphere causing them to spin the opposite way, thus providing proof of the spinning ball-Earth. Once again, however, just like Foucault‟s Pendulums spinning either which way, sinks and toilets in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres do not consistently spin in any one direction! Sinks and toilets in the very same household are often found to spin opposite directions, depending entirely upon the shape of the basin and the angle of the water‟s entry, not the supposed rotation of the Earth. "While the premise makes sense - that the earth‟s eastward spin would cause the water in a toilet bowl to spin as well - in reality, the force and speed at which the water enters and leaves the receptacle is much too great to be influenced by something as miniscule as a single, 360-degree turn over the span of a day. When all is said and done, the Coriolis effect plays no larger role in toilet flushes than it does in the revolution of CDs in your stereo. The things that really determine the direction in which water leaves your toilet or sink are the shape of the bowl and the angle at which the liquid initially enters that bowl." -Jennifer Horton, "Does the Rotation of the Earth Affect Toilets and Baseball Games?" Science.HowStuffWorks.com The Coriolis Effect is also said to affect bullet trajectories and weather patterns as well, supposedly causing most storms in the Northern Hemisphere to rotate counter-clockwise, and most storms in the Southern Hemisphere to rotate clockwise, to cause bullets from long range guns to tend towards the right of the target in the Northern Hemisphere and to the left in the Southern Hemisphere. Again, however, the same problems remain. Not every bullet and not every storm consistently displays the behavior and therefore cannot reasonably be used as proof
of anything. What about the precision of the sight aperture, human error, and wind? What about Michelson-Morley-Gale‟s proven motion of the aether‟s potential effect? Why does the Coriolis Effect affect most storms but not all? If some storms rotate clockwise in the North and counter-clockwise in the South, how do those storms escape the Coriolis force? And if the entire Earth‟s spin is uniform, why should the two hemispheres be affected any differently? Coriolis‟s Effect and Foucault‟s Pendulum are both said to prove the Earth moves beneath our feet, but in reality only prove how easy it can be for wolves in sheep‟s clothing to pull the wool over our eyes. -The Flat Earth Conspiracy
​
14. What about images from space?
​
These images are faked. Even since the beginning NASA has been creating fraudulent images, first by doctoring photographs manually, and now with computer generated images. There has been a lot of work done in this area to show this. Here is just one video https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=35n9FLAoiA8 . There are in fact very few images of the earth taken from space. The same images are re-hashed time and time again. It is claimed that they cannot simply take a photograph as we normally do, but they must use ribbons of imagery and put them together in photoshop.
​
15. What about the ocean tides?
​
What causes the Oceans tides is so far a mystery. There are a few possible explanations. The first is that the lowering of the air pressure caused by moonlight, in some way pulls the oceans. The second is that there is a giant whirlpool in the North Pole which pulls the ocean's waters in and puts them back out again every 6 hours. This may not be as far-fetched as we might be inclined to think. We have some testimony from Catholic writers in the middle ages; The 14th century writings Inventio Fortunata by Nicholas de Linna and The Itinerium of Jacobus Cnoyen mention the magnetic mountain being so powerful that it pulled the nails right out of explorer‟s boats! The encircling whirlpool and four directional rivers surrounding the mountain were said to change every 6 hours causing the tides, comparing them to the "breath of God" at the "naval of the Earth," inhaling and exhaling the great seas. The cartographer Gerardus Mercator's 16th century map below informs us that the waters of the oceans are carried northward to the Pole through these rivers with great force, such that no wind could make a ship sail against the current. The waters then disappear into an enormous whirlpool beneath the mountain at the Pole, and are absorbed into the bowels of the earth. "A monstrous gulf in the sea towards which from all sides the billows of the sea coming from remote parts converge and run together as though brought there by a conduit, pouring into these mysterious abysses of nature, they are as though devoured thereby and, should it happen that a vessel pass there, it is seized and drawn away with such powerful violence of the waves that this hungry force immediately swallows it up never to appear again." -Gerardus Mercator
​
Fridtjof Nansen has found mentions of a great northern whirlpool in Norse legends of the world's well, "Hvergelmer," which causes the tides by pushing and pulling water through its subterranean channels, Isidore of Seville (c.560-636), the Gesta hammaburgensis ecclesiae pontificum of Adam Bremensis (11th century), the Topographia hibernica of Giraldus Cambrensis (1146-1220; his description of the northern whirlpool is cited by Mercator), the Historia norvegiae (c.1180), the Speculum regale (c. 1250) of Einer Gunnarson, and a particularly interesting quote from the Langobard author Paulus Warnefridi (c.720-790), also called Diaconus: "And not far from the shore which we before spoke of, on the west, where the ocean extends without bounds, is that very deep abyss of waters which we commonly call the ocean's navel. It is said twice a day to suck the waves into itself, and to spew them out again; as is proved to happen along all these coasts, where the waves rush in and go back again with fearful rapidity.... By the whirlpool of which we have spoken it is asserted that ships are often drawn in with such rapidity that they seem to resemble the flight of arrows through the air; and sometimes they are lost in the gulf with a very frightful destruction. Often just as they are about to go under, they are brought back again by a sudden shockofthe waves, and they are sent out again thence with the same rapidity with which they were drawn in." In "Gesta Hammaburgensis Ecclesiae Pontificum" states that Archbishop Adalbert told of a team of noble men of Frisia around 1035-1043 set sail to explore the north polar region. As they headed north beyond Greenland, "of a sudden they fell into that numbing ocean‟s dark mist which could hardly be penetrated with the eyes. And behold, the current of the fluctuating ocean whirled back to its mysterious fountainhead and with most furious impetuosity drew the unhappy sailors, who in their despair now thought only of death, on to chaos; this they say is the „abysmal chasm‟ - that deep in which report has it that all the back flow of the sea, which appears to decrease, is absorbed and in turn revomited, as the mounting fluctuation is usually described. As the partners were imploring the mercy of God to receive their souls, the backward thrust of the sea carried away some of their ships, but its forward ejection threw the rest far behind the others. Freed thus by the timely help of God from the instant peril they had had before their eyes, they seconded the flood by rowing with all their might.
​
Finally, the third possible explanation is put forward by protestant 19th century flat-earthers who say that the bottom of the ocean moves up and down in a breathing fashion.
​
16. But I can see the earth's curve from the plane window!
​
The glass used in all commercial airplanes is curved to remain flush with the fuselage. This creates a slight bulging effect people mistake for being the supposed curvature of the Earth. In actuality, if the Earth were a ball, no matter how large, you would NOT be able to see the horizon rise remaining at eye level all the way up. If the Earth were a ball, no matter how big, the horizon would stay exactly where it was and you would have to look DOWN further and further to see the horizon at all. Looking straight out the window at 35,000 feet you should see nothing but "outer-space" from the port and starboard windows, as the Earth/horizon are supposed to be BELOW you. If they are visible at eye level outside both side windows, that's because the
Earth is flat!
​
17. There's a curve in the Red-Bull dive too!
​
Taken with a fish eye lens. http://www.youtube.com/embed/ZyIVaZXDhho
​
18. All the planets are spheres!
For thousands of years the "planets" were known as "wandering stars" as they differ from the fixed stars in their relative motions only. Through a telescope both the fixed stars and wandering "planets" appear as nothing more than tiny round dots of light, luminaries, circling the night sky. They do NOT appear in any way to be spherical Earth-like terra firma capable of landing on as the Freemasons at NASA would have us believe with their fake CGI pictures and videos. The following video exposes the entire deception proving that Earth is in fact a plane and "planets" do not exist!
http://www.youtube.com/embed/q8tIm-fxE_s
​
19. Why do the southern stars move around a southern polestar?
​
All stars rotate East to West around Polaris just above the central North Pole like in a planetarium dome. The planetarium dome of our Earth however is so vast that the law of perspective doesn't allow you to see all the stars from any one vantage point. You can however see Polaris, Ursa Major/Minor and other Northern constellations from every point on Earth all the way to the Southern Tropic of Capricorn. The supposed "South Pole star," Southern Crux and other outer constellations conversely can NOT be seen from every point in the Southern Hemi"sphere" the way Polaris can from every point in the North. Nor do the Southern constellations circle around it West to East as is claimed. All stars rise more or less in the East and set in the West, with the angle/inclination being based on where you are on Earth and what direction you're facing. "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) "It has often been urged that the earth must be a globe, because the stars in the southern „hemisphere‟ move round a south polar star; in the same way that those of the north revolve round the northern pole star. This is another instance of the sacrifice of truth, and denial of the evidence of our senses for the purpose of supporting a theory which is in every sense false and
unnatural. It is known to every observer that the north pole star is the centre of a number of constellations which move over the earth in a circular direction. Those nearest to it, as the „Great Bear,‟ etc. are always visible in England during their whole twenty-four hours' revolution. Those further away southwards rise north-north-east, and set south-south-west; still further south they rise east by north, and set west by north. The farthest south visible from England, the rising is more to the east and south-east, and the setting to the west and south-west. But all the stars visible from London rise and set in a way which is not compatible with the doctrine of rotundity. For instance, if we stand with our backs to the north, on the high land known as „Arthur's Seat,‟ near Edinburgh, and note the stars in the zenith of our position, and watch for several hours, the zenith stars will gradually recede to the north-west. If we do the same on Woodhouse Moor, near Leeds, or on any of the mountain tops in Yorkshire or Derbyshire, the same phenomenon is observed. The same thing may be seen from the top of Primrose Hill, near Regent's Park, London; from Hampstead Heath; or Shooter's Hill, near Woolwich. If we remain all night, we shall observe the same stars rising towards our position from the north-east, showing that the path of all the stars between ourselves and the northern centre move round the north pole-star as a common centre of rotation; just as they must do over a plane such as the earth is proved to be. It is undeniable that upon a globe zenith stars would rise, pass over head, and set in the plane of the observer's position. If now we carefully watch in the same way the zenith stars from the Rock of Gibraltar, the very same phenomenon is observed. The same is also the case from Cape of Good Hope, Sydney and Melbourne in Australia, in New Zealand, in Rio Janeiro, Monte Video, Valparaiso, and other places in the south. If then the zenith stars of all the places on the earth, where special observations have been made, rise from the morning horizon to the zenith of an observer, and descend to the evening horizon, not in a plane of the position of such observer, but in an arc of a circle concentric with the northern centre, the earth is thereby proved to be a plane, and rotundity altogether disproved - shown, indeed, to be impossible." -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, "Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!" (284-6)
​
20. Why can't I use a telescope and see clear across the Pacific?
Telescopes, like our eyes have limited vision. Our vision even through our telescope becomes limited due to many factors such as the thickness of the air and dissipation of light.
​
21. What about the Earths round shadow on the Moon?
​
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. Therefore the eclipsor of the Moon CANNOT be the Earth/Earth's shadow and some other explanation must be sought.
It is possible that there exists other dark bodies in the heavens of which we do not have a clear knowledge. For science to discover the answer!
​
22. What about Satellites?
​
Satellites are purely science-fiction. All supposed images of satellites in orbit show fake CGI "satellites" orbiting a fake CGI "ball-Earth." First conceived by Freemason science-fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke in 1945, they claim satellites became science-fact soon after. This is impossible for many reasons outlined in the following video, however, including the fact the melting points of the metals used in satellites are far lower than the temperature in the "thermosphere" where satellites supposedly are. Satellites, space stations, the Hubble telescope and space travel in general are absolutely the biggest hoaxes of the century, and NASA the most successful propaganda organization in history.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/wLMRWvXuc5U
​
So in this sense satellites do not exist. But there can be high flying aircraft and blimps and evidence is now emerging that this is the most likely explanation for seeing objects in the sky.
​
23. What about GPS and Google Earth?
​
GPS is done using ground based technology which has been in existence since the 1940's. Google Earths imagery is taken using high flying aircraft.
​
24. What about the International Space Station?
​
The International Space Station, just like everything else brought to us by NASA, is a Freemasonic hoax, a complete fabrication done with special effects, models, pools, zero G planes, and various camera tricks. The following video exposes key points of evidence for the hoax and breaks down exactly how the illusion is created and maintained.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/5e-RnKAN9qY
​
25. What about meteorites?
​
Some people have suggested that the Sun at certain times overheats certain parts of the "glass ceiling/dome/firmament" causing them to melt and fall to Earth in the form of meteorites and perhaps dry into "Libyan Desert Glass." Others say Earth/space is infinite even in the flat model, so meteorites could still work the same way on a flat model as they do with the globe. And others still say that perhaps meteorites don't exist at all and the "fireballs" caught on Russian dashcams all the time are actually government-created to further the space lie
​
​
26. Why would they lie to us about the flat earth?
​
The natural realities around us are the basis for our understanding of the concepts of our faith. There is nothing more universal than the sky and the earth. Undermining this, was the first step towards undermining other truths. It is literally the ground we walk on (and sky we look up to) which all men, regardless of their condition can see and use to elevate his mind beyond the immediate and material. When we accept the Earth to be flat, we see that how important man is in God's creation. Important not because of himself, but because of Gods greatest act, the Incarnation. In short, the reason for making us belief far-fetched ideas about galaxies etc, is to undermine our Catholic Faith and eventually, to lose it.
​
27. Do you seriously think there is a 500 year conspiracy which has duped all politicians, scientists, astrophysicists, astronauts and engineers?
​
Yes. Not all in the professions mentioned agree on the round earth. Certainly not until the 1960's. But now that the truth is coming out on this issue, we are seeing more of them coming to realise the truth of the arguments presented.
​
28. But the Church is in favour of science and not this nonsense!
​
Indeed the Church basis its philosophy on realism. This is precisely why we point out how the flat earth is profoundly scientific. We start with scientific proofs to demonstrate to people the
veracity of our claims.
​
As a matter of interest the majority of the opinions of the Fathers on this issue seems to have been in the direction of the flat earth.
​
29. But St. Thomas argues against it!
St. Thomas does no such thing. In a question on habits (I-II, Q54, art 2), he makes reference to Aristotle having "proven" that the Earth was round. His wording can make it seem like he agrees especially if you come at it presupposing the Earth to be round, but he does not state clearly is own opinion on the matter. He was simply using it to make another general point.
​
We should note that Thomistic philosophy is profoundly realistic and accepts what we view with our senses. A good Thomist accepts what he sees, even if this reality hurts.
​
​
​
​
****
Most of the answers from these FAQs were taken from the forum of Eric Dubay. He has asked that his forum be cited. Here is the link http://ifers.123.st/ .
We do not condone the anti-Catholic content of this forum. It is recommended solely for its rigorous scientific method, and strong line against the Jew World Order, both sadly lacking among many in the flat earth movement.
​