Flat Earth Resources

The Ultimate Guide to the Flat Earth Debate

Prov. 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, But the glory of kings is to search out a matter.

Mountain View


The following web page is produced by the Southern Israelite for the purpose of educating my people, the British and Northern European Protestant Peoples, who walk the Earth confused and fragmented from the past 150 years of apostasy, persecution, and endless Military Psychological Operations peformed by the US Government.

Donate to the Southern Israelite







My Model

(And remember, if you focus on models as the arbiters of truth you have abandoned Positivism and have committed yourself to Realism, which requires you to justify Induction. See Semantic View of Theories.)

Authority: Authoritarian(Conspiracies happen but are compartmentalized. There are always good authorities to appeal to when others are corrupted.)
Biology: Biblical Lamarckism (See Samuel Stanhope Smith, Essay on the Causes of Variety of Complexion and Figure in the Human Species).
Celestial Bodies: Luminaries manifest in the heavenly Continuum, as well as Dark Bodies, not Physical Bodies in a Vacuum. Possibly, stars are a product of Sonoluminescence and Acoustic Levitation.(See "Astronomy in the Bible" Section)
Cosmology:Professor William Warren's depiction of Babylonian Cosmology in The Earliest Cosmologies(link)

Epistemology: Rationalism (Deduction from the Axiom of Scripture). Human reason is grounded in innate genetic structure. There is no soul.
Falling Bodies: Caused by their density and the structure of the continuum in which they subsist.(See the "Gravity not a Force" Section)1
Force: The Breathe of Life(Ruwach)
Geology: Noahic.
Geometry: Tactual (Bridgman, The Logic of Modern Physics: See "Tactual and Optical Space" Section)
Firmament: Solid Electromagnetic Conductor submerged in some kind of liquid substance which begins about 90-110 km in altitude above the Earth. (Jeremiah 51:16; See "Firmament" Section )
Horizon: Not an occluding edge or actual physical obstruction but an optical effect or vanishing point of the human perception on the Earth.2
Map: Gleason Map: link
Mass: A discrete body in an experiment or operation.(Bridgman, Logic of Modern Physics, pg. 92)
Mathematics: Useful fiction.
Mechanics: Continuum.
Metaphysics: Biblical Deism.
Motion: Can only be described not explained.
Position: Identified Absolutely in Relation to the Continuum.
Philosophy of Science: Revelation, Direct Observation(Of things we can account for; no Optics), Coherence Theory, Expert Authorities, Innate Teleology, Dominionist Operationalism (See "Scientific Method and Philosophy of Science" Section)
Pressure: Hydrostatic stress.
Seasons: Caused by the expansion and contraction of the Sun as per Rowbotham. (I would only clarify that the actual source of light is on the other side of the firmament.)
Space: A measurement of length.
Tides: The Great Deep under the Earth.(See the "Bible and The Flat Earth" Section)
Time: Linear (Monotheist).
Weight: Quantity of substance in relation to its Continuum.


1 In my debate with Team Skeptic he argued that Glaciers prove Gravity and disprove density. Ice is Less dense than Water and density explains why Glaciers float on ice perfectly:
"An unusual property of ice frozen at atmospheric pressure is that the solid is approximately 8.3% less dense than liquid water (which is equivalent to volumetric expansion of 9%). The density of ice is 0.9167[1]–0.9168[2] g/cm3 at 0 °C and standard atmospheric pressure (101,325 Pa), whereas water has a density of 0.9998[1]–0.999863[2] g/cm3 at the same temperature and pressure. Liquid water is densest, essentially 1.00 g/cm3, at 4 °C and becomes less dense as the water molecules begin to form the hexagonal crystals[9] of ice as the freezing point is reached. This is due to hydrogen bonding dominating the intermolecular forces, which results in a packing of molecules less compact in the solid. Density of ice increases slightly with decreasing temperature and has a value of 0.9340 g/cm3 at −180 °C (93 K).[10]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice

Link 2

2 (The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, by James J. Gibson (Psychology Press: 2015), 76-77, 155-156

Topical Index:

Arguments Proving the Earth to be Flat:


(To view images larger: Right Click, "Open image in New Tab")

  1. Our unmanipulated experience tells us the Earth is Flat and stationary and thus, our opponents have the burden of proof. However, our opponents have devised numerous optical and metaphysical theories to circumvent what we all experience.(See "Astronomy Proved Unreliable") Standard Academic Sources Admit curvature cannot be detected below 35, 000 ft. and that:
    "Photographs purporting to show the curvature of the Earth are always suspect because virtually all camera lenses project an image that suffers from barrel distortion." Visually Discerning the Curvature of the Earth by David Lynch
    Mountain View

    NGT admits that even from 128, 000 ft the height of the Baumgartner jump the earth should appear flat.

    A Conversation with Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson (Full Session) (38:20)

    Dr. Carlo Rovelli, in Reality Is Not What It Seems, tells us that when our senses perceive the Earth is flat this is actually an illusion.

    Mountain View

    Horizon


    One of the foremost authorities in visual perception Dr. James J. Gibson tells us that at the scale of the human observer the earth is flat all the way out to the horizon, and on that scale the earth is not Copernican.

    Mountain View Mountain View

    Thus, our opponent's demand that we prove the Earth is flat, when examined carefully, is actually a cleverly crafted onus probandi fallacy, that is shifting the burden of proof, demanding that we disprove their THEORY that our unmanipulated experienced reality is the illusion they have invented.

    Reds Rhetoric and Company do not understand what Burden of Proof means. They basically state that the Burden of Proof is on the person questioning the current established opinion.

    1.That is a legitimate Appeal to Authority fallacy (See "Appeal to Authority" Section) and an Appeal to Popularity.

    2.If that is true you have the onus to prove God doesn't exist because the established opinion is that he does. (http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/belief-in-god/)

    3.Moreover, of late there has been much exposure as to the fact that Most Published Research Findings Are False, by John P. A. Ioannidis.(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/)


    So what is the burden of proof?

    Mountain View
    Mountain View

  2. Upon ascension from the earth the horizon rises to the eye. As the great 19th century balloonist james Glaisher admitted,
    "The earth being a spherical globe, it might be thought that on rising high above the surface we should see something of this spherical shape, But the contrary is experienced in reality. As we mount higher the surface of the earth, instead of this actually flattens out."
    Mountain View

  3. Mountain View
    Mountain View
    Mountain View
    Mountain View
    Mountain View
    Mountain View
    Mountain View
    Mountain View
    Mountain View

    This is a direct admission of special creation. The word artificial refers to something produced by an intelligent agent and not arising out of mere natural processes. It is a direct admission of what we read in:
    Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. 5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
    As Taboo Conspiracy pointed out, when the horizon in the Felix Baumgartner footage is compared between the horizon while on the ground to the horizon at 128,000 feet we see 100% confirmation of flat earth. I pulled up the Walter Bislins curvature application and made a comparison between eye level on the ground to 128,000 feet, screen captured it, lowered the opacity and laid it over the Baumgartner scene and as we see the horizon should have dropped dramatically lower than the horizon in the footage if we were living on a ball. Appeals to a gimbal are an argument from ignorance and the theodolite excuse was also addressed long ago and at vast distances and vast differences in elevation the theodolite is unreliable due to the collimation error.(See the "Theodolites" Section)

    Felix Baumgartner Proves the Flat Earth - For the Last Time

    Mountain View

    Mountain View
    My opponents are going to try and blame the horizon on Felix somehow leaning the Gondola perfectly in proportion to the falling horizon while sitting still with his back against the seat at rest.


  4. Not simply the baseless theory but the experimentally proven impossibility of Gravity proves the earth is flat. Any 3 dimensional object whether it was a spheroid or a pyramid would require Gravity in order to attract or hold subjects held to its surface at a 90 degree angle.

    Mountain View

  5. Thus, if gravity is disproved, this necessitates without any possible alternate hypothesis that the earth is flat. The following is a Modus Tollens argument:

    If there is curvature to the Earth, there must be gravity.
    There is no gravity.
    Therefore, there is no curvature to the earth.

    The syllogism is valid in its form all that we lack is a verification of its premises. To the first premise, Sir Isaac Newton tells us on pages 528-529 of his Principia, that from the attractions of gravity,
    "the bodies of the earth and all the planets effect a spherical figure"
    Mountain View
    To the second premise, see the "Gravity Refuted" Section.

  6. If Gravity was truly the mechanism of Earth's shape there should be no ancient mountains, canyons or valleys. All of the Earth should be at sea level if Gravity means anything.

  7. Without Gravity there can be no motion to the Earth. (See "Gravity Refuted" #41)

  8. Without Gravity air pressure can only be possible within a contained firmamental Earth. Static fluid pressure shows that an equilibrium does not preclude pressure gradients. Thus, the popular argument that air pressure requires a container or firmament due to the nature of entropy(tendency for high pressure to spread to lower pressure) stands.

    [http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pflu.html] See also Cutnell and Johnson's Physics, 8th Edition, pgs. 322-323 which I discuss on my blog here.

    1. So the only way the earth could maintain air pressure is with an external firmament structure. That a high pressure environment could arbitrarily be juxtaposed to a lower pressure environment contradicts all precedent that I am aware of.
    2. My opponents cannot believe Newton's definition of a vacuum which is nothing other than space, and space is the presence of God which my opponents do not believe in.(See "Vacuum" Section)
    3. See the "Gravity Refuted" Section.

  9. Percy Bridgman Nobel Prize Winner in Physics and Professor of Mathematics and Physics at Harvard University from 1919 to 1954, in his work The Logic of Modern Physics, refutes the Heliocentric interpretation of Stellar Aberration, Stellar Parallax and refutes the Heliocentric theory on the distance of the stars, on page 17,

  10. Mountain View

    The arguments he gives for this position are the following:

    1. The parameters of length are physical operations when constructing a measuring stick(tactual space), but the length to a celestial body is based on theoretical notions of the nature and motion of light. (optical space). On pg. 164 Bridgman states that Stellar aberration is refuted by the fact that it assumes light is a material thing that travels.

    2. The positions of optical space are arbitrary seeing space is infinite and can only be defined dialectically thus optical space is baseless seeing the space needing to be measured and defined through Euclidean Geometry is empty.

    Thus, without the vast distances of the celestial bodies necessary for any version of a 3 dimensional earth, we are left with no other choice than that the earth is flat. And as a side note this also refutes the theory behind the EQ mount.

    See "Astronomy Proved Unreliable, #20. The distances to the stars are baseless".

  11. Given the missing vast distances of the stars, the ancient irrefutable argument of no annual parallax stands untouchable as an irrefutable proof that earth does not move.(See 225 Reasons, pg. 164)

  12. Heat Spot

  13. The Dogcamsport heat spot[link(4:12)] and sunlight reflections prove the sun is local.

    See my presentation(14:05)

    1.The heat spot is too small to be the reflection of the sun in the satellite.
    2.The heat spot is a different color than the reflection of the sun in the satellite. Appealing to camera settings you have not verified is not an answer.
    3.The heat spot is a different opacity than the reflection of the sun in the satellite and the image is brightest when it is right over Luzon and Manila. Right at the beginning. Also moving away or to an angle from an object does not change its opacity, experimental verification will be needed.
    4.The heat spot is located in an area that the reflection of the sun in the satellite does not move to. The footage shows it moves just above and below the equator.
    5.Light reflects off water in the shape of a thin arrow shape not a circle.
    6.The Heliocentrists assume there is an opening in the clouds underneath which is the reflecting water. This claim is baseless. Interesting how that opening just happens to be the exact same shape as all the rest of the heat spots we have seen with no clouds
    7.The satellite images do not show the earth as a pear shape.
    8.Their arguments are unfalsifiable. What experiment can be done that will portray an opaque circular reflection upon a convex object, but appear as a long thin arrow shape to a close observer and then be moved away to appear as it does in your footage?
    9.Arguing that the Ocean is not a proper reflective surface would debunk the satellite images as fake because they portray properly how light reflects on a convex steel object and the reflection is on the ocean.

    Right Click, "Open image in new Tab"




  14. Sun Dog

    I learned this from Zeteticism DotCom

  15. The Sun Dog and the Parhelic circle proves the Earth is Flat. The only theory that I have seen any experimental proof for is flat earth. According to the globe theory sun dogs are created when the sun is near the horizon and on the same horizontal plane with ice crystals and the observer. The light is bent 22 degrees outward and upward creating the sun dog. So the source of the light is the sun. I have three observations that contradict this.

    See my presentation(13:13)

    1. Sun dogs are seen deep inside river valleys. Bow river Calgary: [https://www.meteoros.de/blog/pics/IMG_0027-sundog+trees.jpg]

    2. In the shade in front of a mountain blocking direct sunlight as in Park City Utah. [link]

    3. And in the shade in front of this building in Moscow. (See above presentation 13:30)

    4. Just as when one places a light inside a plastic bowl dome the sundogs will appear higher than the sun when the light source is higher and more even with the sun when it is lower just as we see in reality.



    5. As I have shown from William Warren's depiction of the ancient Hebrew conception of the universe the concavity above the earth at zenith is the same as that along the periphery perfectly explaining the Parahelic circle. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parhelic_circle#/media/File:Halo_and_sun_dog_-_NOAA.jpg]

    Again, my opponents have nothing but baseless theories to explain these observations which can all be seen with the naked eye. I have seen them myself.

    6. The flat earth explanation can also account for the fact that sun dogs will change in size in time which is predicted by the moving local sun under the dome.

  16. Water seeks it's level. The Heliocentric understanding of the word level is simply a 90 degree angle to the center of the Earth, i.e. a plumb line.

    Mountain View
    Mountain View
    The problem is a plumb line assumes upon the existence of fixed points which are impossible on the Heliocentric model. (See the "Inertia" Section) From the ancient world the word level means flat. The Pyramids of Egypt by Iorwerth Eiddon Stephen Edwards, pg. 9,

    Mountain View

  17. No North-South Circumnavigation along a continuous longitude.

    Mountain View Mountain View Mountain View Mountain View Mountain View Mountain View Mountain View

    And notice how the Transpolar08 team shows their supposed circumnavigation.

    Mountain View

    I emailed them about this in April of 2018:

    Mountain View

    It has been almost a year with no answer.

    As for the Transglobe Expedition see my video, Transglobe Expedition Ranulph Fiennes, TransPolar08 – Flat Earth Response:

    1. The trip from South Africa to Antarctica has the Benjamin Bowring traveling at almost half its service speed.

    2. The trip from Sanae to the pole has them traveling only 27 miles a day on vehicles that can move up to 75 mph.

    3. From later admissions of travel up to ten hours a day that places their pole trip at 2.7 miles per hour!

    4. The trip from the Pole to Scott base has them only traveling 44 miles a day which is 1. An extremely short distance for vehicles that can move up to 75 mph and 2. Radically different speed from the first trip down to the pole.

    5. Their flight back home has them traveling in the air almost half the speed that an aircraft designed to fly that far is supposed to be traveling.

    6. Why has no one else done this? Why did the ZQ Pilot think it was too dangerous for him in an airplane but it is not on a snowmobile?

    So this is what the trip looked like according to the AE boys, or the Gleason map:

    Mountain View

    7. Sir Ranulph Fiennes is associated with Freemasonry and deep State operations.

    8. The South Pole itself is dominated by Masonic influence.

    9. The Mercator projection shows Antarctica exponentially larger than modern conceptions which may explain the discrepancies here.

    What they need to prove their case is quite easy. A flight along the E 116 longitude down to Perth and then the South Pole, back up the North Pole along W 58 longitude.

    The flight would be 7800 miles but again supposedly the South Pole is in the Center of the continent so any emergency stop would be better facilitated by flying through the Pole than flying around the "continent". Dubai to Sao Paolo is 7500 miles. Regular flights are taken from LA to Singaopore which is 8,769 miles. And of course they would need to begin in the North Pole along the same longitude, and then back up to the North Pole on the same longitude from Buenos Aires.

    Mountain View

    These are the flights that actually exist:

    *Perth to Dubai to Sao Paolo to Buenos Aires

    Mountain View

    *Perth to Sydney to New Zealand to Chile to Buenos

    Mountain View

    *Perth to Johannesburg to Sao Paolo to Buenos:

    Mountain View

    *Perth to Singapore to Addis Ababa to Sao Poalo to Buenos

    Mountain View

    Flying over Antarctica would save millions of dollars in gas and pilot man hours a year utilizing the much shorter paths. These mega global corporations can't build some runways in Antarctica? Why is preparing emergency stops over the vast pacific ocean which the LA to Singapore flight travels regularly, less difficult than an already explored land mass that people have navigated with snowmobiles?

    We also see that the South Africa Route is 10, 882.75 miles in 32 h 55m. The Dubai Route is 14, 190 miles in 33h 45m. 3, 307.59 more miles in 50 minutes!

    Mountain View

    There have been plans to make this direct flight from Perth to Beunos Aires happen but nothing actual. https://soperth.com.au/perth-buenos-aires-direct-flights-20612

    Mountain View

    As you can see they are now planning to not fly through the pole but supposedly use tail winds to guide them along the shore.

    http://www.air-journal.fr/2018-01-29-norwegian-air-argentina-autorisee-a-decoller-en-argentine-5193870.html

    https://www.archam.com.au/buenos-aires-perth-singapore/

    https://www.archam.com.au/?s=perth+buenos

    http://www.air-journal.fr/?s=perth+buenos

    Recently, Greater Sapien, the Heliocentric apologist planned on doing a circumnavigation and it ended in humiliating fraud!

    Mountain View


  18. Missing Satellite Footage of South Pole Proves It Does not Exist!

    https://icesat.gsfc.nasa.gov/icesat2/publications/pubs_2010/abdalati_et_al_2010.pdf

    https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/1209icesat.html Mountain View

  19. Internet Cables are Proof of Flat Earth. Notice how the cables do not connect the southern regions of the continents. That is because in the flat earth model, the distances are much greater.

    link1
    link2
    Mountain View

    See also: https://www.submarinecablemap.com/

    How the cables look on a flat earth: link


  20. Solar Analemma

  21. The Solar Analemma(The sun appears to move faster and in a broader orbit in the winter months which is only possible on the flat earth model.) proves the Earth is flat. See 225 Reasons pg. 225-226

    Tilt of the Earth

    Of course, the heliocentrists will attempt to explain this away with the alleged 23.4 degree tilt of the Earth caused by the alleged Big Bang. I laid out my refutations of the alleged Earth tilt in my video against Professor Stick where I put a list of issues he needed to answer which he did not:

    Mountain View

    See the video responses here at these links:

    SI: "Professor Stick Refuted on the Antarctic Sun"
    Professor Stick: "Flat Earther Tries to Debunk Me on the Antarctic Sun"
    SI: "Refuting Professor Stick Into Fetal Position…Again"

    I would add a few more.

    8. Sungenis nicely represents the Flat Earth argument though he is not a Flat Earther,

    "As it stands, the flat-earthers contend that the elliptical version (whether Keplerian or Neo-Tychonic) of the analemma cannot be correct. They contend (as seen in the memes below) that the eccentricity of the orbit is not large enough to account for the different sizes of the analemma's two loops, since the sun/earth orbit is 97% of circular but produces a 50% difference in size between the loops of the analemma." Flat Earth Flat Wrong, pg. 436
    9. See the "Astronomy Proved Unreliable" Section #28. Kepler's Laws are Refuted by the Solar Analemma.

    10. See the "Gravity Refuted" Section, #48. Orbits are made possible by Inertia in the Heliocentric model, but as we saw before there is no inertia. See also the "Inertia" Section.

    11. The reflection of the sun in the satellite footage does not show the path of the sun as it is needed to explain the Analemma. Sungenis, Flat Earth Flat Wrong(pg. 432-433)

    Mountain View

    See argument #8 on The Dogcamsport heat spot for the satellite footage.

    12. In order for the tilt to be true Polaris would have to be perfectly mirroring the Earth's tilting, wobbling and orbit around the Sun requiring a navigation system so complex it baffles the mind yet the refuted imaginary god of Gravity makes it happen because hey it makes Heliocentrists feel good to tell themselves that.

    13. The way that the Sun moves in the North during midnight sun is not what should be expected if the Earth was a Globe tilted at 23.4 degrees orbiting the Sun.ZIGZAG ARGUMENT WON'T GET OUT OF YOUR HEAD


  22. The Southern "Hemisphere" is Larger than the Northern.

    1. NDT admitted the Southern Hemisphere is Larger than the Northern.

    Gravity Refuted P. 10; Southern "Hemisphere" Refutes Equatorial Bulge and Confirms Flat Earth (0:45)

    2. The plane flights from Johannesburg to Santiago are impossible on a globe and only possible on flat earth. These are the routes that you will find for this flight. When I did my search there was no direct flight.

    Mountain View

    Mountain View

    Some have attempted to use this flight but you will notice it says one stop.

    Mountain View

    This is impossible on the globe model and only possible on the flat earth model.

    3. The situation room where the most high level National Security Council takes place was recorded in 1962 with an AE Map guiding the Geography of National Security.

    Mountain View

    4. Rowbotham states, "the degrees of longitude in any given southern latitude are larger than the degrees in any latitude nearer to the northern centre;" from Voyages of James Clark Ross, Vol. 1, pgs. 96-97:

    Mountain View

    Mountain View

    Mountain View

    5. Visit the NOAA South Pole Observatory site and view the South Pole Time Lapse Movies, and see the December 2012 footage, what you will see is a flag that produces a shadow and its movement throughout the day. You will notice that the shadow will start at about the 9 o'clock position and move to the 3 o'clock position and then something very interesting happens: the footage cuts out and moves on to another day.

    [http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/obop/spo/movies.html]

    6. Mercator Projection shows Antarctica to be gigantic soon to be shrunk by the modern globe projections. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercator_projection]

    7. NASA cannot Map the Southern "Hemisphere" link

    Mountain View

    8. See also the above argument: No North-South Circumnavigation along a continuous longitude.

  23. Bedford Level

  24. The Bedford Level Experiment is another refutation of rotundity and Spherical Geometry(The Canal is not subject to as much atmospheric refraction as larger bodies of water).
  25. In 1838 Samuel Rowbotham performed the famous Bedford level experiment in 1838. He records in experiments 1 and 2 of his infamous work Zetetic Astronomy,

    "EXPERIMENT 1. A boat, with a flag-staff, the top of the flag 5 feet above the surface of the water, was directed to sail from a place called "Welche's Dam" (a well-known ferry passage), to another called "Welney Bridge." These two points are six statute miles apart. The author, with a good telescope, went into the water; and with the eye about 8 inches above the surface, observed the receding boat during the whole period required to sail to Welney Bridge. The flag and the boat were distinctly visible throughout the whole distance! There could be no p. 12 mistake as to the distance passed over, as the man in charge of the boat had instructions to lift one of his oars to the top of the arch the moment he reached the bridge. The experiment commenced about three o'clock in the afternoon of a summer's day, and the sun was shining brightly and nearly behind or against the boat during the whole of its passage. Every necessary condition had been fulfilled, and the result was to the last degree definite and satisfactory. The conclusion was unavoidable that the surface of the water for a length of six miles did not to any appreciable extent decline or curvate downwards from the line of sight. But if the earth is a globe, the surface of the six miles length of water would have been 6 feet higher in the centre than at the two extremities, as shown in diagram fig. 2; but as the telescope was only 8 inches above the

    Mountain View



    FIG. 2.

    water, the highest point of the surface would have been at one mile from the place of observation; and below this point the surface of the water at the end of the remaining five miles would have been 16 feet."

    "EXPERIMENT 2. Along the edge of the water, in the same canal, six flags were placed, one statute mile from each other, and so arranged that the top of each flag was 5 feet above the surface. Close to the last flag in the series a longer staff was fixed, bearing a flag 3 feet square, and the top of which was 8 feet above the surface of the water--the bottom being in a line with the tops of the other and intervening flags, as shown in the following diagram, Fig, 4.

    Mountain View



    FIG. 4.

    On looking with a good telescope over and along the flags, from A to B, the line of sight fell on the lower part of the larger flag at B. The altitude of the point B above the water at D was 5 feet, and the altitude of the telescope at A above p. 14 the water at C was 5 feet; and each intervening flag had the same altitude. Hence the surface of the water C, D, was equidistant from the line of sight A, B; and as A B was a right line, C, D, being parallel, was also a right line; or, in other words, the surface of the water, C, D, was for six miles absolutely horizontal. If the earth is a globe, the series of flags in the last experiment would have had the form and produced the results represented in the diagram, Fig. 5. The water curvating from

    Mountain View



    FIG. 5.

    [paragraph continues]C to D, each flag would have been a given amount below the line A, B. The first and second flags would have determined the direction of the line of sight from A to B, and the third flag would have been 8 inches below the second; the fourth flag, 32 inches; the fifth, 6 feet; the sixth, 10 feet 8 inches; and the seventh, 16 feet 8 inches; but the top of the last and largest flag, being 3 feet higher than the smaller ones, would have been 13 feet 8 inches below the line of sight at the point B. The rotundity of the earth would necessitate the above conditions; but as they cannot be found to exist, the doctrine must be pronounced as only a simple theory, having no foundation in fact--a pure invention of misdirected genius; splendid in its comprehensiveness and bearing upon natural phenomena; but, nevertheless, mathematical and logical necessities compel its denunciation as an absolute falsehood. p. 15 The above-named experiments were first made by the author in the summer of 1838, but in the previous winter season, when the water in the "Old Bedford" Canal was frozen, he had often, when lying on the ice, with a good telescope observed persons skating and sliding at known distances of from four to eight miles. He lived for nine successive months within a hundred yards of the canal, in a temporary wooden building, and had many opportunities of making and repeating observations and experiments, which it would only be tedious to enumerate, as they all involved the same principle, and led to the same conclusions as those already described. It may, however, interest the reader to relate an instance which occurred unexpectedly, and which created such a degree of con-fusion, that he was repeatedly tempted to destroy the many memoranda he had previously made. Up to this time all his observations had been made in the direction of Welney, the bridge there affording a substantial signal point; but on one occasion, a gentleman who resided within a few miles of the temporary residence already alluded to, and with whom conversations and discussions had been repeatedly held, insisted upon the telescope being directed upon a barge sailing in an opposite direction to that previously selected. Watching the slowly receding vessel for a considerable time, it suddenly disappeared altogether! The gentleman co-observer cried out in a tone of exultation, "Now, sir, are you satisfied that the water declines?" It was almost impossible to say anything in reply. All that could be done was to "gaze in mute astonishment" in the direction of the lost vessel-- p. 16 compelled to listen to the jeers and taunts of the apparent victor. After thus wonderingly gazing for a considerable time, with still greater astonishment the vessel was seen to suddenly come again into view? Obliged to admit the reappearance of the vessel; neither of us could fairly claim the victory, as both were puzzled and equally in an experimental "fix." This condition of the question at issue lasted for several days, when, one evening conversing with a "gunner" (a shooter of wild fowl), upon the strange appearance referred to, he laughingly undertook to explain the whole affair. He said that at several miles away, beyond the ferry-house, the canal made a sudden bend in the shape of the letter V when lying horizontally, and that the vessel disappeared on account of its entering into one side of the triangle, and reappeared after passing down the other side and entering the usual line of the canal! After a time a large map of the canal was found in a neighbouring town, Wisbeach, and the "gunner's" statement fully verified. The following diagram will explain this strange, and for a time confounding, phenomenon.

    Mountain View



    FIG. 6.

    A, represents the position of the observer, and the arrows the direction of the vessel, which, on arriving at the point B, suddenly entered the "reach" B, C, and disappeared, but which, on arriving at C, became again visible, and remained p. 17 so after entering and sailing along the canal from C to D. The ferry-house and several trees, which stood on the side of the canal, between the observer and the "bend," had prevented the vessel being seen during the time it was passing from B to C. Thus the "mystery" was cleared away; the author was the real victor; and the gentleman referred to, with many others of the neighbourhood, subsequently avowed their conviction that the water in the "Bedford Level" at least, was horizontal, and they therefore could not see how the earth could possibly be a globe.'
    This experiment was not made popular to the masses until it was reproduced in 1870 by the great controversy between John Hampden, a follower of Rowbotham along with another follower of Rowbotham William Carpenter and the famous Scientist and enemy of the biblical tradition Alfred Russell Wallace. Thus, we read of the account in March, 1870, in Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea by Christine Garwood, pg. 99-105,

    Mountain View

    Mountain View

    Mountain View

    Mountain View

    Pg. 104,

    Mountain View

    Mountain View

    Mountain View

    Mountain View

    Mountain View

    In 1905 Lady Blount reproduced the experiment with similar success as Rowbotham. She hired a photographer whose camera was placed two feet above the water level and sure enough the sheet she had placed at the end of 6 miles at Bedford bridge was clearly visible and its reflection in the water below as captured by her photographer Mr. Clifton. He admitted,

    Mountain View

    Eccentric Lives and Peculiar Notions by John F. Michell, pg. 29

    Now the Heliocentrists have maintained ever since, that 1. Wallace's bulging marker proves the globe. 2. The successful flat earth experiments were products of atmospheric refraction.

    Bulge

    To the first point, all we have received from the globe apologists concerning their bulge is nothing but confusion, speculation and contradiction. In Team Skeptic's video Flat Earth Idiots Volume 8 Father Skeptic berates the Brazilian flat earthers for attempting an experiment designed to detect a hump or bulge in the waters of a Brazilian reservoir. At 5:24 Father skeptic denies that the Heliocentric model "requires objects to rise in elevation as it follows the curvature. From all points on a sphere all other points will appear to fall away in elevation."

    Flat Earth Proof: Bedford Level Experiment(19:41)

    Robert Sungenis effectively makes the exact same argument in his recent book concerning this experiment. Flat Earth Flat Wrong, pg. 668.

    Yet Reds Rhetoric tells us there is a hump. Flat Earth Proof: Bedford Level Experiment(21:49) According to the doctrines of space, gravity and relativity everyone is on the top of the earth because well there is no absolute up and down so things are more aligned with the way Rowbotham displays the observer in one figure of his book where the observer should see no hump or bulge yet contradicts it with another figure saying the observer should see a hump on a spherical earth.(See above) At this point an often repeated controversy emerges its head yet again, rowbotham shows the observer with his line of site level and straight not angled down towards the earth to provide a bulge obstruction. Immediately the heliocentric will complain, that is not what level means!

    Mountain View

    Mountain View

    The problem with this definition is plumb lines assume upon the concepts of fixed points in absolute space. Fixed points are admittedly impossible on the heliocentric model and absolute space is a theological belief of Sir Isaac Newton that my opponents do not believe. Se the "Inertia" Section.

    Mountain View

    Horizon Part 2

    I have also showed that Level means flat in the history of the ancient pyramids being supplied a flat base with the use of water level. The other complaint that the heliocentrists will make in order to justify their baseless and speculative theory of the nature of line of site is to demand that flat earthers have no definition of the horizon.(See the "Horizon" Section) "This must be the true angle of line of sight otherwise there would be no horizon!", the Heliocentrist demands. Yet these complaints fail to grasp the fact that Euclidean geometry does not take into account atmospheric refraction, which turns out to also be the refutation of their explanation of Rowbotham's and Blount's successful experiments. As I demonstrated in my Geometry and Astronomy documentaries, Geometry was put into the Epicurean framework during the Scientific Revolution and we simply do not live in a vacuum. Optical geometry is baseless as Professor Percy Bridgman pointed out in his Logic of Modern Physics.(See "Space and Optical Geometry Refuted" Section) And just as a side note, if the years of professor Bridgman are going to be used to dismiss his testimony then that would mean modern Globe apologists would moreover have to dismiss Einstein which we know they don't do because they're all pathological liars, con–artists and psychological manipulators who know they cannot beat my arguments so they have to try and see if they can successfully confuse me enough to score a point or two during a debate. It's really quite pathetic.

    Given these points we have no other option than to admit that Rowbotham's and Blount's line of sight was indeed level and straight and this ridiculous idea of a terrestrial bulge and a declining line of sight is simply metaphysics and artwork. Being able to draw is not a scientific operation. Thus, From:

    1. The demonstration of the Brazilians.

    2. The determination of level as flat and straight as justified by physical operation as opposed to metaphysics and artwork.

    3. The fact that only a Geocentric universe could allow for fixed points and plumb lines.

    4. The incapability of optical geometry to account for refraction.

    5. The fact that Rowbotham could see objects along the canal eight miles away during winter when the canal was frozen, completely changing the level of refraction.

    6. Our opponent's incapability of explaining their spherical geometry and the infamous specter of the rising bulge which these men constantly twist their tongue around. (I read through the metabunk forums over the past few days looking for mick to justify his baseless theory of line of sight. All I found was induction, speculation and shifting of the burden of proof throughout.)

    The most consistent conclusion to reach then given the multiple repetitions of the Bedford level and the parameters it is couched in is that the earth is flat.

  26. Airplane Flights Function as if the Earth is Flat

    Mountain View

    Mountain View

    Mountain View

    The Gyroscope is based on the idea of rigidity in space or fixed position. This is impossible on Newton's cosmology. (See the "Inertia" Section.)

    Gyroscopic Instruments - U.S. Navy Aviation Training Film (1960)

  27. Joshua Nowicki's Chicago Skyline image(See 225 Reasons, pg. 172) is said to be a mirage by our opponents. Yet an image has been taken of the Chicago skyline that is miraged and as you can see it looks nothing like the Nowicki image. It is completely inverted.(link)


  28. Mountain View

  29. Civil Engineers operate even in very long distances as if the earth was a vast horizontal plane.

    At the blossoming of the Industrial Revolution and the building of the modern world as we know it the House of Commons in Great Britain laid out laws for the engineers of the new world in how they were going to build the bridges, canals, railways etc. that would constitute our new world of technology and commerce. Thus, we read:

    Mountain View

    Mountain View

    Mountain View

    Mountain View

    Mountain View

    Mountain View

    link

    The only theory of the earth that matches the preceding language is the flat earth model. Now the dunning kruger maggots at Metabunk and their constituency of hyenas, cannot address what I just cited and if you do a search regarding this language in this document you will not find Mick West touching on this citation at all as you can see.
    Mountain View

    I also did a word search through Metabunk searching dozens of pages including the word "rail" and "railroad" and it appears Mick has deliberately avoided this issue like the plague because I know he and his enterouge know about this citation because they quote from the document it comes from namely,

    Mountain View

    Mountain View

    Now these citations are addressed but the citation I introduced this section with is completely ignored. Let me restate, deliberately ignored. Now in the land of Metabunk where trees grow on fruits and elephants dance on their ears, the engineer citations are dismissed by attempting to obfuscate the definition of what level means. (See the "Level" and "Inertia" Sections)

    Not only so, we see from documentaries on railroad tracks that they are not leveled with a plumb line couched in some theoretical notion of the earth's rotundity: "How It's Made Train Rails by the Science Channel

  30. Military Operations Refute Spherical Geometry and Rotundity.

  31. Operations

    Sailing

    Mountain View

    Mountain View

    Mountain View

    Mountain View

    Mountain View

    Great Circle Sailing is Spherical Geometry and Trigonometry which is Non-Euclidean. This commits my opponents to Pragmatism.

    Mountain View

    Evers states again,

    Mountain View

    Mountain View

    Mountain View

    We also see Captains successfully navigating immense distances using only dead reckoning which is impossible on the theory that the earth is a ball:

    Mountain View

    Mountain View

    Mountain View

    Now Rusty Walker criticized me that these citations do not say that these vessels using Dead reckoning arrived at their goal. Upon further research we see they did:

    Mountain View

    General Military Operations

    225 Reasons, pg. 230-239.

    Jet Streams

  32. Jet Stream patterns more fluid, and Homogeneous on the Flat Earth Model.

    Jet Streams: AE Map removed from earth.null showing circular homogeneous jetstreams

    jeranism: AE Map REMOVED From earth.nullschool.net Too Much Truth! Mountain View

    Mountain View

    Mountain View

    Mountain View

    Mountain View


  33. Chinese flight emergency landing in Alaska not Hawaii proves flat earth because on the flat earth model Alaska is close to the flight path but on the globe model Hawaii is.


  34. Bridges prove the Earth is Flat


  35. As you can see the bridge does not follow the water line. It humps up. Robert Sungenis, Flat Earth Flat Wrong:

    Mountain View

    Midnight Sun

  36. The way that the Sun moves in the North during the midnight sun is not what should be expected if the Earth was a Globe tilted at 23.4 degrees orbiting the Sun.

    ZIGZAG ARGUMENT WON'T GET OUT OF YOUR HEAD

    Albert Smith, Zetetes, adds a Refutation of the Heliocentric understanding of the Midnight Sun in the North. The Midnight Sun, pages 6 and 7


  37. Kansas Is Flatter Than a Pancake by Mark Fonstad, William Pugatch, and Brandon Vogt


  38. Sun and Moon above the Horizon during a Lunar Eclipse(See "Eclipses" Section) proves the Flat Earth.


  39. The Earth is not a light emitting body but shows it arose out of a process separate from the stars. Go out on a tall mountain at midnight and see for hundreds of miles nothing but pitch black darkness. Then look at all the rest of the celestial bodies. Earth is not a light emitting body but all the rest are. Because Earth is the stage, not the decoration. The light patterns on the Earth are of course nothing even analogous to the phases of the moon or venus so our opponents' pathetic attempts to make the two of the same process are baseless. The History of Astronomy even contradicts their pathetic modern excuses. As Galileo pointed out in his DialogueVenus, when viewed by the naked eye, does not show crescent horns as the moon does when in a similar relation to the Sun for which reason Copernicus maintained that it was self–luminous.


  40. The Sun and the Moon are the same size. To assume vast distance to the Sun is a direct denial of Occam's Razor


Arguments Refuting Globe Earth

Before I begin I would like to remind the reader that all Science is based on Philosophy. The Scientific Method is a pursuit for causation. Causation is Philosophy. Geometry is based on a number of Philosophical Axioms Euclid introduced his Elements with and was developed as a way to explain the Platonic Solids. Both Newtonian and Modern Physics is based on Neoplatonism and ancient Pantheism.(See "Neoplatonism and Modern Science" and "Space and Optical Geometry Refuted" Section.) And lastly, no observation can be made without a pre–existing paradigm to interpret it with.

Mountain View

    See the "Scientific Method and Philosophy of Science" Section

  1. Obviously first check the Arguments Proving the Earth to be Flat.
  2. The Globe has no Epistemology. Both Realism and Pragmatism(Contradictory Schools) are required to defend it.
  3. The Globe has no theory of explanation, i.e. the failure of Induction.
  4. Metaphysics is simply a Reification Fallacy.
  5. The Globe's physics is based on Neoplatonic Metaphysics which is based on Dialectics, i.e. Circular Reasoning and Reification and Space- Time denies the Post Hoc fallacy thus dismissing causality altogether.
  6. Geometry is based on Deduction not Induction.
  7. Geometry does not account for Refraction.
  8. Newton's Geometry was Euclidean but Globe Geometry is Non–Euclidean(Pragmatism).
  9. Leon Foucault refuted the Corpuscular theory of light, which also refuted Vacuums, the foundation of Euclidean Geometry in the Scientific Revolution.(See "Space and Optical Geometry Refuted" and "Vacuums" Sections)
  10. Optics

  11. There is no theory of sensation and how sensation produces perception and abstract ideas. Thus, Optics are baseless.
  12. Optics denies Empiricism.
  13. Optics are verified not with a theoretical notion of light tested by nmathetical calculation but trial and error.(See "Trial and Error" Section)
  14. See "the Failure of modern Optics"
  15. Modern Science is all based in ancient Theology thus, it is not Heuristic.
  16. See "Arguments Proving the Earth to be Flat" Section
  17. See 225 Reasons pg. 164
  18. 32 observations that contradict

Main Objections to Flat Earth


  1. Boats over Horizon proves the globe earth.


  2. Ans. 1.The argument assumes Non-Euclidean Geometry upon pain of Pragmatism.

    Whitaker states in Euclid to Eddington, pg. 34-35,

    458px-sanzio_01_plato_aristotle

    To give a perfect example of this, lines of longitude contradict fundamental axioms of Geometry. Whitaker describes an example of two men on different places on the equator who begin traveling North,

    "If the Geometry were Euclidean, the two men, since they begin their journeys at right angles to the equator and persevere in the northerly direction, would be traveling along parallel lines, and would therefore remain at a constant distance apart. But as we know, their separation continually decreases, until they actually meet each other at the North Pole. Thus, the Geometry is Non- Euclidean." (Pg. 39)

    Whitaker then directly relates this to a classic proof of the sphericity of the earth, namely, ships over the horizon. This "proof" relies on the Earth defined as Non-Euclidean, saying:

    "mathematicians apply the word 'curved' to any space whose Geometry is Non-Euclidean." (Pg. 39)

    Atmospheric Refraction

    2. Euclidean Geometry does not account for Atmospheric Refraction. (See "Astronomy Proved Unreliable" Section, #3. Further, it is admitted that Euclidean Geometry does not take into account atmospheric refraction.)

    3. The equation for refraction assumes the earth is a sphere with its alleged radius thus affirming the consequent. Geodetic Surveying, by Edward Ingram:

    Mountain View

    By the way the diameter has changed since Newton. Newton said the diameter is 7, 846.32 miles. The equator being 17 1/16 miles higher than the poles. Today it is 7,917.5 miles with the equator 26 miles higher.

    Principia:

    Mountain View

    4. Other sciences employed such as looming also are branches of perception which my opponents have no theory of. They cannot define sensation, and show how sensation produces perception and abstract ideas.

    5. Reds Rhetoric's observation contains no tilt which should appear if the boat was behind curvature. The white emblem is facing right at the observer instead of being tilted up as it should if the boat is behind curvature.
    Mountain View

    6. Reds Rhetoric's observation also contains a mirroring affect denoting atmospheric distortion. Notice the white emblem is mirrored underneath.

    Mountain View

    Mountain View

    Counter Arguments To Refracted Observations

    7. The Bedford level experiment contradicts boats over the horizon upon the sea(Canal not subject to as much atmospheric refraction as larger bodies of water). My guess is, the observations over the ocean suffer from more distortion due to the immense moisture in the region.(See "Bedfore Level Experiment" Section)

    8. The Salt Flats observation also contradicts boats over the horizon.(See YouTube video Rowbotham 3 CONFIRMED Bonneville Salt Flats Test Earth Is Flat")

    9. Viewing Brighton Seafront over the sea from Worthing through a Nikon P510 by Dr John D.

    10. Red Pill Philosophy: WOW!!! Amazing FLAT EARTH Captured on Camera! Where's The CURVE???

    11. Lighthouses.

    Mountain View

    Mountain View

    Mountain View

    Thus, the lighthouse should not have been seen regardless of refraction, though Geometry does not account for refraction.

    Mountain View

    Mountain View

    12. No distance measurement is ever given by any globe earth apologist in order to test and see if the curvature is congruent to the geodesic manuals.

  3. South America to Australia Flights refute the Flat Earth.

  4. Southern Flights are governed by the Jet Streams.

    225 Reasons, pg. 286. See the "Jet Streams" Section.

    Southern Flights are governed by the Jet Streams.

    Mountain View

    Midnight Sun Antarctica

  5. What About the Midnight Sun in Antarctica?

  6. Ans. 1. Refraction. First, the Heliocentric explanation of the Midnight Sun is the Earth's alleged tilt that I already refuted.(See "Tilt of the Earth" Section)

    Second, the record states that the sun is rarely seen in these regions.

    Mountain View

    Mountain View

    Mountain View

    And the video footage we have been given is totally fake.

    Mountain View

    Why, I ask, did they have to fake this footage? Given this, we cannot trust any footage from the mainstream sources.

    I have contacted DAP Airlines regarding their program to Collins Glacier in Antarctica.

    Mountain View

    Antarctic Midnight Sun A Product Of Refraction Axial Tilt Further Refuted

    Collins glacier is at 73 degree latitude.

    Mountain View

    Given the Heliocentric theory that the earth is a globe tilted 23.4 degrees, that means that all regions of Antarctica from the 90 degree latitude to the 66.6 degree latitude should experience the same solar phenomenon. Yet we see a blatant contradiction. The testimony that we have received from the numerous government agents that troll flat earth channels is that the sun can be seen high in the sky for 24 straight hours at the south pole, yet at 73 degree latitude it sets for three hours?

    Mountain View

    This evidence utterly destroys the heliocentric model. What must be happening with the sun, as we have seen from a previous video on professor stick, is refraction. What may shock the viewer to know is that this is actually a well known and accepted explanation for the midnight sun in the south. Thus, to James Clark Ross,

    Mountain View

    Mountain View

    Ross again speaks to the irregular amount of refraction in the Antarctic climate in his log on January 17th,

    "Jan 17. During the afternoon an unusual degree of refraction was remarked to the south-westward, which had the effect of bringing, at times, clearly into view land we had not before seen, and then again removing it from our sight."

    Samuel Rowbotham comments stating,

    Mountain View

    Mountain View

    The supporting testimonies are abundant:

    Mountain View

    Mountain View

    (Pg. 245)

    Cook states again in his log in late July,

    Mountain View

    Mountain View

    Mountain View

    Mountain View

    Mountain View

    Mountain View

    Mountain View

    Mountain View

    Mountain View

    (pg. 88)

    Thus, we see why, this region though subject to so much of the suns rays, is not conducive of plant and animal life. The great amount received in this region is not direct sunlight but is only refracted light. This is then the mystery of the two alleged poles solved. Why is the northern arctic circle conducive to such plant and animal life, even in ancient times conducive to a tropical climate but the Antarctic region is not? Because the northern region is receiving direct sunlight whereas the southern is receiving mostly refracted light.

    Professor Stick Refuted on the Antarctic Sun

    Refuting Professor Stick Into Fetal Position…Again

    See Light Polarization

    The other items that present problems for the Heliocentric explanation are:

    2. The Solar Analemma.

    3. Different climate from the arctic.

    4. No 360 degree shot of the sun. Only dim light.

    5. No verification of the directions we are looking at.

    6. No verification of a south pole. Compass moving in a circle.

    7. No north-south circumnavigation.

    8. No flights over the South Pole especially Perth to Buenos Aires.

    9. The Mercator Projection shows Antarctica to be gigantic soon to be shrunk by the modern globe projections. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercator_projection]

    10. Missing Satellite Footage of South Pole Proves It Does not Exist!

    11. Internet cables.

    Theodolite

  7. The Theodolite Refutes the Horizon Rising to the Eye
  8. Rowbotham replies in Zetetic Astronomy, that the lenses in the Theodolite refract and that the error of collimation makes observations at different elevations and vast distances from its object unreliable.

    Mountain View

    Mountain View

    Mountain View

    Mountain View

    Mountain View

    Rowbotham again,

    Mountain View

    Mountain View

    Mountain View

    Mountain View

    Mountain View

    Mountain View

    Mountain View

    Sunsets

  9. Sunsets refute the Flat Earth

  10. DITRH : Sun Doesn't Set

    Rob Skiba Does the atmosphere solve "the problem of sunsets" on a flat Earth?

    Flat Earth : The Sunset and Atmospheric Refraction

    Dr. Zack on Sunsets on the Flat Earth and Refraction

    Equinox

  11. The Angle of the Sunrise and Sunset during the Equinoxes could only happen on Globe Earth.

  12. Ans. 1. There is no Globe model to ever experiment with to verify anything of the sort.

    2. The Midnight Sun in the Arctic is irrefutable proof that the Sun moves in a circle as has already been demonstrated. (See the "Midnight Sun" Section)

    3. The argument assumes light moves in a straight line over vast distances.(See "Astronomy Proved Unreliable" and "Space and Optical Geometry Refuted" Sections.)

    Angular Size of the Moon and Sun(More Problems with Geometry)

  13. Angular Size of the Moon and Sun Refutes the Flat Earth

  14. a. The Sun, Moon and Stars are not physical bodies. Scripture describes them as instruments or converters of the primordial light on the other side of the firmament. They are not bodies, they are optical phenomena.

    One Hundred Proofs That the Earth is Not a Globe by WilliamCarpenter, pg. 22-23,
    "89. It is well known that the law regulating the apparent decrease in the size of objects as we leave them in the distance (or as they leave us) is very different with luminous bodies from what it is in the case of those which are non-luminous. Sail past the light of a small lamp in a row-boat on a dark night, and it will seem to be no smaller when a mile off than it was when close to it. Proctor says, in speaking of the Sun: "his apparent size does not change," – far off or near. And then he forgets the fact! Mr. Proctor tells us, subsequently, that, if the traveller goes so far south that the North Star appears on the horizon, "the Sun should therefore look much larger" – if the Earth were a plane! Therefore, he argues, " the path followed cannot have been the straight course," – but a curved one. Now, since it is nothing but common scientific trickery to bring forward, as an objection to stand in the way of a plane Earth, the non–appearance of a thing which has never been known to appear at all, it follows that, unless that which appears to be trickery were an accident, it was the only course open to the objector – to trick. (Mr. Proctor, in a letter to the "English Mechanic" for Oct. 20, 1871, boasts of having turned a recent convert to the Zetetic philosophy by telling him that his arguments were all very good, but that "it seems as though [mark the language !] the sun ought to look nine times larger in summer." And Mr, Proctor concludes thus: "He saw, indeed, that, in his faith in 'Parallax,' he had 'written himself down an ass.' ") Well, then: trickery or no trickery on the part of the objector, the objection is a counterfeit – a fraud – no valid objection at all; and it follows that the system which does not purge itself of these things is a rotten system, and the system which its advocates, with Mr. Proctor at their head, would crush if they could find a weapon to use – the Zetetic philosophy of "Parallax" – is destined to live ! This is a proof that the Earth is not a globe."

    Transparent Celestial Bodies

    See also Rowbotham: The Moon Transparent: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za63.htm

    Sir James South On Seeing Stars Through the Transparent Moon:

    Mountain View

    Mountain View

    Stars Through the Moon 100 Percent Proof by Science

    Moreover, during the day we see the blue through the moon and the black through the moon at night proving the Moon is transparent.

    Mountain View

    b. Venus and Mars do not change in angular size when viewed without a solar filter. Yet they should on the Heliocentric model as Galileo admtited. Dialogue, Third Day, on Mars and Venus:

    c. Moreover, the sun does indeed change in angular size throughout the day when viewed through a video camera:



    Alexandre Gilles de Pelichy, Sunset at Solstice

    Angkor Cambodia, Time Lapse Sunset at Otres Beach

    d. And, remember in #18 of "Astronomy Proved Unreliable" Section we saw that our opponents have no theory of glare either which is confirmed with the lack of change in angular size in Venus and Mars.

    e. I would also like to point out that the sun's angular size does change with a solar filter:

    Mountain View

    Mountain View

    When this debate first started our oponents argued that the sun should change in angular size. We showed it does change in angular size throughout the day. They then complained we needed a solar filter. As we see it changes with a solar filter as well. Then they moved the goal posts again and claimed we need Welding Glass.

    f. There is no explanation of why the sun shrinks in angular size without a solar filter. Wolfie admitted when I asked him this that he had no answer. If the response is the sun's relative motion to the earth's atmosphere, why then should it not change in angular size with the solar filter?

    Mountain View

    Mountain View

    Mountain View

  15. Equatorial Mounts refute the Flat Earth
  16. Ans. See "Equatorial Mounts" Section.
  17. Eclipses refute the Flat Earth
  18. Ans. See "Eclipses" Section.

Astronomy Proved Unreliable

Now to my refutation of the heathen astronomy. Before I begin my refutation I want to predict a few psychological tactics that my opponents will no doubt use to try and avoid answering the arguments in this documentary. What they are going to do is claim that my arguments have abandoned science and are primarily concerned with philosophy and appeals to authority. And they are going to do this because they want to deflect your attention away from the fact that I am using all scholarly academic sources to make my arguments. I am not appealing to conspiracy theories, though there is nothing wrong with a conspiracy theory if it is documented and justified; no I'm going to lay down for you an impressive series of testimonies from academic experts at the top of their profession absolutely obliterating the Heliocentric astronomy, and I am going to expose the paradigms through which my opponents make their observations showing them not to be paradigm neutral observations, that is philosophically neutral observations; no, I am going to show how each and every so called objective observation that my opponents use, to be nothing but philosophically laden theories. Dr. Thomas Kuhn emphasized this point in his

Mountain View Mountain View

Kuhn states on pages 16-17,

Mountain View

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states in its article on the scientific method, describing the fall of logical positivism,

Mountain View

Now, my opponents are going to be so thoroughly refuted in this documentary they are going to desperately attempt to avoid the citations made in this documentary through an appeal to a fallacy called argument from authority. This fallacy does not mean what they think it means. David Kelley, who is an expert and professor in logic states in his college textbook he wrote, Art of Reasoning 4th edition pg. 111,

Appeal to Authority

Mountain View

In progress I will point out that every observation my opponents make is based on a philosophical theory of sensation and perception and how it applies to optics, a philosophical theory of light, a philosophical theory of the medium in which light is moving, a philosophical theory of motion and relativity as to how an observation is affected by the motion of the observer and his object, etc. etc. etc. And finally, when my opponents are critiquing the flat earth model, not when facing critique of their own model of course, but when they are critiquing the flat earth model, they will use a very slimy psychological tactic that flat earthers must be able to explain every piece of scientific datum and observation that exists in order to have a scientifically credible theory. Again, of course they don't use this measure of themselves, but only when critiquing a flat earther. Yet as we see there is no scientific theory that explains every piece of datum and observation.

Limits of Science

Dr. Paul Feyerabend, professor of Philosophy of Science at the University of California, Berkeley, (1958–1989), in his masterpiece work Against Method, pg. 39,

Mountain View

Thomas Kuhn Professor of the history of science at Harvard University from 1948 until 1956 and Professors of Philosophy and History at the University of California, Berkeley states:

Mountain View Mountain View

(pgs. 16-17)

And don't let heliocentrists deceive you viewer. These people discount so many observations the list is endless. The lack of annual parallax, the midnight sun in the arctic, the sun and the moon appear to be the same size, the solar analemma, the appearance of mars and venus with the naked eye, the tower experiment and the ship mast experiment in Galileo's Dialogue, the 121,000 feet Little Piggy Cam High footage, the blinking sun, the double suns, the sun dogs in the shaded portions of high rise buildings, etc. etc. etc. All observations that make the theory that the earth is moving or the earth is a globe 100% impossible. So when I disregard the image of the circular motions of the stars at the alleged poles ask yourself why is my disregard for this image worse than disregarding all the images I have shown above and throughout this documentary?

Now I find it curious that my opponents claim these alleged two pole rotation images to seriously be viewing both poles seen at the same time looking at the equator at zenith! Fascinating! Is this a fact or a theory? Let's see if we can test that theory.

Rowbotham states in his Zetetic Astronomy,

Mountain View
Mountain View
Mountain View

Rationalism

I am not an Empiricist but then again, we know from the History of Galileo's Dialogue the Heliocentrists are not either even though they pose to be. I am of the Rationalist school of philosophy.
Mountain View
When you see a magician pulling a Rabbit out of a hat do you believe that he pulled a rabit out of an empty hat? That is what you saw. Does that mean that what you saw was an objective paradigm neutral observation? No. You know, by elevating your reason above your senses that given the variables involved in the environment of your observations, that what you saw was impossible and so you disregard what you saw knowing that there are no possible mechanisms to make what you saw possible. That is the essence of Rationalism. We do not disregard observation. We simply demand that a paradigm be first justified through which we can interpret the observation, and all the variables be taken into account. And now with the first principles and predictions completed let us move on to the refutation of the heathen astronomy:

#1. The concept of space is primarily theological and the epicurean system of the void is baseless. Thus, Euclidean Geometry is baseless. "See Space and Optical Geometry Refuted" Section.

#2 The corpuscular theory of light has been refuted as has the wave theory, making the science of Astronomy baseless. Aristotle's arguments against the void could be answered by the corpuscular theory of light and general atomism yet later experiments by Leon Foucault in 1838 and 1850 showed the corpuscular theory of light to be baseless. The wave theory was refuted by the experiments of Phillip Lenard from 1902-1905.

See the "Light" Section.

Speed of Light

Thus, with the ridiculous notion of photons, the modern rejection of time(See also Bridgman, The Logic of Modern Physics pg. 72, 7th line down, "The difficulty is particularly" link) and the baseless concept of inertial frames of reference, which assume upon space and fixed points, which have been thoroughly refuted here, the modern conception of the speed of light is also baseless.



Euclidean Geometry and Refraction

#3. Further, it is admitted that Euclidean Geometry does not take into account atmospheric refraction.
Mountain View

Mountain View

Mathematics for the Nonmathematician by Morris Kline,

Mountain View

Mountain View

Mountain View

Mountain View

Mountain View

Mountain View

Ptolemy attempted to explain refraction in Optics, Book V paragraphs 23 to 30, yet did not consider that there were gradients in the atmosphere. Not only does the atmosphere debunk the concept of space, the recent Go Fast Rocket presents an incredible problem. There is absolutely no explanation possible for what could have stopped this rocket except for some kind of liquid substance which it appears to be swimming in at the end of its flight. The camera sounds like it is underwater and the rocket does not immediately fall back to earth. It hangs around for a moment. link

Could this be one of the multitudes of waters in the heavens mentioned by Jeremiah?(Jeremiah 51:16) I would also invite the reader to see the "Mathematics is not Reality" section. Thus, we see Euclidean Geometry, which is the framework of Newton's system is baseless. I put these arguments to Wolfie6020 and he was completely unable to answer them. After pointing out his inability we exchanged a number of insults and immediately I challenged Wolfie to come on my hangout and show everyone how smart he is and how dumb I am. He ran like a coward. You can watch the entire event here in this video. Wolfie was utterly humiliated.link

Galileo's Dialogue

#4 Galileo admits that consideration of the Heliocentric conceptions of Mars and Venus should show these bodies 60 and 40 times as large when they are close to us in their orbit as when they are opposite the earth in their orbit of the Sun yet no such observation is made with the naked eye. Dialogue, Third Day, on Mars and Venus:

[Galileo's characters: Salviati -Copernican, Sagredo - an intelligent layman Simplicio - Geocentrist- Ptolemy and Aristotle]

Mountain View

Mountain View

Salviati the Copernican admits, the observational problems with the size of mars and the position of Venus,

Mountain View

Mountain View

#5 That Venus, when viewed by the naked eye, does not show crescent horns as the moon does when in a similar relation to the Sun for which reason Copernicus maintained that it was self–luminous. The orbit of the moon contradicts the entire system of Heliocentrism. Dialogue, Third Day, on Mars and Venus:

Mountain View

Mountain View

#6 Galileo tells us the human eye produces a hindrance of its own infusing the object with "alien rays" which expand their size yet the telescope is needed even though Venus and Mars can be seen with the unaided eye. Dialogue, Third Day, on Mars and Venus:


Mountain View

Mountain View

Sensation and Perception

#7 Though my opponent's entire theory is based on this intricate theory concerning human sensation, perception and the function of the brain they have no definition of a sensation and how it produces perception and abstract ideas in the human mind. Mike May was a man blinded by a chemical explosion at the age of three. At the age of 46 his eye was restored to perfection. However, his sight was not restored. After having his right eye restored to normal his vision was still only 20/1,000. This phenomenon has baffled modern science. The college textbook Psychology 4th ed. By Hockenbury and Hockenbury admits on pg. 93,

Mountain View

Mountain View

Modern science does not know how to distinguish sensation and perception yet the case of Mike May demonstrates there is a blatant distinction. So my opponent's optical theories are baseless. I then must ask my opponent to define sensation and show how sensation produces perception and abstract ideas. Until this is done optical imagery is baseless.

Galileo's Failure to Understand Light

#8. Though Galileo tells us that he developed the telescope through "a deep study of the theory of refraction" [The Sidereal Messenger of Galileo Galilel, transl. E. St Carlos, London, 1880, reissued by Dawsons of Pall Mall, 1960, p. 10], yet he admits in his Letter to Liceti of 23 June 1640, decades after his development of the telescope that he had of yet not understood the nature of light saying quote,

"I have always been in darkness". The Private Life of Galileo, by Maria Celeste, pg. 290:
Mountain View

Mountain View

#9. Optical instruments create bodies in the heavens. Galileo's academic peers confessed that the telescope worked well when viewing terrestrial objects but that:

"in the sky it deceives one, as some fixed stars are seen double."
Mountain View

Mountain View

We see here in this sunset time lapse footage a reflection of the sun in the background of it's setting. Now, either that is a reflection off of the dome of the flat earth or optical imagery is unreliable. Either way the globe model is absolutely destroyed with these observations.

Sunset Time Lapse HD by VisualStillness from 0:08 - 0:25

And then again here with the double sun Nibiru observations:

Mountain View

Two Suns in the Sky by Skywatch Media New

Mountain View

Mountain View

Mountain View

Mountain View

Mountain View

Mountain View

Mountain View

#10 Magini wrote to Kepler on 26 May 1610, concerning the day Galileo brought his telescope to his house where more than twenty academics were present,

"He has achieved nothing, for more than twenty learned men were present; yet nobody has seen the new planets distinctly (nemo perfecte vidit); he will hardly be able to keep them."

#11 In The Assayer, Galileo tells us "the use of a telescope is always the same" yet in The Sidereal Messenger Galileo tells us that the telescope does not magnify celestial bodies in the same degree saying that the telescope, "is powerful enough to magnify other objects a hundred times, will scarcely render the stars magnified four or five times." The same phenomenon was also admitted by William Herschel in the Account of a Comet 1781. The Assayer (1623) (abridged, translation by Stillman Drake) by Galileo Galilei, pg. 11; The Sidereal Messenger of Galileo Galilei translated by Edward Carlos pg. 38.

Mountain View

Mountain View

Mountain View

Mountain View

Mountain View

Galileo's Moon

#12 The face of Galileo's Moon is littered with massive mountains and craters and yet the periphery is perfectly smooth and spherical and our images to this day give us the same contradiction.

Mountain View

NASA PICTURE OF THE MOON:

Mountain View

#13 The face of Galileo's Moon also contains a massive circular crater which is not seen in modern images.

Trial and Error not Mathematical Calculation

#14 Galileo's Optical imagery is done not based on precise notions concerning light and rigorous mathematical calculations but trial and error.

Professor Edmund Hoppe states in his History of optics as translated from the German by professor Feyerabend, in Against Method pg. 83,

Mountain View

#15. Kepler's Optics Were no better. Dr. Paul Feyerrabend, states again in against method, pg. 99-100,

Mountain View

Mountain View

The Failure of Modern Optics

#16. It is admitted that the modern "general laws of optical imagery" are based on admitted fictions. In Helmholtz's Treatise on Physiological Optics ed. By Southall Vol. I, pg. 261-262,

Mountain View

Mountain View

Mountain View

As an example It is admitted that "virtually all" pictures of Earth's horizon showing curvature are products of barrel distortion. Visually Discerning the Curvature of the Earth by David Lynch

Mountain View

One of the principle arguments for flat earth has been the 121,000 feet Little Piggy Cam footage which is Chalked Up to Lens Distortion.(link)

#17. There is no assurance where the mind will place the star effigy in the view of the observer through a telescope. Ronchi, Optics, 188-191

Mountain View

Mountain View

Mountain View

Mountain View

Page 191,

Mountain View

Glare

#18. There is no agreement on what glare even is. (Which is confirmed with the lack of change in angular size in Venus and Mars.)Feyerabend, Against Method page 101,

Mountain View

#19. Dr. Feyerabend also points out that modern science cannot explain why luminescent objects close show no glare but objects far away do. FN Pg. 102,

Mountain View

Distance to the Stars

#20. The distances to the stars are baseless. As we saw above from Professor Bridgman,

Mountain View

Mountain View

We also see that the equations used to determine the distance affirm the consequent.

Mountain View

Mountain View

Mountain View

Newton admits,

Mountain View

Stellar Aberration

Professor Bridgman also states concerning, Stellar Aberration [Celestial bodies displaced due to the motion of the observer. Based on corpuscular theory of light refuted in 1850 by Leon Foucault using the Fizeau–Foucault apparatus.]

Mountain View

Mountain View

Mountain View

Stellar Parallax

Stellar Parallax [Apparent shift of a celestial body against the background of distance objects. Seeing the difference between tactual space(actual physical measurements) and optical space(theories regarding the nature and movement of light) we do not know the distances to the stars.]



Mountain View

Mountain View

Mountain View

#21. The Atmosphere utterly destroys astronomy as a reliable science.

1. To explain away the fact that Eclipses happen with both the Moon and the Sun above the Horizon, Cleomedes appealed to atmospheric refraction. If refraction is so powerful that it can displace light so radically and do it on such a regular basis the idea of Euclidean geometry is totally destroyed. The idea that we can know what the actual movements of the celestial bodies is is destroyed. If the atmosphere can displace an entire celestial body and one we see magnitudes larger than the stars, then why could it not explain the sunset on a flat earth? If refraction can act so radically why can't it explain the midnight sun in Antarctica?

2. The Sophia Aircraft is an admission of this by our opponents in an attempt to remove the atmosphere as much as possible from their observations.

3. The Moon Illusion is also chalked up to the atmosphere. So our opponents admit the atmosphere radically distorts the celestial bodies.

4. Steve Torrance demonstrated in CINEMA 4D that when a circular plane of stars is juxtaposed above a flat earth and atmosphere is added in, the single plane of stars breaks up in two points of rotation just like we see in the time lapse footage globe earthers constantly claim prove a globe earth.

Flat Earth | Refraction part 2 – Star Trails

To those who would complain that the star motions are not perfectly circular in Steve's footage they must remember than in Steve's footage the camera is moving.

Poles

Equatorial Mounts

#22. Equatorial Mounts and Circular Star Rotations from the "Poles" Prove Nothing.

1. The star trail pictures are subject to the arguments I made above against optical imagery. Now when I point to the fact that the time lapse camera footage of stars in the North and South is subject to the problems of optical imagery, my opponents will claim that the Equatorial Mount can substitute for the optical imagery by using a pipe, a stick or any number of instruments used for naked eye astronomy. The problem is as we saw above, Heliocentric astronomy has been done with a telescope since the time of Galileo. The way the stars appear with the naked eye compared with the telescope are radically different. It is utter dishonesty for my opponents to claim that they are comfortable with either a Geocentric or Heliocentric model, just so long as it is not flat. This is absolute disgusting dishonesty. In a Geocentric system the stars move according to a celestial sphere. The problem is Galileo showed the moons of Jupiter, which my opponents accept, refuted the celestial sphere. Secondly, who made the celestial sphere? Are we seriously supposed to believe that modern atheists are willing to accept the Platonic demiurge? It is a disgusting psychological tactic. Third, modern astronomy explains the celestial sphere through the theory that the earth moves.

Mountain View

Mountain View

Fourth, either the Geocentric or the Heliocentric system must have the earth or the sun tilting on its axis to explain the midnight sun in the arctic and the solar analemma. The problem is centripetal force, which both models accept would not allow for tilting or rotating bodies. Remember when Newton is explaining centripetal force the stone in his sling is neither tilting nor rotating. It is impossible. In order for the object to rotate or tilt gravity must let go of the body and then strike it back and forth like a globetrotter spins a basketball on his finger. And the tilting is just ad hoc religion. Just total theological conjecture. If they are willing to capitulate on this point they have completely conceded to flat earth because both the midnight sun in the arctic and the solar analemma are glaring proofs for flat earth that heliocentrists have arbitrarily evaded by this idea of axial tilt. Fifth, simply asserting that turning around creates a sphere of objects around you is baseless. More theological conjectures.

2. The Alleged Pole trails are clearly not antipodal.

Mountain View

link1

link2

3. Other 360 Star Trails show three centers of rotation again utterly refuting the theory that the star trails are antipodal.

Mountain View
[http://astronomie-astrophotographie.fr/photos/Own%20galaxy/file-etoiles-pano-360.jpg]

Mountain View
[https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap100711.html]

4. Chris Van Matre showed that the star trails match magnetic flux lines.

Mountain View

5. Chris Van Matre also showed that the star trails in Denver match the same Equatporial pattern. Link

6. The assertion that there is a southern pole star completely contradicts either sphere model. On their model the stars are light years away yet Octans was only discovered in the 18th century when men traveled a few hundred more miles South during the age of exploration. Traveling a few hundred to 1000 more miles closer to Octans brought it into view from light years away? Utter rubbish. Octans is explicit proof that the stars are local to the Earth.

7. I have not seen any confirmation that Equatorial Mounts work everywhere. It is something assumed in hope by my opponents that flat earthers will simply believe them.

8. The theory of poles to the earth utterly contradicts Newtonian Physics. Where did the theory of poles come from? Petrus Peregrinus de Maricourt assumed that magnetism was the same force as gravity when he developed the concept of the Earth's poles but Newton denied that magnetism was the same force as gravity. A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity by Sir Edmund Whitaker 1910, pages 7 and 8 states

Mountain View

Mountain View



The theory of poles to the earth is based on the idea that magnetism is the mechanism of earth's sphericity not gravity.
Newton states,

Mountain View

9. As we saw above from Steve Torrence's demonstration atmosphere rules out the assumption that we are viewing the true paths of the stars and the atmsophere transforms a plane of stars into pole star trails.

10. Even the modern textbooks admit that the celestial sphere is an illusion. Celestial sphere is called a "useful illusion", Cosmic Perspective pg. 28.

Mountain View

11. With Einstein's Solar eclipse of May 29, 1919, his theory that light is bent by the curvature of space-time completely refuted the idea that the apparent motion of the stars is their actual motion and position. So modern physics is completely supportive of my skepticism of the reliability of astronomy.

Mountain View

12. Dunlop's and Herschel's controversy demonstrated that there are different versions of the Southern Celestial "Hemisphere".

Mountain View

Mountain View

Mountain View

13. CoolHardLogic's assertion that one can see the same stars at the same time in Australia and South America contradicts every daylight chart for these regions I have come across. Screen shots from Stellarium are not cited academic resources or historic accounts.

Testing Flattards Part 2(7:00)

14. Bridgman refuted the vast distances of the stars needed to make the EQ Mount argument work.

15. The argument assumes the stars are physical bodies in a vacuum. The former is baseless speculation and the latter is refuted in the section on "Vacuums".

16. Ptolemy did not use this argument for the sphericity of the heavens in the Almagest. No one is able to make such a claim until James Cook. I searched through all 7 volumes of his Voyages every time he mentions stars and I could find nothing of him mentioning that the stars rotate a different direction in the southern hemisphere. I read through Dreyer's work, and a few other histories of astronomy and found nothing.

#23. The Equation for Refraction affirms the consequent by assuming the theoretical radius of the earth assuming it is a sphere. Geodetic Surveying, by Edward Ingram,

Mountain View

[https://archive.org/stream/geodeticsurveyin00ingrrich#page/14/mode/1up]

And if you are sick of hearing Nathan Oakley say this just remember, he learned this from me.

Solar Filters


#24 The Angular Size of a celestial body through a Solar Filter is based on a baseless theory. In his discussion with Ranty(link[32:57]), Ranty asked Reds the question concerning his image, "How come the background's black?" Reds responds,

"the solar filter cuts down about 99.99 whatever percent of the light that goes through it and so only the brightest portion is actually going to show through which is the actual sun itself; everything around it is going to be black."

And so we see, Reds' observation of the sun, is not a paradigm neutral observation. It is a theory erected from a baseless understanding of light and a theory of optical imagery that is admitted fiction as Gullstrand tells us in Helmholtz' Physiological Optics.

And, remeber in #18 we saw that our opponents have no theory of glare either.

I would also like to point out that the sun's angular size does change with a solar filter:

Mountain View

Mountain View

When this debate first started our oponents argued that the sun should change in angular size. We showed it does change in angular size throughout the day. They then complained we needed a solar filter. As we see it changes with a solar filter as well. Then they moved the goal posts again and claimed we need Welding Glass.

Sunspots


#25 Sunspots are completely inconsistent with Globe Cosmology but consistent with Flat Earth Cosmology. First, according to E.W. Maunder, sunspots can be seen with the naked eye,

"there are spots upon the sun sufficiently large to be seen without any optical assistance." The Astronomy of the Bible, pg. 68

Sunspots prove the Sun is not a fusion bomb producing light and energy, it must then by logical necessity be converting not producing. Atheists love to point out sunspots to disprove the Platonic perfection of the upper world but never face their own problems that sunspots refute the idea that the sun is a fusion bomb. Galileo admitted that he didn't know what the sunspots are and admitted there are thousands of possible interpretations. In Galileo's Response to Apelles' Third letter we read,

Mountain View

On Sunspots, By Galileo Galilei, Christoph Scheiner (University of Chicago Press 2010), pg. 101.

Matthew Poole states in Synopticom Criticorum, on the Hebrew of Gen. 1:14,

Mountain View



#26. Heliocentrists will lay all of their faith on the fact that Heliocentrism can successfully predict phenomenon and this proves the heliocentric model correct. Derek J. de Solla Price, Professor History of Science, Cambridge and Yale, refutes this notion in his:

Mountain View

Mountain View



#27 Heliocentrists have no Experimental Model nor a Theoretical Model. If you read the Space.com Site, Solar System Built To Scale In Nevada Desert By Steve Spaleta. See this source as well.(link)

In order to build a scale model with the earth the size of a tiny marble it would have to be 579ft away from the sun.
The items missing from the Heliocentric theoretical model: Scale Experimental Model, Curvature(Based on Non-Euclidean Geometry), Gravity, Space, Math, Geometry, Momentum, Mass, Inertia, Motion, Light, Force, Time, Causality(No Philosophy of Science), Optics(No sensation, no perception), Justified Induction...etc. They also demand from the flat earth model falsifiability but when pressed to test their own theory they move the goal posts and say the experiment is impossible.

Gravity Refuted P. 15; Reds Rhetoric and Co. Professional Liars Exposed: 20 Examples, (15:25)

Kepler's Laws



#28. Kepler's Laws are Refuted by the Solar Analemma.

Kepler's Three Laws:

1. Planets orbit in ellipses.

2. Planets move faster in perhileon, closer to the sun, than in aphelion.

3. More distance to the planet the slower the speed.

Second, Ellipses do not take into account the Gravitational pull of all celestial bodies, only that between the body and the sun. Professor Morris Kline refutes Kepler's ellipses. Kline states on page 201 of Mathematics and the Search for Knowledge,

Mountain View

Max Born confirms on pg. 49 of Einstein's Theory of Relativity,

Mountain View



#29. There is no explanation of why the sun shrinks in angular size without a solar filter. Wolfie admitted when I asked him this that he had no answer. If the response is the sun's relative motion to the earth's atmosphere, why then should it not change in angular size with the solar filter?

Mountain View

Mountain View

Mountain View

#30 The collected works of Tycho Brahe run 15 volumes. Let me say that again... 15 volumes! This man had enough time, ability and financial resources to figure out the nature of the heavenly bodies and spent his life trying to figure it out and he wasn't able. As a matter of fact modern astronomers will tell you his system was a primitive religious speculation and radically inaccurate. And as I have shown his successors were no more successful. Perhaps then we should focus on things we can actually manipulate and experiment with, can see with our own eyes and handle with our own hands in developing our cosmology rather than focusing so much on bodies no one has been able to figure out and I maintain never will.

Mountain View

Astronomy in the Bible

I would like to give a brief consideration of what the Bible says about Astronomy because as a Philosopher and a Bible believer I must always square my science and philosophy with scripture if I am to remain consistent with my first principles. So what does the Bible say about astronomy? Well not much. As a matter of fact astronomy is lumped in with astrology and is generally associated with enemies of Elohim and his people. When Isaiah was preaching judgment upon Israel for their sinful lifestyles he berates them stating,

Isaiah 47:13 Let now the astrologers, the stargazers, the monthly prognosticators, stand up, and save thee from these things that shall come upon thee.

Astrology is explicitly condemned in scripture,

Mountain View

The word for signs here is the same word used in Gen. 1 of the stars being made for signs, seasons, days and years. Thus, the stars are given for lights at night to denote certain geographic locations and that function is all they are meant to provide. The way the scriptures describe the constellations is simply a colloquial reference to the Gentile view of the stars. The scripture never gives actual significance to the layout of the stars.

However, Job tells us the stars do move in a circle.

Job 22:14 Thick clouds are a covering to him, that he seeth not; and he walketh in the circuit(circle) of heaven.

The scripture does teach that the stars convey the primordial light of Genesis 1 in the firmament thus they are local to the earth. The same is said of the sun. (Gen. 1:14-20.) Yet the heavens are not described in scripture as they are described in most flat earth resources. The scripture describes a very complex system of layers to heaven and multitudes of waters associated with them.

The passages mentioning heavens, plural are too many to cite here but we will give attention to the pertinent passages:

1 Kings 8:27 But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?

Isa 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

Psalm 115:16 The heaven, even the heavens, are the Lord's: but the earth hath he given to the children of men

Psalm 148:4 Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens.

2 Corinthians 12:2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.

Hebrews 4: 14 Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession.

Jeremiah 51:16 When he uttereth his voice, there is a multitude of waters in the heavens;

Psa 78:23 Though he had commanded the clouds from above, and opened the doors of heaven

The Jews knowing that the Tabernacle and the Temple were patterned after the heavens as Moses tells us in Exo. 25:40:


Mountain View

noticed the six steps leading up to Solomon's throne in the Temple, denoting multiple layers to the heavens,

1Kings 10: 18 Moreover the king made a great throne of ivory, and overlaid it with the best gold. 19 The throne had six steps, and the top of the throne was round behind: and there were stays on either side on the place of the seat, and two lions stood beside the stays. 20 And twelve lions stood there on the one side and on the other upon the six steps: there was not the like made in any kingdom.
Mountain View

The same language is used of the underworld:

Job 38:16 Have you entered into the springs of the sea Or walked in the recesses of the deep? 17 Have the gates of death been revealed to you, Or have you seen the gates of deep darkness? 18 Have you understood the expanse of the earth? Tell Me, if you know all this.

Thus, we read in The Jewish Encyclopedia, Volume 9, pg. 517 of the rabbinic views of the heavens and the underworld,

Mountain View
Mountain View

It is for these reasons and also due to the fact that the scriptures teach that there is a great deep of water under the earth that indeed our universe is enclosed inside celestial spheres.

Mountain View
Mountain View
Mountain View
Mountain View

Thus, even if the observation of another point of rotation in the south is valid, it could easily be explained through the incorporation of another celestial sphere distinct from the sphere of Polaris with a separate orientation of movement. And as we have seen the stars are not fixed into the firmament in the Hebrew tradition. They rotate within it, along with the multitude of waters within these heavens as Jeremiah told us above, there is a possible liquid continuum making their movement possible. Thus, even if Galileo's observation of the moons of Jupiter was valid, it could easily be explained within the same model. Now, the Bible tells us the sun is local to the earth being in the firmament (Gen. 1:14-20), moves and circuits the earth(Psa. 19:6) which the heat spots, the solar analemma and the midnight sun in the artic circle, which can all be viewed with the naked eye, fully confirms. The heat spots will be given attention to elsewhere, but as for the solar analemma and the midnight sun in the arctic, the Heliocentric explanation of this, namely the tilting of the earth is impossible due to centripetal force. Remember in Newton's explanation of centripetal force with his sling, the stone in the sling is neither rotating nor is it tilting. Centripetal force makes any movement of its object, other than its orbit, 100% impossible.

The scripture also tells us the Moon and Stars are lights by night. (Psa. 136:9.) The Bible uses stars symbolically and apocalyptically in prophecy as going dim and falling to the Earth denoting future judgments and calamities. (Rev. 9:1, Isa. 13:10) Other than this, the Bible gives us no explanation of how the stars move, if what we see from Earth is the actual movement of the stars, the role the atmosphere plays in astronomical observations or even what the celestial bodies are made of. Though we do have some observations that give us some clue that are consistent with scripture and utterly contradictory to the Heliocentric model. I would refer the reader here to the section on the Firmament. Thus. E. Walter Maunder, member of the Royal Astronomical Society states in his Astronomy of the Bible,

"We have no means of knowing whether they[The Hebrews] made attempt to find any mechanical explanation of the movements; such inquiry would lie entirely outside the scope of the books of Holy Scripture, and other ancient Hebrew literature has not been transmitted to us." Pg. 61

The closest passage from the bible that gives any significance at all to the position of the stars is the famous Matthew 2 account of the Magi, who were probably Astrologers, locating Messiah by a star, The account is ambiguous and lacking in detail or significance. They simply said that a star led them to messiah from their perspective in the east. It may have been something miraculous or angelic as angels are often the ushers in significant biblical narratives, but again the passage just doesn't say.

On final word about the stars does seem to raise its head in scripture though. The Bible does seem to side with the theory that the stars are product of Sonoluminescence and Acoustic Levitation:

Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Psalm 148:3 Praise Him, sun and moon; Praise Him, all stars of light!
Acoustic levitation. See also the section on Pythagoras and Sonoluminescence. This then concludes the scripture's account of astronomy.

Bible and The Flat Earth

► The modern view of Biblical Inspiration that has been used to explain away what the Bible says about the nature of our reality is the Accommodation view espoused by John Calvin which led us to the Modernist and Neo-Orthodoxy of modern Christian Liberalism. John Calvin's commentary on Genesis 1 states,

'6 Let there be a FirmamentThe work of the second day is to provide an empty space around the circumference of the earth, that heaven and earth may not be mixed together. For since the proverb, 'to mingle heaven and earth,' denotes the extreme of disorder, this distinction ought to be regarded as of great importance. Moreover, the word רקיע (rakia) comprehends not only the whole region of the air, but whatever is open above us: as the word heaven is sometimes understood by the Latins. Thus the arrangement, as well of the heavens as of the lower atmosphere, is called רקיע(rakia) without discrimination between them, but sometimes the word signifies both together sometimes one part only, as will appear more plainly in our progress. I know not why the Greeks have chosen to render the word ςτερέωμα, which the Latins have imitated in the term, Firmamentum; for literally it means expanse. And to this David alludes when he says that 'the heavens are stretched out by G-d like a curtain,' (Psalm 104:2.) If any one should inquire whether this vacuity did not previously exist, I answer, however true it may be that all parts of the earth were not overflowed by the waters; yet now, for the first time, a separation was ordained, whereas a confused admixture had previously existed. Moses describes the special use of this expanse, to divide the waters from the waters from which word arises a great difficulty. For it appears opposed to common sense, and quite incredible, that there should be waters above the heaven. Hence some resort to allegory, and philosophize concerning angels; but quite beside the purpose.For, to my mind, this is a certain principle, that nothing is here treated of but the visible form of the world. He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. Here the Spirit of G-d would teach all men without exception; and therefore what Gregory declares falsely and in vain respecting statues and pictures is truly applicable to the history of the creation, namely, that it is the book of the unlearned. The things, therefore, which he relates, serve as the garniture of that theater which he places before our eyes. Whence I conclude, that the waters here meant are such as the rude and unlearned may perceive. The assertion of some, that they embrace by faith what they have read concerning the waters above the heavens, notwithstanding their ignorance respecting them, is not in accordance with the design of Moses. And truly a longer inquiry into a matter open and manifest is superfluous. We see that the clouds suspended in the air, which threaten to fall upon our heads, yet leave us space to breathe. They who deny that this is effected by the wonderful providence of G-d, are vainly inflated with the folly of their own minds. We know, indeed that the rain is naturally produced; but the deluge sufficiently shows how speedily we might be overwhelmed by the bursting of the clouds, unless the cataracts of heaven were closed by the hand of G-d. Nor does David rashly recount this among His miracles, that G-d layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters, (Psalm 104:3 and he elsewhere calls upon the celestial waters to praise G-d, (Psalm 148:4.) Since, therefore, G-d has created the clouds, and assigned them a region above us, it ought not to be forgotten that they are restrained by the power of G-d, lest, gushing forth with sudden violence, they should swallow us up: and especially since no other barrier is opposed to them than the liquid and yielding, air, which would easily give way unless this word prevailed, 'Let there be an expanse between the waters.'Yet Moses has not affixed to the work of this day the note that G-d saw that it was good: perhaps because there was no advantage from it till the terrestrial waters were gathered into their proper place, which was done on the next day, and therefore it is there twice repeated.'[1]

The Modernist and Neo-Orthodox view of Scripture that Calvin adopts here is absolutely disgusting and embarrassing to any honest seeker of truth from Yah's holy words. Well, Geocentrist and Heliocentrist Christians, if you make the Firmament the clouds then you have a serious problem. On your model the Sun, Moon and Stars are not in, under or anywhere near the clouds. This is completely incompatible with Gen. 1:14-20.



Marcus Borg, The God We Never Knew: Beyond Dogmatic Religion to a More Authentic Contemporary Faith, pg. 25,

"I let go of the notion that the Bible is a divine product. I learned that it is a human cultural product, the product of two ancient communities, biblical Israel and early Christianity. As such, it contained their understandings and affirmations, not statements coming directly or somewhat directly from God…I realized that whatever 'divine revelation' and the 'inspiration of the Bible' meant (if they meant anything), they did not mean that the Bible was a divine product with divine authority."

► Dr. Michael Heiser admitted the Bible teaches Flat Earth. He like many have adopted the Atheistic modernist view of biblical inspiration denying plenary verbal inspiration of the biblical authors. In his lecture series Making Sense of the Book of Genesis he not only admitted the Biblical authors taught a Flat Earth he even displayed a Flat Earth image on his projector so that no one could misunderstand him.

But Dr. Heiser does not believe the Earth is Flat even though he claims to believe the Bible! What he does is he claims that G-d spoke through the erroneous understanding of the original authors making the Bible not a divine revelation but exactly as the Liberals describe it, the paltry, ignorant and pathetic opinions of Bronze Age desert dwelling sheep herders.

These men are to blame for the social and moral chaos that exists among us today. Their infidelity is the root of our modern apostasy.

► The Great deep under the Earth. As I have already pointed out, Robert Boyle's argument from Gen. 1 on the material cause of the Land that we live upon accords with The Flat Earth Model and not The Globe Earth Model.

'It seems also by what is delivered in Strabo out of another Author, concerning the Indians, That they likewise held that all things had differing Beginnings, but that of which the World was made, was Water. And the like Opinion has been by some of the Antients ascrib'd to the Phœnicians, from whom Thales himself is conceiv'd to have borrow'd it; as probably the Greeks did much of their Theologie, and, as I am apt to think, of their Philosophy too; since the Devising of the Atomical Hypothesis commonly ascrib'd to Lucippus and his Disciple Democritus, is by Learned Men attributed to one Moschus a Phœnician. And possibly the Opinion is yet antienter than so; For 'tis known that the Phœnicians borrow'd most of their Learning from the Hebrews. And among those that acknowledge the Books of Moses, many have been inclin'd to think Water to have been the Primitive and Universal Matter, by perusing the Beginning of Genesis, where the Waters seem to be mention'd as the Material Cause, not only of Sublunary Compounded Bodies, but of all those that make up the Universe; whose Component Parts did orderly, as it were, emerge out of that vast Abysse, by the Operation of the Spirit of G-d, who is said to have been moving Himself as hatching Females do (as the Original םרחפת, Meracephet is said to Import, and as it seems to signifie in one of the two other places, wherein alone I have met with it in the Hebrew Bible) upon the Face of the Waters; which being, as may be suppos'd, Divinely Impregnated with the seeds of all things, were by that productive Incubation qualify'd to produce them.'[2]

This brilliant observation can be seen in the first chapter of Genesis:

1 In the beginning G-d created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of G-d moved upon the face of the waters… 9 And G-d said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10 And G-d called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and G-d saw that it was good.

Thus, we see from scripture that the land came from the waters, the waters being the primordial substance. This accords perfectly with The Flat Earth Model and completely contrary to The Globe Earth Model. In The Flat Earth Model, water is the foundation and structure, with the oceans being held in by the ice ring and the earth coming up from the water.

However, The Globe Earth Model is completely foreign to the Scripture with its foundations being a molten glowing core.

Exo. 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.


"Yam" is the Hebrew word for sea, "nahar" or "yehore" for streams or rivers, "agam" or "miqveh" for pool, yet Moses does not use these words here. He uses "mayim", the same word for the waters of the deep in Gen. 1, the general word for waters.
Gen 49:25 Even by the God of thy father, who shall help thee; and by the Almighty, who shall bless thee with blessings of heaven above, blessings of the deep that lieth under, blessings of the breasts, and of the womb
The Hebrew word for deep is "tehowm". It always refers to oceanic depths. The closest exception is that used of the bottom of the Red Sea.
Deuteronomy 33:13 Blessed be his land, for the precious things of heaven, for the dew, and for the deep which croucheth beneath.
Obviously Moses is not calling springs the great depth he is simply saying that is their source. The word for spring is mowtsa or maqowr. That is not the word here. The word for deep is the same oceanic word used in Gen. 49:25. As Lange's Critical commentary states,

Mountain View

► The Bible says the Sun, Moon and Stars are in the Firmament not millions of miles away. Gen. 1:14-18.


► The Firmament is clearly described by Scripture as a solid object. The root Hebrew word, raqa`, clearly refers to a solid substance spread out in its use in scripture. The firmament mentioned in Genesis 1 is undeniably a local, discrete, solid structure that canopies the earth in a discrete and absolute position, and in which the fixed stars are contained and move. [3] The Book of Job describes it as hard and strong as a molten looking glass. Job. 37:18. Psa. 19:1 testifies its existence after the flood. Thus, the Hovind theory is incorrect.


Gen. 1:14-20 tells us very plainly that the celestial bodies are in the firmament. This completely precludes the idea that the firmament is the sky or earth's atmosphere because that would mean that the sun, moon and stars are less than 100 miles above the earth and I don't know anyone who actually maintains that position.

In Job 37:18 Elihu asks Job, "Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass?"

In Psa 19:4 we read that the firmament of heaven is a tabernacle or tent for the sun. A tent is never something that ubiquitously surrounds the observer. It is a canopy over a flat plain in a discrete and absolute up-down relation.

Moreover, the Hebrew word for the stars in Genesis 1 denotes that they are converting or instrumentally conveying the primordial light of Genesis 1:1 from the opposite side of the firmament.

Thus, Matthew Poole states in Synopticom Criticorum, on the Hebrew of Gen. 1:14:


Mountain View

In the ancient Targums, Genesis I we read,

"And God made the firmament, its thickness being three fingers between the limits of the heavens and the waters of the ocean. And he divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above in the vault of the firmament: and it was so."

Josephus, states in The Antiquities of the Jews, Book I, Chapter I,

"After this, on the second day, he placed the heaven over the whole world, and separated it from the other parts; and he determined it should stand by it self. He also placed a cristalline [firmament] round it; and put it together in a manner agreeable to the earth; and fitted it for giving moisture and rain, and for affording the advantage of dews."

Orthodox Jewish Rabbi Natan Slifkin, Master's Degree in Judaic Studies from the Lander Institute in Jerusalem and a Doctorate in Jewish History from Bar-Ilan University and director of the Biblical Museum of Natural History in Beit Shemesh, Israel, explains the way the ancient Jews understood the original Hebrew of the phrase in the firmament, on Pg. 4 of his work,


Mountain View
Mountain View

We must admit though that the scriptures are slightly ambiguous at this point for we know from scripture and from observations that the Sun and the Moon are in no way fixed or engraven in the firmament because as even Globe Earthers will admit, the sun and moon move and there is a difference between solar and sidereal time. So the phrase in the firmament as it applies to the sun and moon only has meaning in the flat earth cosmology as meaning inside like inside of a tent as Psalm 19 explicitly states. Again, the only cosmology that fits this language is the flat earth cosmology.

And finally, you will never read anywhere in the Bible of the word or concept of a planet.

Mountain View

The word is found once in the KJV, 2 Kings 23:5 as a mistaken translation for the constellations.

Thus, In the ancient Talmudic tractate Shabbat, we read of when Abraham was in doubt that Yah would fulfil his promise, that he practiced astrology seeing that in it that he would have no second son. He was rebuked by Elohim as we read in the tractate, "Away with your astrology; for Israel there is no planet!" (Shab. 156a).


Mountain View

As I have already pointed out, Medieval Theologians attempted to synchronize the Greek Geocentric Two Sphere Model with Scripture, such as the model presented by the Venerable Bede. Is this an honest description of the Firmament mentioned in Genesis 1? No. Gen. 1:7 states,

'7 And Elohim made the Firmament, and divided the waters which were under the Firmament from the waters which were above the Firmament: and it was so.'

Here we have the Firmament and the heavenly waters relating to a plane interface not a round or spherical interface. Notice the waters are not around the Earth and around the Firmament. They are under and above the Firmament. This denotes a flat plane interface. The word under here is the Hebrew tachath, Strongs H8430. The Lexicon states,

'The KJV translates Strongs H8478 in the following manner: insteadunder, foraswithfromflatin the same place.'[4]

Interesting that this word is never translated as around but is actually translated flat on one occurrence! This is devastating because the waters under the Firmament in verses 9-10 are said to be on the same level as the land! Yah just called the Seas flat! Much the same can be derived from an examination of the Hebrew word translated above.[5]

This is why we read in Gen. 1:2, 29 that the Earth has a face and the waters have a face. That is because they are a plane interface. Thus, we read in Gen. 1:14-15 that Yah also made the celestial bodies to give light upon the Earth, also denoting a plane interface as we read in Ecclesiastes that we are under the Sun. We are not rotating around the Sun according to the Bible. This again denotes a plane interface.

The disgusting sophistry that is used by Christian Theologians is to say that the Firmament only refers to the sky or generally the Earth's atmosphere. The Scriptures they will attempt to use are

Genesis 1:20; 7:23; 1 Kings 18:45; Job 35:11, 38:37; Psalms 78:26, 79:2; 85:11, 104:12, 147:8; Proverbs 30:19; Exodus 9:8, 10; Joshua 8:20; Jeremiah 7:33; Matthew 16:2,3; 26:64; Luke 12:56; Hebrews 11:12, Revelation 19:17.

Using this argument necessitates that the Sun and Moon be in the same region and space as the earth sky and the rain clouds. The only model, I repeat, the only model that allows for the Sun and Moon to be in the same general region and space as the clouds and the earth sky is The Flat Earth Model.

It is impossible to refute Gen. 1:14-20 regarding the Flat Earth. There is no way around it.

Hebrew Scholars, Keil & Delitzsch in their Commentary on the Old Testament testifies of the Hebrew of Gen. 1:20,

'The Fifth Day. – 'G-d said: Let the waters swarm with swarms, with living beings, and let birds fly above the earth in the face (the front, i.e., the side turned towards the earth) of the Firmament.' ישׁרצוּ andיעופף are imperative.'

The language of the face, speaks of their position as inside the Firmament on the side facing the earth.[6] And notice, the use of H5921 in verse 20 is referring to being above the Earth, not above the Firmament.[7]

We read in Ezekiel's vision that the abode of Yahovah is above the Firmament!

Ezek. 1:22 And the likeness of the Firmament upon the heads of the living creature was as the colour of the terrible crystal, stretched forth over their heads above. 23 And under the Firmament were their wings straight, the one toward the other: every one had two, which covered on this side, and every one had two, which covered on that side, their bodies. 24 And when they went, I heard the noise of their wings, like the noise of great waters, as the voice of the Almighty, the voice of speech, as the noise of an host: when they stood, they let down their wings. 25 And there was a voice from the Firmament that was over their heads, when they stood, and had let down their wings. 26 And above the Firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it.

Thus, the illustrious Protestant Scholar Martin Luther states in rebuke of the predominance of Theologians' denial of what the Bible clearly states in Genesis 1,

'We Christians must, therefore, be different from the philosophers in the way we think about the causes of these things. And if some are beyond our comprehension (like those before us concerning the waters above the heavens), we must believe them and admit our lack of knowledge rather than either wickedly deny them or presumptuously interpret them in conformity with our understanding…

Here belong also the phenomena and effects which occur in the air, when Stars appear to fall, when halos, rainbows, and events similar to these occur in the air, etc. Moses calls 'heaven' that entire watery mass in which the Stars and the planets are borne along, likewise the uppermost region of the air. But that scheme of the spheres was thought out by later people for the purpose of teaching. Scripture knows nothing about them and simply says that the Moon, the Sun, and the Stars were placed, not in individual spheres but in the Firmament of the heaven (below and above which heaven are the waters), to be signs of future events, as we know from experience that eclipses, great conjunctions, and some other phenomena in the air are.'[8]


► The Bible describes the Sun, not the earth as moving in a circuit above the earth and under the Firmament. (Psa. 19:6, Genesis 15:12, 17, 19:23, 28:11, 32:31, Exodus 17:12, 22:3, 26, Leviticus 22:7, Numbers 2:3, Deuteronomy 11:30, 16:6, 23:11, 24:13, 24:15, Joshua 1:4, 8:29, 12:1, Judges 5:31, 8:13, 9:33, 14:18, 19:14, II Samuel 2:24, 3:35, 23:4, I Kings 22:36, II Chronicles 18:34, Job 9:7,Psalm 19:4-6, 50:1, 104:19, 22, 113:3, Ecclesiastes 1:5, Isaiah 13:10,38:8,(Notice the language denotes Yahovah as speaking from his perspective not Isaiah's perspective) 41:25, 45:6, 59:19, 60:20, Jeremiah 15:9, Daniel 6:14, Amos 8:9, Jonah 4:8, Micah 3:6, Nahum 3:17, Habakkuk 3:11, Malachi 1:11, Matthew 5:45, 13:6, Mark 1:32, 4:6, 16:2, Luke 4:40, Ephesians 4:26)

► The Bible explicitly states that the earth does not move and never indicates in a single place that it moves or changes its position in the universe. (Joshua 10: 12-13, 27, 1 Chronicles 16: 30, Job 26:7, Psalm 93:1, 96: 10, 119: 90)

► Isaiah the Prophet described the earth as circular not spherical.

Isa. 40:22 It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain

Isaiah uses the word ball in Isa., 22:18 and it is not the same word used in Isa. 40:22.[9]

► Solomon stated that the earth and the oceans are in a circular shape because of a circular boundary which Yahovah fixed to hold the oceans in and describes the Firmament as being a hard solid object, exactly as The Flat Earth Model depicts.

Prov. 8:27 'When He established the heavens, I was there,
When He inscribed a circle on the face of the deep,
28 When He made firm the skies above,
When the springs of the deep became fixed,
29 When He set for the sea its boundary
So that the water would not transgress His command,
When He marked out the foundations of the earth;

► The Scripture describes the Sun as enclosed inside of a tent and circuiting above the Earth as a satellite.

Psa. 19:1 The heavens are telling of the glory of G-d;
And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.
2 Day to day pours forth speech,
And night to night reveals knowledge.
3 There is no speech, nor are there words;
Their voice is not heard.
4 Their line has gone out through all the earth,
And their utterances to the end of the world.
In them He has placed a tent for the Sun,
5 Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber;
It rejoices as a strong man to run his course.
6 Its rising is from one end of the heavens,
And its circuit to the other end of them;
And there is nothing hidden from its heat.

► Scripture denotes our location as being under the Sun not orbiting around the Sun. (Ecc. 2:11-22)

► Gen. 1:16-17 states that the light to rule the day and the light to rule the night are in the Firmament. Jer. 31:35 clearly states that these lights are the Sun and Moon.

► The Bible nowhere teaches the Christian and Neoplatonic doctrines of Omnipresence, Absolute Divine Simplicity and the abstract Trinity doctrine but explicitly describes Elohim as one Concrete Entity with physical form that Dwells in the Sanctuary above the firmament between the cherubim angels and comes down to earth and moves in time.[Job 22:12, Psa 2:4, 11:4, 113:4-6, 1 Kings 8:30, Gen. 11:5 (Came down), Exo. 19:20-21 (Came down), 33:9, 18-23 (Came down; form), Num. 12:5-8 (Came down; form), (Came down – Strong's H3380 yä·rad: Gen. 15:11 Birds coming down upon carcasses to eat them. Gen. 37:35 Going down into the grave. Many passages use it to mean moving south. It is translated descend 18 times, fell twice. This is an absolute position.) 1 Chron. 13:6, Psa. 99:1, Isa. 37:16 (between the cherubims:) Seeing God is not prohibited because he has no form but that we are mortal. Job 19:25-27, 1 Tim. 6:16.] See my essay An Essay Against the Christian Doctrine of Huperousia and its Epistemic Implications.

Mountain ViewNow the scriptural support for this is too ubiquitous to even provide a polemic for and from reading Dr. Sungenis' book he admits this but attributes a paradox or duality to both the concrete and omnipresent essence of God. No doubt my opponent is going to appeal to three veins of thought to avoid this argument. #1 The Catholic doctrine of the Trinity and the personhood of the Holy Spirit. #2. The Thomistic Doctrines of Divine Simplicity and Analogy of Proportionality. #3 The Roman Catholic view of the Bible that the scriptures are too dark and complex for the common man to understand, and the interpretation of which should be left in the hands of the Holy Roman Magisterium. (Index of Forbidden Books. Rule #4 and #10 is of special significance. The free printing of the Bible is also condemned in the 4th Session of the Council of Trent.)

#1. The doctrine of the personhood of the Holy Spirit a. Confuses a faculty with a person. Psa. 33:6. b. Ignores the fact that the Spirit is given in a measure denoting it as a force not a person. Num. 11:16-17, John 3:34, Eph. 4:7. c. Is missing in passages where the Holy Spirit would have to be mentioned if he was a distinct person from the Father and the Son. Mat. 11:27, Mark 13:32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

See my essay A Unitarian Explanation of the Holy Spirit.

#2. The metaphysical sophistry of traditional Thomism, divine simplicity and the doctrine of analogy of proportionality where an adjective predicated of God and the same adjective predicated of man are not univocal in meaning reduces to pure atheism. If so, then in the phrase "God exists" and the phrase "Man exists" the predicate has two different meanings, where we are left with the conclusion that Christian theology admits that God doesn't exist at least not in the meaning that we think of when we use the word "exist".

Is it any surprise then that neither in the Ptolemaic, the Tychonic nor the Heliocentric Cosmologies is God or heaven depicted as existing at all! Dr. Sungenis, where is God? Where is heaven on your model of the universe?

Mountain View

#3. The Imperious Roman view of scripture is baseless. The Bible is very clear that it is written to be understood by the common man. There are dozens of passages I could cite but 1 Cor. 14 seems to be the most to point. Here we have the apostle instructing the Corinthian church that the whole purpose of prophetic revelation is for the common people in the church to understand it. And also to point Moses states:

Deut. 30: 11 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. 12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? 13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? 14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

So we see revelation is for even the common people to understand so that they may practice it. And notice that Moses describes the way he and the Jewish people at the time thought about where the creator was and how to get to him. They viewed the creator's concrete existence to be in a discrete and absolute direction that could physically be reached by climbing some sort of physical structure and that is exactly why the tower of babel was built in Genesis 11.

Jasher, 9: 26. And all these people and all the families divided themselves in three parts; the first said We will ascend into heaven and fight against him; the second said, We will ascend to heaven and place our own gods there and serve them; and the third part said, We will ascend to heaven and smite him with bows and spears; and God knew all their works and all their evil thoughts, and he saw the city and the tower which they were building.

And notice the way the judgment of the Tower of Babel is described.

Gen 11:5 And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.
Notice it says he came down, from heaven. He is moving physically, measurably, in time, towards a discrete and absolute direction. There is one and only one cosmology that fits this language and it is the flat earth cosmology.
Deut. 29:29 The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law.

Col. 2:1 For I would that ye knew what great conflict I have for you, and for them at Laodicea, and for as many as have not seen my face in the flesh; 2 That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ; 3 In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. 4 And this I say, lest any man should beguile you with enticing words. 5 For though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, joying and beholding your order, and the stedfastness of your faith in Christ. 6 As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him: 7 Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.

I Thessalonians 5:21 Test everything but hold fast to that which is good.

Dr. Sungenis admits the firmament is a solid structure, but tries to make outer space, including atoms and the ether as the definition of the firmament.

1. This means that any position of the firmament is indistinguishable from any other if the firmament ubiquitously surrounds the spherical earth. There is then no discrete and absolute relation between space and the earth. The problem here is that in the scripture both the Earth, the Ocean and the Firmament are said to have a face which denotes a discrete and absolute relation.

Gen. 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Gen 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

Pro 8:27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:

Hebrew Scholars, Keil & Delitzsch in their Commentary on the Old Testament comments on the Hebrew of Gen. 1:20,

"G-d said: Let the waters swarm with swarms, with living beings, and let birds fly above the earth in the face (the front, i.e., the side turned towards the earth) of the Firmament."

The only way there could be a face of the earth, the ocean and the firmament is if the earth is flat and the inside of the firmament that faces the earth is in a discrete and absolute up and down relation. When you look at the human head, the face of a man is not ubiquitous on the surface of his head. His face is only a discrete portion of the head in an absolute position regardless of the observer's perspective.

Mountain View

2. If outer space is a physical solid structure How could NASA travel through a solid structure in 1969? Their technology was said to be designed to operate in a Newtonian empty space or void. Dr. Sungenis' solution to the firmament utterly contradicts all rocket technology since the beginning of NASA. NASA states that space is a vacuum or void and the matter needed to propel a rocket in space is brought along with them. This utterly contradicts Dr. Sungenis' plea to moderation when considering NASA conspiracy theories.

Mountain View

Mountain View

Objection.

► Geocentrists will object that Job 26:7 denotes the Earth as a suspended sphere.

Ans. Samuel Rowbotham states in Chapter XV of his Zetetic Astronomy 1881 edition,

'Many have argued that the Scriptures favoured the idea that the earth is a globe suspended in space, from the following language of Job (xxvi., 7):

[p. 365]



'He stretched out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.'



Dr. Adam Clark, although himself a Newtonian philosopher, says, in his commentary on this passage, the literal translation is, 'on the hollow or empty waste;' and he quotes a Chaldee version of the passage, which runs as follows:



'He layeth the earth upon the waters, nothing sustaining it.'



It is not that he 'hangeth the earth upon nothing,' an obviously meaningless expression, but 'layeth it upon the waters,' which were previously empty or waste or unoccupied by the earth–in fact, on and in which there was nothing visible before the dry land appeared.



This is in strict accordance with the other expressions of Scripture that the earth was stretched out above the waters, and founded upon the seas–where nothing had before existed.



If the earth is a globe, it is evident that everywhere the water of its surface–the seas, lakes, oceans, and rivers–must be sustained or upheld by the land, which must be underneath the water; but being a plane 'founded upon the seas,' and the land and waters distinct and independent of each other, then the waters of the 'great deep' must sustain the land as it does a ship, an ice-island, or any other flowing mass, and there must, of necessity, be waters below the earth. In this particular, as in all others, the Scriptures are beautifully sequential and consistent.



[p. 366]



'The Almighty shall bless thee with the blessing of Heaven above, and blessings of the deep that lieth under.'–Genesis xliv., 25.



'Thou shalt not make unto thee any likeness of anything in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or in the waters under the earth.'–Exodus xx., 4.



'Take ye, therefore, good heed unto yourselves, and make no similitude of anything on the earth, or the likeness of anything that is in the waters beneath the earth.'–Deuteronomy iv., 18.



'Blessed be his land, for the precious things of heaven, for the dew, and for the deep which croucheth beneath.'–Deuteronomy xxxiii., 13.



The same fact was acknowledged by the ancient philosophers. In 'Ovid's Metamorphoses' Jupiter, in an 'assembly of the G-ds,' is made to say:



'I swear by the infernal waves which glide under the earth.'



As the earth is a distinct structure, standing in and upheld by the waters of the 'great deep,' it follows, unless it can be proved that something solid and substantial sustains the waters, that 'the depths' are fathomless. As there is no evidence whatever of anything existing except the fire consequent upon the rapid combination and decomposition of numerous well-known elements, we are compelled to admit that the depth is boundless–that beneath the waters which glide under the lowest parts of the earth there is nothing of a resisting nature. This is again confirmed by the Scriptures:



'Thus saith the Lord, which giveth the Sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the Moon and Stars for a light by



[p. 367]



night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar, the Lord of Hosts is His name. If these ordinances depart from before me, saith the Lord, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever. Thus saith the Lord: if heaven above can be measured and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel.'–Jeremiah xxxi., 37.



From the above it is certain that G-d's promises to His people can no more be broken than can the height of heaven be measured, or the depths of the mighty waters–the earth's foundations–searched out or determined. The fathomless character of the deep beneath, upon which the earth is founded, and the infinitude of heaven above, are here given as emblems of the boundlessness of G-d's power, and of the certainty that all His ordinances will be fulfilled. When G-d's power can be limited, heaven above will be no longer infinite; and the 'mighty waters,' the 'great deep,' the 'foundations of the earth,' may be fathomed. But the Scriptures plainly teach us that the power and wisdom of G-d, the heights of heaven, and the depth of the 'waters under the earth,' are alike boundless and unfathomable.



That the earth is stationary, except the fluctuating motion referred to in the chapter on the cause of tides, has been more than sufficiently demonstrated; and the Scriptures in no instance affirm the contrary.'[10]


We read in the scholarly theology journal Bibliotheca Sacra, July 1856 article 4 The Mosaic Narrative of the Creation Considered Grammatically and in its Relation to Science by E.P. Barrow, Professor of Hebrew language and literature in Andover Theological Seminary, commenting on Genesis 1:2,

Mountain View
Mountain View
Mountain View

Thus, we see that the word "nothing" in Job 26:7 does not mean empty space. It means the primordial watery deep of Genesis 1. In the scholarly interpreter's bible, on Job 26:7 we see that the empty place of Job 26:7 is the same chaotic watery void of Gen. 1:2 and the nothingness of Job 26:7 is simply a parallelism to the same chaotic watery void of Gen. 1:2 as well.

Mountain View

Thus, in Adam Clarke's commentary on Job 26:7 we read the same that the empty place of Job 26:7 is the same chaotic watery void of Gen. 1:2 and concerning the phrase "hangeth the earth upon nothing",

Mountain View

Moreover, if the Earth is hanging free in Newtonian space then it is also in the firmament completely contradictory to Genesis 1. Nowhere does Genesis one say Elohim placed the earth in the firmament. Why? Because the earth is the stage, the celestial bodies its ornamentation.

We see the ignorance of Dr. Sungenis to the biblical great deep as he states on page 289 of his recent book,

"These insights are even more significant as Josephus uses the word peripezas to describe the shape and position of the firmament. It refers to a covering that goes around the Earth. Hence implied in Josephus' description is that the Earth is a sphere and the firmament extends all the way around it." Pg. 289

Mountain View

Here we see the depiction of Babylonian and Hebrew Cosmology from Warren. And as we read above from Rabbi Slifkin and the Talmud the Babylonian Cosmology was the Hebrew cosmology. Yes there is a spherical firmament surrounding the flat earth and that is to provide the structure to hold up the great deep under the earth and to canopy above the earth. It has nothing to do with the earth itself being a sphere.

Thus, Dr. Sungenis utterly embarrasses himself in this point and on pg. 89 of his book where he states that liberal theologians invented the idea that the bible teaches an actual dome to the earth.

Flat Earth Proves Divine Creation

"I have to repeat, again and again, that the Scriptures and nature are connected, as will appear to any impartial inquirer; those who will not take the pains to study them both, will remain fools, whether I say so or not. The not attending to this connexion has been the cause of that contempt with which the Scripture has been treated. Suppose we view the dial plate of a watch, we see the hand point to the hour, by a mechanism to us invisible; but we find a book wherein the inward structure of the watch or clock is described ; we are at a loss whether to believe it or not ; we know not whether it be true or false. How then shall we prove its truth ! By taking the machine to pieces, and examining its works ; if the book and the machine exactly agree, and the former be an accurate description of the latter, the inference must be, that either the maker of the machine wrote the book, or revealed the mechanism of it to him who did. This is absolutely the case between the Bible and nature. And if this examination were firmly, and candidly, and intelligently carried through, the numbers of our foolish philosophers would soon be diminished, and their specious system utterly confounded. Moses and the Prophets never revealed the proper frame of a mouse -trap or the size of a bird cage, because they knew the star gazers would not heed such trifles, nor find any credit in constructing such things. But Moses and the Prophets did, by the inspiration and dictation of God, reveal to mankind the framework and mechanism of nature, which must have remained for ever inscrutable, but for such direct revelation ; and which mode and plan of creation, when thus made known, appears true upon the highest demonstration the rational mind can demand !"

Thomas Winship, Zetetic Cosmogony



[1] http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom01.vii.i.html

[2] The Sceptical Chymst, 102-121

[3] Blue Letter Bible Lexicon: https://www.blueletterBible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=H7554&t=KJV

[4] Ibid., https://www.blueletterBible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=H8478&t=KJV

[5] Ibid., https://www.blueletterBible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H5921&t=KJV

[6] Ibid., https://www.blueletterBible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6440&t=KJV

[7] Ibid., https://www.blueletterBible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H5921&t=KJV

[8] Martin Luther, Luther's Works, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan, Lectures on Genesis, (Concordia, St. Louis, 1958), 30, 43

[9] Blue Letter Bible: https://www.blueletterBible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H1754&t=KJV

[10] http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za66.htm

Comets

See 225 Reasons, pg. 274.

Conspiracies/NASA/Government

Curvature Tables

Geodetic Surveying by Ingram pg. 363

The Surveying Handbook By Russell C. Brinker, Roy Minnick, pg. 213

Elements of Geodesy By James Howard Gore, pg. 92

Tables and Formulae Useful in Surveying, Geodesy, and Practical Astronomy ... By Thomas Jefferson Lee, pg. 144

A collection of tables and formulae useful in surveying, geodesy etc. By Thomas Jefferson Lee, pg.81

Geodetic Surveying By Edward Richard Cary, pg.15

Eccentricity

Eccentricity is the Orbital deviation from a perfect circle.

Eclipses

We are told frequently by the Heliocentrists that their model is true because they predict eclipses with great accuracy. This is a correlation equals causation fallacy. The fact that Heliocentrists predict eclipses does not prove that Heliocentrism is the logical cause or necessary for the prediction. The ancient Saros Cycle has been used for centuries to predict eclipses. Cosmic Perspective, 6th Edition by Bennett, Donahue, Schneider and Voit (Pearson: San Francisco CA, 2010), pg. 47 states,

"The combination of the changing dates of eclipse seasons and the 29 1/2 day cycle of lunar phases makes eclipses recur in a cycle of about 18 years 11 1/3 days. This cycle is called the saros cycle. Astronomers in many ancient cultures identified the saros cycle and thus could predict when eclipses would occur."

Moreover, in order to make Eclipse predictions be caused by the Heliocentric model, one would need to measure the distances to theoretical centers of the Mass(The body alpha) the Sun is said itself to orbit. Yet such a location is unknown and thus the path the sun is taking must also be unknown.

Zetetic Astronomy, by Lady Blount and Albert Smith,





Also, Bridgman already refuted Star Distances.(See "Astronomy Proved Unreliable, #20. The distances to the stars are baseless" Section)

Dark Bodies and Eclipses with Sun and Moon Above the Horizon

In Flat Earth, Eclipses are generally explained through the phenomenon of dark bodies due to the fact that the sun and the moon can both be seen above the horizon during an eclipse.

It may shock the modern reader to realize that the existence of dark bodies and their possible mechanism in Eclipses is fairly mainstream history of Astronomy.

Of course the Heliocentric excuse is that the Sun appears due to atmospheric refraction. Ans. 1. Euclidean Geometry does not account for refraction. 2. If you can appeal to refraction here I can in the Antarctic Midnight Sun!

Another proof for dark bodies is the Triangle Eclipse! The Observatory, Volume 11, Issue 135, Friday, March 9, 1888,



If the moon does not produce its own light it should go totally black during a lunar eclipse but it does not.link And remember, Geometry does not account for refraction so our opponents cannot appeal to it.

Equinox

Sunlight and Night are apparently equal at the equinox. That half the earth is lit up is theoretical.

Firmament