A huge problem with the paths of the solar eclipses on the globe model is that they make strange up and down patterns that really make no sense on a globe. How can a zigzag pattern be possible on the globe model?
Well if you look at the SAME paths drawn out on a flat earth map, then you get ovals, circular paths of the eclipse around the flat earth! The earth is FLAT!
VIDEO: Solar Eclipse Path of Totality Doesn’t Make Sense on a Globe
The official NASA explanation of a Solar Eclipse is that the moon passes directly between the sun and the earth blocking the sun’s light, creating a total solar eclipse on the earth for those directly in the shadow path. There are several problems with this explanation.
The first main problem with the globe model is that the next solar eclipse on August 21 is coming from the west. We have been told that the moon rotates around the earth from east to west just like the sun. But the moon during the solar eclipse is eclipsing the sun from the WEST. So how does that work on the Ball earth model? They say it’s just an optical illusion because of the angle of the sun. One scientist from NASA said its because the moon rotates from west to east! What? And another scientist said the the moon rotates around the earth twice as fast as the earth spins! Huh? When did that happen? The explanations from NASA get even more confusing and make no sense. If their “science” is so accurate, then why can’t they agree on which way the moon rotates around the earth or how fast it’s going? Something is amiss. Could it be something other than the moon eclipsing the sun?
Ketu and Rahu Cause the Eclipses-Flat Earth Truth
Another MAJOR problem with the Ball earth model is that the path of the total eclipse shadow that is coming on August 21 in North America (and all paths of the solar eclipses) is only 73 miles across! How can a shadow be SMALLER than the object casting the shadow? This is physically impossible! We know from experience that shadows can be the same size or larger than the object casting the shadow, but it can never be smaller. We are told that the moon is 2,159 miles in diameter. So shouldn’t the moon’s shadow on earth be at LEAST 2,159 miles wide? But instead we are given the path of the next eclipse across the United States and it is only 73 miles wide. You have to be in a very specific location to even see the total eclipse.
We also know that the farther away an object is the larger its shadow is. So how can the shadow of the moon be SMALLER than the moon when the moon is 2,159 miles wide and is 238,900 miles away?
This is how shadows work:
Well according to NASA, the sun’s rays during a lunar eclipse (only), converge on the moon and create a laser affect.
However, at every other time the sun’s rays are always depicted as shining in straight direct rays at earth, which is necessary in order to account for the shadows we see from the sunlight.
NASA (Never A Straight Answer) changes its story whenever it helps explain phenomena they can’t explain.
Another big problem with the paths of the solar eclipses on the globe model is that they make strange up and down patterns that really make no sense on a globe. How can a zigzag pattern be possible on the globe model?
Well if you look at the SAME paths drawn out on a flat earth map, then you get ovals, circular paths of the eclipse around the flat earth! The earth is FLAT!
Path of Totality Doesn’t Make Sense on a Globe- Flat Earth Truth
Here’s a great video explaining the absurdity of a solar eclipse in the Globe earth model:
The Moon is only 70 Miles Wide
https:// youtu.be/sU97ZzdS7O8
Video: Why the 2017 Solar Eclipse Proves the Flat Earth Once and For All
 The solar eclipse is a localized event and these localized eclipses happen all the time! This is only possible with a local sun and moon, or whatever is blocking the sun. More proof that the earth is flat and the sun and moon are close and small.
One of the most asked questions about the Flat Earth is how Eclipses work on the flat earth model. This topic is even more popular now because of the soon coming total solar eclipse on August 21, 2017, across North America. This article will explain different theories on how the solar and lunar eclipses work and will also address how and why they do not work on the Globe model. Even though the eclipses are proclaimed as difficult to explain on the flat earth and therefore proof that the flat earth theory is false, in actuality the Eclipses when examined closely prove the Globe model completely false and impossible and the earth to be a flat stationary plane.
The simple explanation for a solar eclipse on the flat earth, although there is evidence against this which I will show later, is that the moon and the sun are the same size and that the moon is simply passing in front of the sun, blocking the sun’s light as it passes in front of it.
The explanation for a lunar eclipse on flat earth is more difficult to prove, but the official “Scientific” NASA explanation is easy to disprove. The official globe model explanation is that the sun, earth, and moon line up perfectly and the earth then casts its shadow on the moon, creating the lunar eclipse. The main problem with this official model is that the sun AND moon have both been visible ABOVE the horizon during a lunar eclipse, making the alignment for earth’s shadow to be cast on the moon impossible!
Samuel Rowbathom in “Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not a Globe” says this about the Eclipses:
“A SOLAR eclipse is the result simply of the moon passing between the sun and the observer on earth. But that an eclipse of the moon arises from a shadow of the earth, is a statement in every respect, because unproved, unsatisfactory. The earth has been proved to be without orbital or axial motion; and, therefore, it could never come between the sun and the moon. The earth is also proved to be a plane, always underneath the sun and moon; and, therefore, to speak of its intercepting the light of the sun, and thus casting its own shadow on the moon, is to say that which is physically impossible.
Besides the above difficulties or incompatibilities, many cases are on record of the sun and moon being eclipsed when both were above the horizon. The sun, the earth, and the moon, not in a straight line, but the earth below the sun and moon–out of the reach or direction of both–and yet a lunar eclipse has occurred! Is it possible that a “shadow” of the earth could be thrown upon the moon, when sun, earth, and moon, were not in the same line? The difficulty has been met by assuming the influence of refraction, as in the following quotations:–
“On some occasions the horizontal refraction amounts to 36 or 37 minutes, and generally to about 33 minutes, which is
equal to the diameter of the sun or moon; and, therefore, the whole disc of the sun or moon will appear above the horizon, both at rising and setting, although actually below. This is the reason that the full moon has sometimes been seen above the horizon before the sun was set. A remarkable instance of this kind was observed at Paris, on the 19th of July, 1750, when the moon appeared visibly eclipsed, while the sun was distinctly to be seen above the horizon.”
“On the 20th of April, 1837, the moon appeared to rise eclipsed before the sun had set. The same phenomenon was observed on the 20th of September, 1717.”
“In the lunar eclipses of July 17th, 1590; November 3rd, 1648; June 16th, 1666; and May 26th, 1668; the moon rose eclipsed whilst the sun was still apparently above the horizon. Those horizontal eclipses were noticed as early as the time of Pliny.”
On the 17th of January, 1870, a similar phenomenon occurred; .and again in July of the same year.
The only explanation which has been given of this phenomenon is the refraction caused by the earth’s atmosphere. This, at first sight, is a plausible and fairly satisfactory solution; but on carefully examining the subject, it is found to be utterly inadequate; and those who have recourse to it cannot be aware that the refraction of an object and that of a shadow are in opposite directions. An object by refraction is bent upwards; but the shadow of any object is bent downwards, as will be seen by the following very simple experiment. Take a plain white shallow basin, and place it ten or twelve inches from a light in such a position that the shadow of the edge of the basin touches the centre of the bottom. Hold a rod vertically over and on the edge of the shadow, to denote its true position. Now let water be gradually poured into the basin, and the shadow will be seen to recede or shorten inwards and downwards; but if a rod or a spoon is allowed to rest, with its upper end towards the light, and the lower end in the bottom of the vessel, it will be seen, as the water is poured in, to bend upwards–thus proving that if refraction operated at all, it would do so by elevating the moon above its true position, and throwing the earth’s shadow downwards, or directly away from the moon’s surface. Hence it is clear that a lunar eclipse by a shadow of the earth is an utter impossibility.
The moon’s entire surface, or that portion of it which is presented to the earth, has also been distinctly seen during the whole time of a total lunar eclipse. This also is entirely incompatible with the doctrine that an eclipse of the moon is the result of a shadow of the earth passing over its surface.”
As we can see, the lunar eclipse on a globe earth has been proven by observation and history to be an impossibility. Then what causes the lunar eclipse?
First let’s look at what happens during a lunar eclipse. The moon does not just become dark like a normal shadow devoid of light, but turns a red copper color. Shadows do not turn red or copper.
If the earth is a flat plane a
“hundred miles below the sun and moon, [then it] cannot, by any known possibility come between them. It cannot therefore intercept the light of the sun, and throw its own shadow upon the moon. If such a thing were a natural possibility, how could the moon continue to shine during the whole or any considerable part of the period of its passage through the dark shadow of the earth? Refraction, or what has been called “Earth light,” will not aid in the explanation; because the light of the moon is at such times “like the glowing heat of firer tinged with deep red.” “Reddish is not the word to express it, it was red–red hot.” “The reddish light made it, seem to be on fire.” “It looked like a fire smouldering in its ashes.” “Its tint was that of red-hot copper.” The sun light is of an entirely different colour to that of the eclipsed moon; and it is contrary to known optical principles to say that light when refracted or reflected, or both simultaneously, is thereby changed in colour. If a light of a given colour is seen through a great depth of a comparatively dense medium, as the sun is often seen in winter through the fog and vapour of the atmosphere, it appears of a different colour, and generally of such as that which the moon so often gives during a total eclipse; but a shadow cannot produce any such effect, as it is, in fact, not an entity at all, but simply the absence of light.
From the facts and phenomena already advanced, we cannot draw any other conclusion than that the moon is obscured by some kind of semi-transparent body passing before it; and through which the luminous surface is visible: the luminosity changed in colour by the density
of the intervening object. This conclusion is forced upon, us by the evidence; but it involves the admission that the moon shines with light of its own–that it is not a reflector of the sun’s light, but absolutely self-luminous. Although this admission is logically compulsory, it will be useful and strictly Zetetic to collect all the evidence possible which bears upon it.”- Samuel Rowbathom, Zetetic Astronomy (1)
So the facts of the moon and the lunar eclipse are these:
1. The sun and moon are frequently seen above the horizon at the same time during a lunar eclipse, making the official globe model that earth’s shadow is cast on the moon impossible.
2. The moon turns a red copper color during an eclipse, which is impossible since shadows do not change the color of an object.
3. The moon is self luminous, creating its own light and is not a reflector of the sun. A reflector can only reflect the same light that it is given. If the light is yellow and hot then the reflector can online reflect yellow hot light. The moon’s light has been proven to be a cool light with a cooler temperature in direct moonlight than in the shade. How can a reflector create cool light when it is reflecting heat? This proves that the moon is self luminous and therefore is shining it’s own light during an eclipse.
3. The only explanation then is that another body of the heavens is coming in front of the moon, turning it red.
Let’s look at solar eclipses now. The official NASA explanation is that the moon passes directly between the sun and the earth blocking the sun’s light, creating a total solar eclipse on the earth. There are several problems with this explanation.
The first main problem with globe model is that the next solar eclipse on August 21 is coming from the west. We have been told that the moon rotates around the earth from east to west just like the sun. But the moon during the solar eclipse is eclipsing the sun from the WEST. So how does that work on the Ball earth model? They say it’s just an optical illusion because of the angle of the sun. One scientist from NASA said its because the moon rotates from west to east! What? And another scientist said the the moon rotates around the earth twice as fast as the earth spins! Huh? When did that happen? The explanations from NASA get even more confusing and make no sense.
Another MAJOR problem with the Ball earth model is that the path of the total eclipse shadow that is coming on August 21 in Notth America (and all paths of the solar eclipses) is only 70 miles across! How can a shadow be SMALLER than the object casting the shadow? This is physically impossible! We know from experience that shadows can be the same size or larger than the object casting the shadow, but it can never be smaller. We are told that the moon is 2,159 miles in diameter. So shouldn’t the moon’s shadow on earth be at LEAST 2,159 miles wide? But instead we are given the path of the next eclipse across the United States and it is only 70 miles wide. You have to be in a very specific location to even see the total eclipse.
We also know that the farther away an object is the larger its shadow is. So how can the shadow of the moon be SMALLER than the moon when the moon is 2,159 miles wide and is 238, 900 miles away?
This is how shadows work:
Well according to NASA, the sun’s rays during a lunar eclipse (only), converge on the moon and create a laser affect.
However, at every other time the sun’s rays are always depicted as shining in straight direct rays at earth, which is necessary in order to account for the shadows we see from the sunlight.
NASA (Never A Straight Answer) changes its story whenever it helps explain phenomena they can’t explain.
Here’s a great video explaining the absurdity of a solar eclipse in the Globe earth model:
The Moon is only 70 Miles Wide
https:// youtu.be/sU97ZzdS7O8
Video: Why the 2017 Solar Eclipse Proves the Flat Earth Once and For All
The flat earth explanation is similar to globe model. But on the flat earth the sun and moon are the same size and are rotating above and around the flat earth. When the moon passes in front of the sun it causes a solar eclipse.
The reason this happens is because the sun rotates on a spiral pattern going higher into the sky in the summer she lower in the winter and the sun moves faster in winter and slower in the summer.
Sun’s seasonal patterns on the flat earth:
The moon is slower and steady, but occasionally intercepts with the sun creating the solar eclipse. Many flat Earthers accept this explanation.
I will describe several problems with this explanation, but it is up to you to do your own research and decide for yourself.
Problem #1: The moon rotates around and above the flat earth from east to west, but the moon will be eclipsing the sun from the WEST on August 21, 2017. How can it be the moon if it’s coming from the wrong direction? And does the moon move faster than the sun? No. The moon moves slower than the sun so how can it be moving in front of the sun from the opposite direction?
Problem #2: If the moon is self-luminous and transparent when in new moon form, then how can the moon completely block the sun?
Proof the moon is self-luminous and transparent and not Terra Firma.
Problem #3: The moon is always seen with craters or some texture, whether or not it’s Terra Firma. But the object that eclipses the sun during a solar eclipse has no craters and is not seen before or after the eclipse.
Is there another heavenly body, like the one during a lunar eclipse, that is eclipsing the sun? Ancient cultures describe other bodies in the heavens that cause eclipses. The Hindus describe heavenly bodies they called Rahu and Ketu swallowing the sun and moon during eclipses.
So now it’s up to you. Look at the evidence. Watch the videos and decide for yourself what the evidence shows you is true.
(1) Samuel Rowbathom, “Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not a Globe”
TIME TO WAKE UP CHRISTIAN! You think the shape of the earth isn't important? It's the most important truth of our time! Finally a Pastor preaches on the importance of the Flat Earth Truth, and what he says is right on! Flat Earth is Biblical and the foundation of our faith because it is the TRUTH about Creation and our Creator! It is bringing about a revival and bringing people to the Bible like never before! Please watch and share!
Video link:
https://youtu.be/GJCLHMk0OWs
Seasons, Time Zones, and Star Trails Demonstrated
If you want to help support this website so that we can continue to create new content, please become a Patron:
If you’ve heard about the Flat Earth theory then I’m sure you’ve asked yourself the question, Why? Why would they lie about the shape of the earth? It’s a pretty big lie, so there must be a pretty big reason!
One of the biggest and most obvious reasons for such a massive lie is for money and world control. NASA makes billions a year off taxpayer dollars for one, and what is all that money going towards if it’s all fake? It takes money to fake a space station in a giant swimming pool and pay a bunch of computer geeks to create CGI’s of earth, but somebody’s pockets are getting full for sure.
NASA was started by men in the occult. All top level astroNOTS are Freemasons and the Satanic Kabballah is taught at NASA while the name “Jesus” has been banned. You can research this yourself. Clearly these men are not promoting science but a pagan religion and a sinister agenda.
The Occult Roots of NASA and the Ongoing Fraud
The Satanic elite have a Plan to create a one world government, or the New World Order, and to hide God and destroy Christianity.
Satan has been working for 6,000 years to deceive humanity and he wants to be God on this earth. His ultimate goal is to get the whole world to reject the God of creation and to worship the Beast and his image (see Rev. 13-14)
Some of Satan’s greatest deceptions and accomplishments have been to overtake the scientific world and convince the general population that we evolved from monkeys and primordial soup (the Evolution Lie) and that everything comes from a Big Bang. These are Satanic lies and I’m sure most Christians would agree. These lies remove God from the universe and destroy the belief in a six day creation. They also destroy the Bible’s validity. Many people have become atheists and God haters because of these pagan Satanic theories.
The Big Evolution Lie: Darwin’s Doctrine of Delusion Debunked
But just think for a minute. What kind of earth does the Bible describe? In Genesis 1:16-17 it says “And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them IN THE FIRMAMENT of the heaven to give light upon the earth.”
If God placed the sun and moon IN THE FIRMAMENT then how can they be 93 million miles away? And if it is then the Bible is false.
The Bible also describes an immovable earth (1 Chronicles 16:30) set on pillars (1 Samuel 2:8) on the deep (Isaiah 51:10) with a glass firmament dome above the earth (Job 37:18) that separates the waters below from the waters above (Genesis 1: 7; Psalms 148:1). That is the flat earth model! Is the Bible false or is modern Pagan illuminati Satanic science false?
The flat earth is a stationary, non moving earth, set on a firm foundation with a close sun and moon set in the firmament, or inside the dome. The stars are above the firmament and the “universe” is small and close. We are not hurling through a vast expanding Big Bang universe. We are actually the center of God’s creation.
NASA KNOWS IT’S FLAT! NASA Report Describes a Flat, Stationary, Non-Rotating Earth
The theories of evolution, the Big Bang Theory, Atheism, the New Age movement, the New World Order, and the occult are all based on the ball earth theory. The spinning ball earth hurtling around a giant sun (Pagan Sun Worship) is the foundation for all these Satanic beliefs. Without the ball earth all of these lies fall apart and have no foundation.
On the flat earth model evolution and the Big Bang don’t work. A flat stationary earth inside a glass dome with a close fixed “universe” of stars and wandering stars (planets) rotating around the dome points to a Designer! The flat earth points to God alone as our creator! It blows all of Satan’s deceptions out of the water. It reveals God as the true creator and points all creation to the Bible as the source of all truth, even science.
I’ve had many people now coming to me telling me they were about to become an atheist or were an atheist when they discovered the truth of the flat earth and now they are reading their Bibles!!! It’s amazing! We are on a solid foundation and protected by a dome! God is close and we are the valuable center of His incredible creation!
But Satan hates truth and of course he is going to attack this movement and get Christians to reject it and not even research it. But once people start researching it, there is no denying the truth. All true science points to a flat geocentric earth and the God of the Bible as its Creator. If the whole world knew we lived on a flat earth created by God as described in the Bible, Satan would no longer be able to deceive the world.
The alien deception is also a lie based on the globe model. If earth is flat and there is no space, and aliens are revealed as what they truly are: demons!
Flat Earth Truth of the UFO Alien Deception
I hope this helps you understand better why flat earthers are so passionate about this truth. It is God’s truth for the last days!
60 Bible Verses Describing a Flat Earth Inside a Dome – Flat Earth Science and the Bible
The Satanic Hidden Agenda of NASA and the True Flat Earth – Flat Earth Science and the Bible
The following is a verbatim copy of A Hundred Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe by William Carpenter (1885):
1.) The aeronaut can see for himself that Earth is a Plane. The appearance presented to him, even at the highest elevation he has ever attained, is that of a concave surface – this being exactly what is to be expected of a surface that is truly level, since it is the nature of level surfaces to appear to rise to a level with the eye of the observer. This is ocular demonstration and proof that Earth is not a globe.
2.) Whenever experiments have been tried on the surface of standing water, this surface has always been found to be level. If the Earth were a globe, the surface of all standing water would be convex. This is an experimental proof that Earth is not a globe.
3.) Surveyors' operations in the construction of railroads, tunnels, or canals are conducted without the slightest "allowance" being made for "curvature," although it is taught that this so-called allowance is absolutely necessary! This is a cutting proof that Earth is not a globe.
4.) There are rivers that flow for hundreds of miles towards the level of the sea without falling more than a few feet – notably, the Nile, which, in a thousand miles, falls but a foot. A level expanse of this extent is quite incompatible with the idea of the Earth's "convexity." It is, therefore, a reasonable proof that Earth is not a globe.
5.) The lights which are exhibited in lighthouses are seen by navigators at distances at which, according to the scale of the supposed "curvature" given by astronomers, they ought to be many hundreds of feet, in some cases, down below the line of sight! For instance: the light at Cape Hatteras is seen at such a distance (40 miles) that, according. to theory, it ought to be nine-hundred feet higher above the level of the sea than it absolutely is, in order to be visible! This is a conclusive proof that there is no "curvature," on the surface of the sea – "the level of the sea,"- ridiculous though it is to be under the necessity of proving it at all: but it is, nevertheless, a conclusive proof that the Earth is not a globe.
6.) If we stand on the sands of the sea-shore and watch a ship approach us, we shall find that she will apparently "rise" – to the extent, of her own height, nothing more. If we stand upon an eminence, the same law operates still; and it is but the law of perspective, which causes objects, as they approach us, to appear to increase in size until we see them, close to us, the size they are in fact. That there is no other "rise" than the one spoken of is plain from the fact that, no matter how high we ascend above the level of the sea, the horizon rises on and still on as we rise, so that it is always on a level with the eye, though it be two-hundred miles away, as seen by Mr. J. Glaisher, of England, from Mr. Coxwell's balloon. So that a ship five miles away may be imagined to be "coming up" the imaginary downward curve of the Earth's surface, but if we merely ascend a hill such as Federal Hill, Baltimore, we may see twenty-!five miles away, on a level with the eye – that is, twenty miles level distance beyond the ship that we vainly imagined to be " rounding the curve," and "coming up!" This is a plain proof that the Earth is not a globe.
7.) If we take a trip down the Chesapeake Bay, in the day-time, we may see for ourselves the utter fallacy of the idea that when a vessel appears "hull down," as it is called, it is because the hull is "behind the water:" for, vessels, have been seen, and may often be seen – again, presenting the appearance spoken of, and away – far away – beyond those vessels, and, at the same moment, the level shore line, with its accompanying complement of tall trees towering up, in perspective, over the heads of the "hull-down" ships! Since, then, the idea will not stand its ground when the facts rise up against it, and it is a piece of the popular theory, the theory is a contemptible piece of business, and we may easily wring from it a proof that Earth is not a globe.
8.) If the Earth were a globe, a small model globe would be the very best – because the truest – thing for the. navigator to take to sea with him. But such a thing as that is not known: with such a toy as a guide, the mariner would wreck his ship, of a certainty!, This is a proof that Earth is not a globe.
9.) As mariners take to sea with them charts constructed as though the sea were a level surface, however these charts may err as to the true form of this level surface taken as a whole, it is clear, as they find them answer their purpose tolerably well – and only tolerably for many ships are wrecked owing to the error of which we speak – that the surface of the sea is as it is taken to be, whether the captain of the ship "supposes" the Earth to be a globe or anything else. Thus, then, we draw, from the common system of "plane sailing," a practical proof that Earth is not a globe.
10.) That the mariners' compass points north and south at the same time is a fact as indisputable as that two and two makes four; but that this would be impossible if the thing, were placed on a globe with "north" and "south' at the centre of opposite hemispheres is a fact that does not figure in the school-books, though very easily seen: and it requires no lengthy train of reasoning to bring out of it a pointed proof that the Earth is not a globe.
11.) As the mariners' compass points north and south at one time, and as the North, to which it is attracted is that part of the Earth situated where the North Star is in the zenith, it follows that there is no south "point" or "pole" but that, while the centre is North, a vast circumference must be South in its whole extent. This is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
12.) As we have seen that there is, really no south point (or pole) but an infinity of points forming, together, a vast circumference — the boundary of the known world, with its battlements of icebergs which bid defiance to man's onward course, in a southerly direction – so there can be no east or west "points,' just as there is no "yesterday," and no "tomorrow." In fact, as there is one point that is fixed (the North), it is impossible for any other point to be fixed likewise. East and west are, therefore, merely directions at right angles with a north and south line: and as the south point of the compass shifts round to all parts of the circular boundary, (as it may be carried round the central North) so the directions east and west, crossing this line, continued to form a circle at any latitude. A westerly circumnavigation, is going around with the North Star continually on the right hand, and an easterly circumnavigation is performed only when the reverse condition of things is maintained, the North Star being on the left hand as the journey is made. These facts, taken together, form a beautiful proof that the Earth is not a globe.
13.) As the mariners' compass points north and south at one and the same time, and a meridian is a north and south line, it follows that meridians can be no other than straight lines. But, since all meridians on a globe are semicircles, it is an incontrovertible proof that the Earth is not a globe.
14.) "Parallels of latitude" only – of all imaginary lines on the surface of the Earth – are circles, which increase, progressively, from the northern centre to the southern circumference. The mariner's course in the direction of any one of these concentric circles is his longitude, the degrees of which INCREASE to such an extent beyond the equator (going southwards) that hundreds of vessels have been wrecked because of the false idea created by the untruthfulness of the charts and the globular theory together, causing the sailor to be continually getting out of his reckoning. With a map of the Earth in its true form all difficulty is done away with, and ships may be conducted anywhere with perfect safety. This, then, is a very important practical proof that the Earth is not a globe.
15.) The idea that, instead of sailing horizontally round the Earth, ships are taken down one side of a globe, then underneath, and are brought up on the other side to get home again, is, except as a mere dream, impossible and absurd! And, since there are neither impossibilities nor absurdities in the simple matter of circumnavigation, it stands without argument, a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
16.) If the, Earth were a globe, the distance round its surface at, say, 45 "degrees" south latitude, could not possibly be any greater than it is at the same latitude north; but, since it is found by navigators to be twice the distance — to say the least of it — or, double the distance it ought to be according to the globular theory, it is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
17.) Human beings require a surface on which to live that, in its general character, shall be LEVEL; and since the Omniscient Creator must have been perfectly acquainted with the requirements of His creatures, it follows that, being an All-wise Creator, He has met them thoroughly. This is a theological proof that the Earth is not a globe.
18.) The best possessions of man are his senses; and, when he uses them all, he will not be deceived in his survey of nature. It is only when some one faculty or other is neglected or abused that he is deluded. Every man in full command of his senses knows that a level surface is a flat or horizontal one; but astronomers tell us that the true level is the curved surface of a globe! They know that man requires a level surface on which to live, so they give him one in name which is not one in fact! Since this is the best that astronomers, with their theoretical science, can do for their fellow creatures – deceive them – it is clear that things are not as they say they are; and, in short, it is a proof that Earth is not a globe.
19.) Every man in his senses goes the most reasonable way to work to do a thing. Now, astronomers (one after another – following a leader), while they are telling us that Earth is a globe, are cutting off the upper half of this suppositious globe in their books, and, in this way, forming the level surface on which they describe man as living and moving! Now, if the Earth were really a globe, this would be just the most unreasonable and suicidal mode of endeavoring to show it. So that, unless theoretical astronomers are all out of their senses together, it is, clearly, a, proof that the Earth is not a globe.
20.) The common sense of man tells him – if nothing else told him – that there is an "up" and a "down" in -nature, even as regards the heavens and the earth; but the theory of modern astronomers necessitates the conclusion that there is not: therefore, 'the theory of the astronomers is opposed to common sense – yes, and to inspiration – and this is a common sense proof that the Earth is not a globe.
21.) Man's experience tells him that he is not constructed like the flies that can live said move upon the ceiling of a room with as much safety as on the floor: – and since the modern theory of a planetary earth necessitates a crowd of theories to keep company with it, and one of them is that men are really bound to. the earth by a force which fastens them to it "like needles round a spherical loadstone," a theory perfectly outrageous and opposed to all human experience, it follows that, unless we can trample upon common sense ane ignore the teachings of experience, we have an evident proof that the Earth is not a globe.
22.) God's Truth never – no, never – requires a falsehood to help it along. Mr. Proctor, in his " Lessons," says: Men " have been able to go round and round the Earth in several directions." Now, in this case, the word " several will imply more than two, unquestionably: whereas, it is utterly impossible to circumnavigate the Earth in any other than an easterly or a westerly direction; and the fact is perfectly consistent and clear in its relation to Earth as a Plane.. Now, since astronomers would not be so foolish as to damage a good cause by misrepresentation, it is presumptive evidence that their cause is a bad one, and – a proof that Earth is not a globe.
23.) If astronomical works be searched through and through, there will not be found a single instance of a bold, unhesitating, or manly ,statement respecting a proof of the Earth's " rotundity." Proctor speaks of "proofs which serve to show … that the Earth is not flat," and says that man "finds reason to think that the Earth is not flat," and speaks of certain matters being "explained by supposing" that the Earth is a, globe; and says that people have "assured themselves that it is a globe;" but he says, also, that there is a " most complete proof that the Earth is a globe:" just as though anything in the world could possibly be wanted but a proof – a proof that proves and settles the whole question. This, however, all the money in the United States Treasury would not buy; and, unless the astronomers are all so rich that they don't want the cash, it is a sterling proof that the Earth is not a globe.
24.) When a man speaks of a "most complete" thing amongst several other things which claim to be what that thing is, it is evident that they must fall short of something which the "most complete" thing possesses. And when it is known that the "most complete" thing is an entire failure, it is plain that the others, all and sundry, are worthless. Proctor's "most complete proof that the Earth is a globe" lies in what he calls "the fact" that distances from place to place agree with calculation. But, since the distance round the Earth at 45 " degrees" south of the equator is twice the distance it would be on a globe, it follows that what the greatest astronomer of the age calls "a fact" is NOT a fact; that his "most complete proof' is a most complete failure; and that be might as well have told us, at once, that he has NO PROOF to give us at all. Now, since, if the Earth be a globe, there would, necessarily, be piles of proofs of it all round us, it follows that when astronomers, with all their ingenuity, are utterly unable to point one out – to say nothing about picking one up – that they give us a proof that Earth is not a globe.
25.) The surveyor's plans in relation to the laying of the first Atlantic Telegraph cable, show that in 1665 miles – from Valentia, Ireland, to St . John's, Newfoundland – the surface of the Atlantic Ocean is a LEVEL surface – not the astronomers' "level," either! The authoritative drawings, published at the time, are a standing evidence of the fact, and form a practical proof that Earth is not a globe.
26.) If the Earth were a globe, it would, if we take Valentia to be the place of departure, curvate downwards, in the 1665 miles across the Atlantic to Newfoundland, according to the astronomers' own tables, more than three hundred miles; but, as the surface of the Atlantic does not do so – the fact of its levelness having been clearly demonstrated by Telegraph Cable surveyors, – it follows that we have a grand proof that Earth is not a globe.
27.) Astronomers, in their consideration of the supposed "curvature" of the Earth, have carefully avoided the taking of that view of the question which – if anything were needed to do so -would show its utter absurdity. It is this: – if, instead of taking our ideal point of departure to be at Valentia, we consider ourselves at St. John's, the 1665 miles of water between us and Valentia would just as well "curvate" downwards as it did in the other case! Now, since the direction in which the Earth is said to "curvate" is interchangeable – depending, indeed, upon the position occupied by a man upon its surface – the thing is utterly absurd; and it follows that the theory is an outrage , and that the Earth does not "curvate" at all: – an evident proof that the Earth is not a globe.
28.) Astronomers are in the habit of considering two points on the Earth's surface, without, it seems, any limit as to the distance that lies between them, as being on a level, and the intervening section, even though it be an ocean, as a vast "hill"-of water!" The Atlantic ocean, in taking this view of the matter, would form a "hill of water" more than a hundred miles high! The idea is simply monstrous, and could only be entertained by scientists whose whole business is made up of materials of the same description: and it certainly requires no argument to deduce, from such "science" as this, a satisfactory proof that the Earth is not a globe.
29.) If the Earth were a globe, it would, unquestionably, have the same general characteristics – no matter its size – as a small globe that may be stood upon the table. As the small globe has top, bottom, and sides, so must also the large one – no matter how large it be. But, as the Earth, which is "supposed" to be a large globe, bas no sides or bottom as the small globe has, the conclusion is irresistible that it is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
30.) If the Earth were a globe, an observer who should ascend above its surface would have to took downwards at the horizon (if it be possible to conceive of a horizon at all under such circumstances) even as astronomical diagrams indicate that angles – varying from ten to nearly fifty degrees below the "horizontal" line of sight! (It is just as absurd as it would be to be taught that when we look at a man full in the face we are looking down at his feet!) But, as no observer in the clouds, or upon any eminence on the earth, has ever had to do so, it follows that the diagrams spoken of are imaginary and false; that the theory which requires such things to prop it up is equally airy and untrue; and that we have a substantial proof that Earth is not a globe.
31.) If the Earth were a globe, it would certainly have to be as large as it is said to be – twenty-five thousand miles in circumference. Now, the thing which I have called a "proof" of the Earth's roundness, and which is presented to children at school, is, that if we stand on the seashore we may see the ships, as they approach us, absolutely "coming up," and that, as we are able to see the highest parts of these ships first, it is because the lower parts are "behind the earth's curve."Now since if this were the case – that is, if the lower parts of these ships were behind a "hill of water" – the size of the Earth, indicated by such a curve as this, would be so small that it would only be big enough to hold the people of a parish, if they could get all round it, instead of the nations of the world, it follows that the idea is preposterous; that the appearance is due to another and to some reasonable cause; and that, instead of being a proof of the globular form of the Earth, it is a proof that at Earth is not a globe.
32.) It is often said that, if the Earth were flat, we could see all over it! This is the result of ignorance. If we stand on the level surface a plain or a prairie, and take notice, we shall find that the horizon is formed at about three miles all around us: that is, the ground appears to rise up until, at that distance, it seems on a level with the eye-line or line of sight. Consequently, objects no higher than we stand – say, six feet – and which are at that distance (three miles), have reached the "vanishing point," and are beyond the sphere of our unaided vision. This is the reason why the hull of a ship disappears (in going away from us) before the sails; and, instead of there being about it the faintest shadow of evidence of the, Earth's rotundity, it is a clear proof that Earth is not a globe.
33.) If the Earth were a globe, people – except those on the top – would, certainly, have to be "fastened" to its surface by some means or other, whether by the "attraction" of astronomers or by some other undiscovered and undiscoverable process! But, as we know that we simply walk on its surface without any other aid than that which is necessary for locomotion on a plane, it follows that we have, herein, a conclusive proof that Earth is not a globe.
34.) If the Earth were a globe, there certainly would be – if we could imagine the thing to be peopled all round – "antipodes:" "people who," says the dictionary, "living exactly on the opposite side of the globe to ourselves, have their feet opposite to ours: – people who are hanging heads downwards whilst we are standing heads up! But, since the theory allows us to travel to those parts of the Earth where the people are said to be heads downwards, and still to fancy ourselves to be heads upwards and our friends whom we have left behind – us to be heads downwards, it follows that the whole thing is a myth – a dream – a delusion – and a snare; and, instead of there being any evidence at all in this direction to substantiate the popular theory, it is a plain proof that the Earth is not a globe.
35.) If we examine a true picture of the distant horizon, or the thing itself, we shall find that it coincides exactly with a perfectly straight and level line. Now, since there could be nothing of the kind on a globe, and we find it to be the case all over the Earth, it is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
36.) If we take a journey down the Chesapeake Bay, by night, we shall see the "light" exhibited at Sharpe's Island for an hour before the steamer gets to it. We may take up a position on the deck so that the rail of the vessel's side will be in a line with the "light" and in the line of sight; and we shall find that in the whole journey the light will won't vary in the slightest degree in its apparent elevation. But, say that a distance of thirteen miles has been traversed, the astronomers' theory of "curvature" demands a difference (one way or the other!) in the apparent elevation of the light, of 112 feet 8 inches! Since, however, there is not a difference of 100 hair's breadths, we have a plain proof that the water of the Chesapeake Bay is not curved, which is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
37.) If the Earth were a globe, there would, very likely, be (for nobody knows) six months day and six months night at the arctic and antarctic regions, as astronomers dare to assert there is: – for their theory demands it! But, as this fact – the six months day and six months night – is; nowhere found but in the arctic regions, it agrees perfectly with everything else that we know about the Earth as a plane, and, whilst it overthrows the "accepted theory," it furnishes a striking proof that Earth is not a globe.
38.) When the Sun crosses the equator, in March, and begins to circle round the heavens in north latitude, the inhabitants of high northern latitudes see him slimming round their horizon and forming the break of their long day, in a horizontal course, not disappearing again for six months, as he rises higher and higher in the heavens whilst he makes his twenty-four hour circle until June, when he begins to descend and goes on until he disappears beyond the horizon in September. Thus, in the northern regions, they have that which the traveler calls the "midnight Sun," as he sees that luminary at a time when, in his more southern latitude, it is always midnight. If, for one-half the year, we may see for ourselves the Sun making horizontal circles round the heavens, it is presumptive evidence that, for the other half-year, he is doing the same, although beyond the boundary of our vision. This, being a proof that Earth is a plane, is, therefore, a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
39.) We have abundance of evidence that the Sun moves daily round and over the Earth in circles concentric with the northern region over which hangs the North Star; but, since the theory of the Earth being a globe is necessarily connected with the theory of its motion round the Sun in a yearly orbit, it falls to the ground when we bring forward the evidence of which we speak, and, in so doing, forms a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
40.) The Suez canal, which joins the Red Sea with the Mediterranean, is about one hundred miles long; it forms a straight and level surface of water from one end to the other; and no allowance for any supposed "curvature" was made in its construction. It is a clear proof that the Earth is not a globe.
41.) When astronomers assert that it is "necessary" to make "allowance for curvature" in canal construction, it is, of course, in order that, in their idea, a level cutting may be had, for the water. How flagrantly, then, do they contradict themselves when the curved surface of the Earth is a "true level!" What more can they want for a canal than a true level? Since they contradict themselves in such an elementary point as this, it is an evidence that the whole thing is a delusion, and we have a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
42.) It is certain that the theory of the Earth's rotundity and that of its mobility must stand or fall together. A proof, then, of its immobility is virtually a proof of its non-rotundity. Now, that the Earth does not move, either on an axis, or in an orbit round the Sun or anything else, is easily proven. If the Earth went through space at the rate of eleven-hundred miles in a minute of time, as astronomers teach us, in a particular direction, there would unquestionably be a, difference in the result of firing off a projectile in that direction and in a direction the opposite of that one. But as, in fact, there is not the slightest difference in any such case, it is clear that any alleged motion of the Earth is disproved, and that, therefore, we have a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
43.) The circumstances which attend bodies which are caused merely to fall from a great height prove nothing as to the motion or stability of the Earth, since the object, if it be on a thing that is in motion, will participate in that motion; but, if an object be thrown, upwards from a body at rest, and, again, from a body in motion, the circumstances attending its descent will be very different. In the former case, it will fall, if thrown vertically upwards, at the place from whence it was projected; in the latter case, it will fall behind the moving body from which it is thrown will leave it in the rear. Now, fix a gun, muzzle upwards, accurately, in the ground; fire off a projectile; and it will fall by the gun. If the Earth traveled eleven hundred miles a minute, the projectile would fall behind the gun, in the opposite direction to that of the supposed motion. Since, then, this is NOT the case, in fact, the Earth's fancied motion is negatived and we have a proof that the Earth is not a, globe.
44.) It is in evidence that, if a projectile be fired from a rapidly moving body in an opposite direction to that in which the body is going, it will fall short of the distance at which it would reach the ground if fired in the direction of motion. Now, since the Earth is said to move at the rate of nineteen miles in, a second of time, "from west to east," it would make all the difference imaginable if the gun were fired in an opposite direction. But, as, in practice, there is not the slightest difference, whichever way the thing may be done, we have a forcible overthrow of all fancies relative to the motion of the Earth, and a striking proof that the Earth is not a globe.
45.) The Astronomer Royal, of England, George B. Airy, in his celebrated work on Astronomy, the "Ipswich Lectures," says – "Jupiter is a large planet that turns on his axis, and why do not we turn?" Of course, the common sense reply is: Because the Earth is not a planet! When, therefore, an astronomer royal puts words into our mouth wherewith we may overthrow the supposed planetary nature of the Earth, we have not far to go to pick up a proof that Earth is not a globe.
46.) It has been shown that an easterly or a westerly motion is necessarily a circular course round the central North, The only north point or centre of motion of the heavenly bodies known to man is that formed by the North Star, which is over the central portion of the outstretched Earth. When, therefore, astronomers tell us of a planet taking a westerly course round the Sun, the thing is as meaningless to them as it is to us, unless they make the Sun the northern centre of the motion, which they cannot do! Since, then, the motion which they tell us the planets have is, on the face of it, absurd; and since, as a matter of fact, the Earth can have no absurd motion at all, it is clear that it cannot be what astronomers say it is – a planet; and, if not a planet, it is a proof that Earth is not a globe.
47.) In consequence of the fact being so plainly seen, by everyone who visits the seashore, that the line of the horizon is a perfectly straight line, it becomes impossible for astronomers, when they attempt to convey, pictorially, an idea of the Earth's "convexity," to do so with even a shadow of consistency: for they dare not represent this horizon as a curved line, so well known is it that it is a straight one! The greatest astronomer of the age, in page 15 of his "Lessons," gives an illustration of a ship sailing away, "as though she were rounding the top of a great hill of water;" and there – of a truth – is the straight and level line of the horizon clear along the top of the "hill" from one side of the picture to the other! Now, if this picture were true in all its parts – and it is outrageously false in several – it would show that Earth is a cylinder; for the "hill" shown is simply up one side of the level, horizontal line, and, we are led to suppose, down the other! Since, then, we have such high authority as Professor Richard A. Proctor that the Earth is a cylinder, it is, certainly, a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
48.) In Mr. Proctor's "Lessons in Astronomy," page 15, a ship is represented as sailing away from the observer, and it is given in five positions or distances away on its journey. Now, in its first position, its mast appears above the horizon, and, consequently, higher than the observer's line of vision. But, in its second and third positions, representing the ship as further and further away, it is drawn higher and still higher up above the line of the horizon! Now, it is utterly impossible for a ship to sail away from an observer, under the, conditions indicated, and to appear as given in the picture. Consequently, the picture is a misrepresentation, a fraud, and a disgrace. A ship starting to sail away from an observer with her masts above his line of sight would appear, indisputably, to go down and still lower down towards the horizon line, and could not possibly appear – to anyone with his vision undistorted – as going in any other direction, curved or straight. Since, then the design of the astronomer-artist is to show the Earth to be a globe, and the points in the picture, which would only prove the Earth to be cylindrical if true, are NOT true, it follows that the astronomer-artist fails to prove, pictorially, either that the Earth is a globe or a cylinder, and that we have, therefore, a reasonable proof that the Earth is not. a globe.
49.) It is a well-known fact that clouds are continually seen moving in all manner of directions – yes, and frequently, in different directions at the same time – from west to east being as frequent a direction as any other. . Now, if the Earth were a globe, revolving through space from west to east at the rate of nineteen miles in a second, the clouds appearing to us to move towards the east would have to move quicker than nineteen miles in a second to be thus seen; whilst those which appear to be moving in the opposite direction would have no necessity to be moving at all, since the motion of the Earth would be more than sufficient to cause the appearance. But it only takes a little common sense to show us that it is the clouds that move just as they appear to do, and that, therefore, the Earth is motionless. We have, then a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
50.) We read in the inspired book, or collection of books, called THE BIBLE, nothing at all about the Earth being a globe or a planet, from beginning to end, but hundreds of allusions there are in its pages which could not be made if the Earth were a globe, and which are, therefore, said by the astronomer to be absurd and contrary to what he knows to be true! This is the groundwork of modern infidelity. But, since every one of many, many allusions to the Earth and the heavenly bodies in the Scriptures can be demonstrated to be absolutely true to nature, and we read of the Earth being "stretched out" "above the waters," as "standing in the water and out of the water," of its being "established that it cannot be moved," we have a store from which to take all the proofs we need, but we will just put down one proof – the Scriptural proof – that Earth is not a globe.
51.) A "Standing Order" exists in the English Houses of Parliament that in the cutting of canals, &c., the datum line employed shall be a "horizontal line, which shall be the same throughout the whole length of the work." Now if the Earth were a globe, this "Order" could not be carried out: but, it is carried out: therefore it is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
52.) It is a well-known and indisputable fact that there is a far greater accumulation of ice south of the equator than is to be found at an equal latitude north: and it is said that at Kerguelen, 50 degrees south, 18 kinds of plants exist, whilst, in Iceland, 15 degrees nearer the northern centre, there are 870 species; and, indeed, all the facts in the case show that the Sun's power is less intense at places in the southern region than it is in corresponding latitudes north. Now, on the Newtonian hypothesis, all this is inexplicable, whilst it is strictly in accordance with the facts brought to light by the carrying out of the principles involved in the Zetetic Philosophy of "Parallax." This is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
53.) Every year the Sun is as long south of the equator as he is north; and if the Earth were not "stretched out" as it is, in fact, but turned under, as the Newtonian theory suggests it would certainly get as intensive a share of the Sun's rays south as north; but the Southern region being, in consequence of the fact stated, – far more extensive than the region North, the Sun, having to complete his journey round every twenty-four hours, travels quicker as he goes further south, from September to December, and his influence has less time in which to accumulate at any given point. Since, then the facts could not be as they are if the Earth were a globe, it is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
54.) The aeronaut is able to start in his balloon and remain for hours in the air, at an elevation of several miles, and come down again in the same county or parish from which he ascended. Now, unless the Earth drag the balloon along with it in its nineteen-miles-a-second motion, it must be left far behind, in space: but, since balloons have never been known thus to be left it is a proof that the Earth does not move, and, therefore, a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
55.) The Newtonian theory of astronomy requires that the Moon "borrow" her light from the Sun. Now, since the Sun's rays are hot and the Moon's light sends with it no heat at all, it follows that the Sun and Moon are "two great lights," as we somewhere read; that the Newtonian theory is a mistake; and that, therefore, we have a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
56.) The Sun and Moon may often be seen high in the heavens at the same time – the Sun rising in the east and the Moon setting in the west – the Sun's light positively putting the Moon's light out by sheer contrast! If the Newtonian theory were correct, and the moon had her light from the Sun, she ought to be getting more of it when face to face with that luminary – if it were possible for a sphere to act as a reflector all over its face! But as the Moon's light pales before the rising Sun, it is a proof that the theory fails; and is gives us a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
57.) The Newtonian hypothesis involves the necessity of. the Sun, in the case of a lunar eclipse, being on the opposite side of a globular earth, to cast its shadow on the Moon: but, since eclipses of the Moon have taken place with both the Sun and the Moon above the horizon, it follows that it cannot be the shadow of the Earth that eclipses the Moon; that the theory is a blunder; and that it is nothing less than a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
58.) Astronomers have never agreed amongst themselves about a rotating Moon revolving round a rotating and revolving Earth – this Earth, Moon, planets and their satellites all, at the same time dashing through space, around the rotating and revolving Sun, towards the constellation Hercules, at the rate of four millions of miles a day! And they never will: agreement is impossible! With the a Earth a plane and without motion, the whole thing is clear. And if a straw will show which way the wind blows, this may be taken as a pretty strong proof that the Earth is not a globe.
59.) Mr. Proctor says.- "The Sun is so far off that even moving from one side of the Earth to the other does not cause him to be seen in a different direction – at least the difference is too small to be measured." Now, since we know that north of the equator, say 45 degrees, we see the Sun at mid-day to the south, and that at the same distance south of the equator we see the Sun at mid-day to the north, our very shadows on the round cry aloud against the delusion of the day and give us a proof that Earth is not a globe.
60.) There is no problem more important to the astronomer than that of the Sun's distance from the Earth. Every change in the estimate changes everything. NOW, since modern astronomers, in their estimate of this distance, have gone all the way along the line of figures from three millions of miles to a hundred and four millions – today, the distance being something over 91,000,000; it matters not how much: for, not many years ago, Mr. Hind gave the distance, "accurately," as 95,370,000! – it follows that they don't know, and that it is foolish for anyone to expect that they ever will know, the Sun's distance! And since all this speculation and absurdity is caused by the primary assumption that Earth is a wandering, heavenly body, and is all swept away by a knowledge of the fact that Earth is a, plane, it is a clear proof that Earth is not a globe.
61.) It is plain that a theory of measurements without a measuring-rod is like a ship without a rudder; that a measure that is not fixed, not likely to be fixed, and never has been fixed, forms no measuring-rod at all; and that as modern theoretical astronomy depends upon the Sun's distance from the Earth as its measuring-rod, and the distance is not known, it is a system of measurements without a measuring-rod – a ship without a rudder. Now, since it is not difficult to foresee the dashing of this thing upon the rock on which Zetetic astronomy is founded, it is a proof that Earth is not a globe.
62.) It is commonly asserted that "the Earth must be a globe because people have sailed round it." Now, since this implies that we can sail round nothing unless it be a globe, and the fact is well known that we can sail round the Earth as a plane, the assertion is ridiculous, and we have another proof that Earth is not a globe.
63.) It is a fact not so well known as it ought to be that when a ship, in sailing away from us, has reached the point at which her hull is lost to our unaided vision, a good telescope will restore to our view this portion of the vessel. Now, since telescopes are not made to enable people to see through a "hill of water," it is clear that the hulls of ships are not behind a hill of water when they can be seen through a telescope though lost to our unaided vision. This is a proof that Earth is not a globe.
64.) Mr. Glaisher, in speaking of his balloon ascents, says: "The horizon always appears to be on a level with the car." Now, since we may search among the laws of optics in vain for any principle that would cause the surface of a globe to turn its face upwards instead of downwards, it is a clear proof that the Earth is not a globe.
65.) The Rev. D. Olmsted, in describing a diagram whish is supposed to represent the Earth as a globe, with a figure of a man sticking out at each side and one hanging head downwards, says "We should dwell on this point until it appears to us as truly up," In the direction given to these figures as it does with regard to a figure which he has placed on the top! Now, a system of philosophy which requires us to do something which is, really, the going out of our minds, by dwelling on an absurdity until we think it is a fact, Cannot be a system based on God's truth, which never requires anything of the kind. Since, then, the popular theoretical astronomy of the day requires this, it is evident that it is the wrong thing, and that this conclusion furnishes us with a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
66.) It is often said that the predictions of eclipses prove astronomers to be right in their theories. But it is not seen that this proves too much. It is well known that Ptolemy predicted eclipses for six-hundred years, on the basis of a plane Earth, with as much accuracy as they are predicted by modern observers. If, then, the predictions prove the truth of the particular theories current at the time, they just as well prove one side of the question as the other, and enable us to lay claim to a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
67.) Seven-hundred miles is said to be the length of the great Canal, in China, Certain it is that, when this canal was formed, no "allowance" was made for "curvature." Yet the canal is a fact without it. This is a Chinese proof that the Earth is not a globe.
68.) Mr. J.M. Lockyer says: Because the Sun seems to rise in the east and set in the west, the Earth really spins in the opposite direction; that is, from west to east," Now, this is no better than though we were to say – Because a man seems to be coming up the street, the street really goes down to the man! And since true science would contain no such nonsense as this, it follows that the so-called science of theoretical astronomy is not true, and, we have another proof that the Earth is not a globe.
69.) Mr. Lockyer says: "The appearances connected with the rising and setting of the Sun and stars may be due either to our earth being at rest and the Sun and stars traveling round it, or the earth itself turning round, while the Sun and stars are at rest." Now, since true science does not allow of any such beggarly alternatives as these, it is plain that modern theoretical astronomy is not true science, and that its leading dogma is a fallacy. We have, then, a plain proof that the Earth is not a globe.
70.) Mr. Lockyer, in describing his picture of the supposed proof of the Earth's rotundity by means of ships rounding a "hill of water," uses these words: – "Diagram showing how, when we suppose the earth is round, we explain how it is that ships at sea appear as they do." This is utterly unworthy of the name of Science! A science that begins by supposing, and ends by explaining the supposition, is, from beginning to end, a mere farce. The men who can do nothing better than amuse themselves in this way must be denounced as dreamers only, and their leading dogma a delusion. This is a proof that Earth, not a globe.
71.) The astronomers' theory of a globular Earth necessitates the conclusion that, if we travel south of the equator, to see the North Star is an impossibility. Yet it is well known this star has been seen by navigators when they have been more than 20 degrees south of the equator. This fact, like hundreds of other facts, puts the theory to shame, and gives us a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
72.) Astronomers tell us that, in consequence of the Earth's "rotundity," the perpendicular walls of buildings are, nowhere, parallel, and that even the walls of houses on opposite sides of a street are not! But, since all observation fails to find any evidence of this want of parallelism which theory demands, the idea must be renounced as being absurd and in opposition to all well-known facts. This is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
73.) Astronomers have made experiments with pendulums which have been suspended from the interior of high buildings, and have exulted over the idea of being able to prove the rotation of the Earth on its "axis," by the varying direction taken by the pendulum over a prepared table underneath – asserting that the table moved round under the pendulum, instead of the pendulum shifting and oscillating in different directions over the table! But, since it has been found that, as often as not, the pendulum went round the wrong way for the "rotation" theory, chagrin has taken the place of exultation, and we have a proof of the failure of astronomers in their efforts to substantiate their theory, and, therefore, a proof that Earth is not a globe.
74.) As to the supposed "motion of the whole Solar system in space," the Astronomer Royal of England once said: "The matter is left in a most delightful state of uncertainty, and I Shall be very glad if anyone can help us out of it." But, since the whole Newtonian scheme is, today, in a most deplorable state of uncertainty – for, whether the Moon goes round the Earth or the Earth round the Moon has, for years, been a matter of "raging" controversy it follows that, root and branch, the whole thing, is wrong; and, all hot from the furnace of philosophical phrensy, we find a glowing proof that the Earth is not a globe.
75.) Considerably more than a million Earths would be required to make up a body like the Sun -the astronomers tell us: and more than 53,000 suns would be wanted to equal the cubic contents of the star Vega. And Vega is a "small star!" And there are countless millions of these stars! And it takes 30,000,000 years for the light of some of those stars to reach us at 12,000,000 miles in a minute! And, says Mr. Proctor, "I think a moderate estimate of the age of the Earth would be 500,000,000 years! "Its weight," says the same individual, "is 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,060 tons!" Now, since no human being is able to comprehend these things, the giving of them to the world is an insult – an outrage. And though they have all risen from the one assumption that Earth is a planet, instead of upholding the assumption, they drag it down by the weight of their own absurdity, and leave it lying in the dust – a proof that Earth is not a globe.
76.) Mr. J. R. Young, in his work on Navigation, says. "Although the path of the ship is on a spherical surface, yet we may represent the length of the path by, a straight line on a plane surface." (And plane sailing is the rule.) Now, since it is altogether impossible to "represent" a curved line by a straight one, and absurd to make the attempt, it follows that a straight line represents a straight line and not a curved one. And, Since it is the surface of the waters of the ocean that is being considered by Mr. Young, it follows that this surface is a straight surface, and we are indebted to Mr. Young, a professor of navigation, for a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
77.) "Oh, but if the Earth is a plane, we could go to the edge and tumble over!" is a very common assertion. This is a conclusion that is formed too hastily, and facts overthrow it. The Earth certainly is, what man by his observation finds it to be, and what Mr. Proctor himself says it "seems" to be. flat – and we cannot cross the icy barrier which surrounds it. This is a complete answer to the objection, and, of course, a proof that Earth is not a globe.
78.) "Yes, but we can circumnavigate the South easily enough," is often said by those who don't know, The British Ship Challenger recently completed the circuit of the Southern region – indirectly, to be sure – but she was three years about it, and traversed nearly 69,000 miles – a stretch long enough to have taken her six times round on the globular hypothesis. This is a proof that Earth is not a globe.
79.) The remark is common enough that we can see the circle of the Earth if we cross the ocean, and that this proves it to be round. Now, if we tie a donkey to a stake on a level common, and he eats the grass all around him, it is only a circular disc that he has to do with, not a spherical mass. Since, then, circular discs may be seen anywhere – as well from a balloon in the air as from the deck of a ship, or from the standpoint of the donkey, it is a proof that the surface of the Earth is a plane surface, and, therefore, a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
80.) It is supposed,"in the regular course of the Newtonian theory, that the Earth is, in June, about 190 millions of miles (190,000,000) away from its position in December. Now, since we can, (in middle north latitudes), see the North Star, on looking out of a window that faces it – and out of the very same corner of the very same pane of glass in the very same window – all the year round, it is proof enough for any man in his senses that we have made no motion at all. It is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
81.) Newtonian philosophers teach us that the Moon goes round: the Earth from west to east. But observation – man's most certain mode of gaining knowledge – shows us that the Moon never ceases to move in the opposite direction – from east to west. Since, then, we know that nothing can possibly move in two, opposite directions at the same time, it is a proof that the thing is a big blunder; and, in short, it is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
82.) Astronomers tell us. that the Moon, goes round the Earth in about 28 days. Well, we may see her making her journey round every. day, if we make use of our eyes and these are about the best things we have to use. The Moon falls behind in her daily motion as compared with that of the Sun to the extent of one revolution in the time specified; but that is not making a revolution. Failing to go as fast as other bodies go in one direction does not constitute a going round in the opposite one – as the astronomers would have us believe! And, since all this absurdity has been rendered necessary for no other purpose than to help other absurdities along, it is clear that the astronomers are on the wrong track; and it needs no long train of reasoning to show that we have found a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
83.) It has been shown that the meridians are, necessarily, straight lines; and that it is impossible to travel round the Earth in a north or south direction: from which it follows that, in the general acceptation of the word "degree" – the 360th – part of a circle – meridians have no degrees: for no one knows anything of a meridian circle or semicircle, to be thus divided. But astronomers speak of degrees of latitude in the same sense as those of longitude. This, then, is done by assuming that to be true which is not true. Zetetic philosophy does not involve this necessity. This proves that the basis of this philosophy is a sound one, and, in short, is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
84.) If we move away from an elevated object on or over a plain or a prairie, the height of the object will apparently diminish as we do so. Now, that which is sufficient to produce this effect on a small scale is sufficient on a large one; and traveling away from an elevated object, no matter how far will cause the appearance in question – the lowering of the object. Our modern theoretical astronomers, however, in the case of the apparent lowering of the North Star as we travel southward, assert that it is evidence that the Earth is globular! But as it is clear that an appearance which is fully, accounted for on the basis of known facts cannot be permitted to figure as evidence in favor of that which is only a supposition, it follows that we rightfully order it to stand down, and make way for a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
85.) There are rivers which flow east, west, north, an south – that is, rivers are flowing in all directions over the Earth's surface, and at the same time. Now, if the Earth were a globe, some of these rivers would be flowing up-hill and others down, taking it for a fact that there really is an "up" and a "down" in nature, whatever form she assumes. But, since rivers do not flow up-hill, and the globular theory requires that they should, it is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
86.) If the Earth were a globe, rolling and dashing through "space" at the rate of "a hundred miles in five seconds of time," the waters of seas and oceans could not, by any known law, be kept on its surface – the assertion that they could be retained under these circumstances being an outrage upon human understanding and credulity! But as the Earth – that is, the habitable world of dry land – is found to be "standing out of the wafer and in the water" of the "mighty deep," whose circumferential boundary is ice, we may throw the statement back into the teeth of those who make it and flaunt before their faces the flag of reason and common sense, inscribed with a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
87.) The theory of a rotating and revolving earth demands at theory to keep the water on its surface; but, as the. theory which is given for this purpose is as much opposed to all human experience as the one which it is intended to uphold, it is an illustration of the miserable makeshifts to which astronomers are compelled to resort, and affords, a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
88.) If we could – after our minds had once been opened to the light of Truth – conceive of a globular body on the surface of which human beings could exist, the power – no matter by what name it be called – that would hold them on would, then, necessarily, have to be so constraining and cogent that they could not live; the waters of the oceans would have to be as a solid mass, for motion would be impossible. But we not only exist, but live and move; and the water of the ocean skips and dances like a thing of life and beauty! This is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
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 traveler 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 conclude's 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 advocates, with Mr. Proctor at their head, a weapon to use – the Zetetic philosophy of "Parallax" – is destined to live! This is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
90.) "Is water level, or is it not?" was a question once asked of an astronomer. "Practically, yes; theoretically, no," was the reply. Now, when theory does not harmonize with practice, the best thing to do is to drop the theory. (It is getting too late, now to say "So much the worse for the factsI") To drop the theory which supposes a curved surface to standing water is to acknowledge the facts which form the basis of Zetetic philosophy. And since this will have to be done sooner or later, – it is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
91.) "By actual observation," says Schoedler, in his " Book of Nature," we know that the other heavenly bodies are spherical, hence we unhesitatingly assert that the earth is so also." This is a fair sample of all astronomical reasoning. When a thing is classed amongst "other" things, the likeness between them must first be proven. It does not take a Schroedler to tell us that "heavenly bodies" are spherical, but " the greatest astronomer of the age" will not, now, dare to tell us that THE EARTH is – and attempt to prove it. Now, since no likeness has ever been proven to exist between the Earth and the heavenly bodies, the classification of the Earth with the heavenly bodies is premature – unscientific -false! This is a proof that Earth is not a globe.
92.) "There is no inconsistency in supposing that the earth does move round the sun," says the Astronomer Royal of England. Certainly not, when theoretical astronomy is all supposition together! The inconsistency is in teaching the world that the thing supposed is a fact. Since, then, the "motion" of the Earth is supposition only – since, indeed, it is necessary to suppose it at all – it is plain that it is a fiction and not a fact; and, since "mobility" and "sphericity" stand or fall together, we have before us a proof that Earth is not a globe.
93.) We have seen that astronomers – to give us a level surface on which to live – have cut off one-half of the "globe" in a certain picture in their books. [See page 6.] Now, astronomers having done this, one-half of the substance of their "spherical theory" is given up! Since, then, the theory must stand or fall in its entirety, it has really fallen when the half is gone. Nothing remains, then, but a plane Earth, which is, of course, a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
94.) In " Cornell's Geography" there is an "Illustrated proof of the Form of the Earth," A curved line on which is represented a ship in four positions, as she sails away from an observer, is an arc of 72 degrees, or one-fifth of the supposed circumference of the "globe" – about 5,000 miles. Ten, such ships as those which are given in the picture would reach the full length of the "arc," making 500 miles as the length of the ship, The man in the picture, who is watching the ship as she sails away, is about 200 miles high; and the tower, from which he takes an elevated view, at least 600 miles high. These are the proportions, then, of men, towers, arid ships which are necessary in order to see a ship, in her different positions, as she "rounds the curve" of the "great hill of water" over which she is supposed to be sailing: for, it must be remembered that this supposed "proof" depends upon lines and angles of vision which, if enlarged, would still retain their characteristics. Now, since ships are not built 500 miles long, with masts in proportion, and men are not quite 200 miles high, it is not what it is said to be – a proof of rotundity – but, either an ignorant farce or a cruel piece of deception. In short, it is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
95.) In "Cornell's Intermediate Geography," (1881) page 12, is an "Illustration of the Natural Divisions of Land and Water." This illustration is so nicely drawn that it affords, at once, a striking proof that Earth is a plane. It is true to nature, and bears the stamp of no astronomer-artist. It is a pictorial proof that Earth is not a globe.
96.) If we refer to the diagram in "Cornell's Geography," page 4, and notice the ship in its position the most remote from the observer, we shall find that, though it is about 4,000 miles away, it is the same size as the ship that is nearest to him, distant about 700 miles! This a an illustration of the way in which astronomers ignore the laws of perspective. This course is necessary, or they would be compelled to lay bare the fallacy of their dogmas. In short, there is, in this matter, a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
97.) Mr. Hind, the English astronomer, says – "The simplicity, with which the seasons are explained by the revolution of the Earth in her orbit and the obliquity of the ecliptic, may certainly be adduced as a strong presumptive proof of the correctness" – of the Newtonian theory; "for on no other rational suppositions with respect to the relations of the Earth and Sun, can these and other as well-known phenomena, be accounted for." But, as true philosophy has no "suppositions" at all – and has nothing to do with, "suppositions" – and the phenomena spoken of are thoroughly explained by facts, the "presumptive proof" falls to the ground, covered with the ridicule it the dust of Mr. Hind's "rational suppositions" we are standing before us a proof that Earth is not a globe.
98.) Mr Hind speaks of the astronomer watching a star as it is carried across the telescope by the diurnal revolution of the Earth." Now, this is nothing but downright absurdity. No motion of the Earth could possibly carry a star across a telescope or anything else. If the star is carried across anything at all, it is the star that moves, not the thing across which it is carried! Besides, the idea that the Earth, if it were a globe, could possibly move in an orbit of nearly 600,000,000 of miles with such exactitude that the cross-hairs in a telescope fixed on its surface would appear to glide gently over a star "millions of millions" of miles away is simply monstrous; whereas, with a FIXED telescope, it matters not the distance of the stars, though we suppose them to be as far off as the astronomer supposes them to be; for, as Mr. Proctor himself says, "the further away they are, the less they will seem to shift." Why, in the name of common sense, should observers have to fix their telescopes on solid stone bases so that they should not move a hair's-breadth, – if the Earth on which they fix them move at the rate of nineteen miles in a second? Indeed, to believe that Mr. Proctor's mass of "six thousand million million million tons" is "rolling, surging, flying, darting on through space for ever" with a velocity compared with which a shot from a cannon is a "very slow coach," with such unerring accuracy that a telescope fixed on granite pillars in an observatory will not enable a lynx-eyed astronomer to detect a variation in its onward motion of the thousandth part of a hair's-breadth is to conceive a miracle compared with which all the miracles on record put together would sink into utter insignificance. Captain R. J. Morrison, the late compiler of "Zadkeil's Almanac;" says: "We declare that this "motion" is all mere 'bosh'; and that the arguments which uphold it are, when examined with an eye that seeks for TRUTH only, mere nonsense, and childish absurdity. "Since, then, these absurd theories are of no use to men in their senses, and since there is no necessity for anything of the kind in Zetetic philosophy, it is a "strong presumptive proof" – as Mr. Hind would say that the Zetetic philosophy is true, and, therefore, a proof that Earth is not a globe..
99.) Mr. Hind speaks of two great mathematicians differing only fifty-five yards in their estimate of the Earth's diameter. Why, Sir John Herschel, in his celebrated work, cuts off 480 miles of the same thing to get "round numbers!" This is like splitting a hair on one side of the bead and shaving all the hair off on the other! Oh, "science!" Can there be any truth in a science like this? All the exactitude in astronomy is in Practical astronomy – not Theoretical. Centuries of observation have made practical astronomy a noble art and science, based – as we have a thousand times proved it to be – on a fixed Earth; and we denounce this pretended exactitude on one side and the reckless indifference to figures on the other as the basest trash, and take from it a proof that the "science" which tolerates it is a false – instead of being an "exact" – science, and we have a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
100.) The Sun, as he travels round over the surface of the Earth, brings "noon" to all places on the successive meridians which he crosses: his journey being made in a westerly direction, places east of the Sun's position have had their noon, whilst places to the west of the Sun's position have still to get it. Therefore, if we travel easterly, we arrive at those parts of the Earth where "time" is more advanced, the watch in our pocket has to be "put on"or we may be said to "gain time." If, on the other hand, we travel westerly, we arrive at places where it is still "morning," the watch has to be "put back," and it may be said that we "lose time." But, if we travel easterly so as to cross the 180th meridian, there is a loss, there, of a day, which will neutralize the gain of a whole circumnavigation; and, if we travel westerly, and cross the same meridian, we experience the gain of a day, which will compensate for the loss during a complete circumnavigation in that direction. The fact of losing or gaining time in sailing round the world, then, instead of being evidence of the Earth's "rotundity," as it is imagined to be, is, in its practical exemplification, an everlasting proof that the Earth is not a globe.
The following is from Rob Skiba’s “The Bible and the Still Flat Earth” at http://www.testingtheglobe.com/bible#sthash.LxzalGch.dpuf
Below are a number of Bible verses without commentary. Unless otherwise noted, all of the Scriptures are taken from the KJV. Pretending you have never heard of a globe or even a flat earth before, let’s just allow the Bible to speak for itself. Read them over a couple of times, asking the Holy Spirit to reveal to you what they mean. Without forcing an interpretation based on preconceived notions, meditate on them and ask yourself, “What is the Bible really showing me concerning the nature of the heavens, the earth, the sun, moon and stars?” Then, in the next section after this one, I will give my commentary on these Scriptures, revealing what I believe they are saying to me.
The Scriptures below are arranged by topics in order to set the stage for what will follow. I have placed the book of Job before Genesis as many (if not most) scholars believe it is the oldest book of the Bible. And I have also emphasized words in bold for us to consider as we read. This is by no means an exhaustive list of Scripture. It is essentially just a first run, which I will continue to add to as I find more in the future.
Scriptures concerning the nature of the heavens/sky above and their relationship to the earth:
Job 9:8 Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea.
Job 22:14 (HCSB) Clouds veil Him so that He cannot see, as He walks on the circle of the sky.
Job 37:18 Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass?
Genesis 1:
1 In the beginning God 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 God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
Psalm 104:
1 Bless the Lord, O my soul. O Lord my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty.
2 Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:
3 Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters: who maketh the clouds his chariot: who walketh upon the wings of the wind:
Proverbs 8:27 (ESV) When He established the heavens, I was there, When He inscribed a circle on the face of the deep.
Isaiah 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:
Isaiah 44:24 Thus saith the Lord, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the Lord that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;
Isaiah 45:12 I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.
Isaiah 48:13 Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together.
Isaiah 66:1 Thus saith the Lord, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest?
Ezekiel 1:26 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.
Amos 9:6 (NASB) The One who builds His upper chambers in the heavens And has founded His vaulted dome over the earth,
He who calls for the waters of the sea And pours them out on the face of the earth, The Lord is His name.
Scriptures concerning the nature of the earth below the firmament:
Job 9:6 Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble.
Job 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.
Job 26:10 He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end.
Job 28:24 For he looketh to the ends of the earth, and seeth under the whole heaven;
Job 37:3 He directeth it under the whole heaven, and his lightning unto the ends of the earth.
Job 38:
1 Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,
2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?
3 Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.
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?
6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
Job 38:13 That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?
Genesis 1:
9 And God 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 God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
1 Samuel 2:8 He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s, and he hath set the world upon them.
2 Samuel 22:16 And the channels of the sea appeared, the foundations of the world were discovered, at the rebuking of the Lord, at the blast of the breath of his nostrils.
1 Chronicles 16:30 Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.
Psalm 18:15 Then the channels of waters were seen, and the foundations of the world were discovered at thy rebuke, O Lord, at the blast of the breath of thy nostrils.
Psalm 75:3 The earth and all the inhabitants thereof are dissolved: I bear up the pillars of it. Selah.
Psalm 93:1 The Lord reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the Lord is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.
Psalm 96:
9 O worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness: fear before him, all the earth.
10 Say among the heathen that the Lord reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously.
11 Let the heavens rejoice, and let the earth be glad; let the sea roar, and the fulness thereof.
Psalm 102:25 Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands.
Psalm 104:
5 Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.
6 Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains.
7 At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away.
8 They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them.
9 Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth.
Psalm 136:
6 To him that stretched out the earth above the waters: for his mercy endureth for ever.
Proverbs 8:
27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:
28 When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:
29 When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:
Isaiah 11:12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.
Isaiah 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:
Isaiah 43:6 I’ll say to the north, ‘Give them up’! and to the south, ‘Don’t keep them back!’ Bring my sons from far away and my daughters from the ends of the earth—
Daniel 4:
10 Thus were the visions of mine head in my bed; I saw, and behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great.
11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth:
Jonah 2:6 I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me for ever: yet hast thou brought up my life from corruption, O Lord my God.
Matthew 4:
8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
Matthew 24:31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
John 17:24
Father, I desire that they also, whom thou hast given me, may be with me where I am, to behold my glory which thou hast given me in thy love for me before the foundation of the world.
Revelation 1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.
Revelation 7:1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.
Revelation 20:8 He will go out to deceive Gog and Magog, the nations at the four corners of the earth, and gather them for war. They are as numerous as the sands of the seashore.
Scriptures concerning the nature of the sun, moon and stars:
Genesis 1:
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
Psalms 19:
1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.
3 There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.
4 Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,
5 Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.
6 His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.
Psalm 136:
7 To him that made great lights: for his mercy endureth for ever:
8 The sun to rule by day: for his mercy endureth for ever:
9 The moon and stars to rule by night: for his mercy endureth for ever.
Ecclesiastes 1:5 The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.
Joshua 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
Isaiah 13:9 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it.
10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.
Isaiah 38:8 Behold, I will bring again the shadow of the degrees, which is gone down in the sun dial of Ahaz, ten degrees backward. So the sun returned ten degrees, by which degrees it was gone down.
Habakkuk 3:11 The sun and moon stood still in their habitation: at the light of thine arrows they went, and at the shining of thy glittering spear.
Again, applying no preconceived notions upon the text, how do you imagine a newcomer to the Scriptures would view the heavens, earth, sun, moon and stars just based on what you’ve read here?
– See more at: http://www.testingtheglobe.com/bible#sthash.LxzalGch.dpuf
If you want to help support this website so that we can continue to create new content, please become a Patron:
HUBBLE ADMITS EVERYTHING OBSERVED IN SPACE POINTS TO GEOCENTRISM!!!
Edwin Hubble in “The Observational Approach to Cosmology” admits that his observations prove a small uniform, symmetrical, constant universe, that centers around earth. This he struggles to overcome throughout his entire lecture, trying to come to an alternative conclusion through assumptions, purposely disregarding the facts. He refuses to accept observable geocentrism saying that “the hypothesis (geocentrism) cannot be disproved but it is unwelcome…and must be avoided at all costs.” 
In order to avoid the obvious proof of a unique geocentric universe, he resorts to guesswork and the theory of relativity. This is how modern “scientists” continue to work. They refuse to accept what is actually observed (a small geocentric universe/flat earth), and instead create and promote false theories (evolution, the Big Bang theory) to support their Satanic agenda: hiding God and our importance and position in the universe.
There was little evidence in his observations to support a Big Bang induced universe and he knew it. This would require the observation of a thinning out of the nebula and an observable vastness. But shockingly, what he saw was the opposite. Instead of thinning out, the nebula and stars became more dense the farther they were observed. Also they were symmetrically and uniform on every direction, the product instead of a geocentric created universe with order and precision. This pointed towards a small earth-centered universe and a Creator. This conclusion he wished to avoid at all costs.
It is interesting to note that Hubble was a Freemason (Luciferian) and gained much of his knowledge and mentoring from a Jesuit priest. There’s evidence that he stole his ideas of the Big Bang from a Jesuit (Satanist). It is obvious there purpose is to hide God.
Here is the quote in its entirety from page 40 of “The Observational Approach to Cosmology.” You can find the pdf version here: https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept04/Hubble/paper.pdf
“The assumption of uniformity has much to be said in its (heliocentrism/Big Bang theory) favour. If the distribution were not uniform, it would either increase with distance, or decrease. But we would not expect to find a distribution in which the density increases with distance, symmetrically in all directions. Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central earth. The hypothesis cannot be disproved but it is unwelcome and would be accepted only as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore, we disregard this possibility and consider the alternative, namely, a distribution which thins out with distance”(Big Bang Theory).
“Both explanations seem plausible, but neither is permitted by the observations. The apparent departures from uniformity in the World Picture are fully compensated by the minimum possible corrections for redshifts on any interpretation. No margin is left for a thinning out. The true distribution must either be uniform or increase outward, leaving the observer in a unique position. But the unwelcome supposition of a favoured location must be avoided at all costs. Therefore, we accept the uniform distribution, and assume that space is sensibly transparent. Then the data from the surveys are simply and fully accounted for by the energy corrections alone – without the additional postulate of an expanding universe.” (Page 40)
Here he admits that there is not much evidence to support the Big Bang theory and a vast expanding universe. It wasn’t proven but “adopted quite early” before there was even any evidence to support such a theory. Clearly he had an agenda that had nothing to do with facts. He wanted the Universe to be heliocentric and without a Designer, so he ignored the truth and fabricated lies.
“Definite observational evidence to guide the choice was slow to materialize. Nevertheless, the larger universe, with all its significance, was adopted quite early, on the grounds of simplicity and uniformity.”(page 6)
Here Hubble faces a conundrum as he attempts to explain away the facts pointed to a small curved universe. If we are living on a flat earth enclosed in a dome, then the stars and “space” would indeed be curved around the dome. This also means that stars and all we observe are close, symmetrical, and surrounding a curved dome.
“The nature of the curvature has rather grave implications. Since the curvature is positive, the universe is closed. Space is closed as the surface of a sphere is closed. The universe has a definite, finite volume although it has no boundaries in three-dimensional space. The remarkably small numerical value of the radius of curvature is a complete surprise. It implies that a large fraction of the universe, perhaps a quarter, can be explored with existing telescopes. The small volume of the universe is another strange and dubious conclusion. The familiar interpretation of red-shifts as velocity-shifts very seriously restricts not only the time scale, the age of the universe, but the spatial dimensions as well.”(Page 47)
This conclusions has grave implications for him, a Luciferian Freemason, because it points to a Creator and a small geocentric universe.
FLAT EARTH SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE 