CAN WE NOW FINALLY WAKE UP AND REBEL AGAINST THE CONTROLLERS. THEY ARE THE FEW WE ARE THE MASSES.. HOW MUCH MORE EVIDENCE DO WE ALL NEED TO PROVE WE ARE COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY WASTING OUR PRECIOUS LIVES. WE ARE ALL UNIQUE MINI MIRACLES AS IS THE EARTH WE ARE LIVING ON. LOVE THE EARTH, LOVE EACH OTHER, CARE FOR EACH OTHER, HUMANS, ANIMALS, PLANTS ALIKE. OUR SO CALLED DAILY COMFORTS (TELEVISION, FAST FOOD, ALCHOL, DRUGS ETC ETC) ARE KEEPING US FROM THINKING OUTSIDE WHAT THE CONTROLLERS WANT US THE THINK. STOP VOTING FOR THE CONTROLLERS AND PLEASE WAKE UP. WE ARE ALL EQUAL PLEASE BELIEVE AND CHANGE.
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.
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.
After returning from a trip to Egypt, Aristotle noted, “There are stars seen in Egypt and…Cyprus which are not seen in the northerly regions.” This phenomenon can only be explained if humans were viewing the stars from a round surface, Aristotle continued, claiming that the sphere of the Earth is “of no great size, for otherwise the effect of so slight a change of place would not be quickly apparent.” (De caelo, 298a2-10)
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
The problem with the Globe Earth model is that it is completely the opposite of what the Bible says. In the Globe model, there is no separation of waters from the waters below. In fact, there are no waters above. Neither is there a barrier separating earths air from the vacuum of “space”. We are told that “gravity”, an invisible force even “scientists” do not understand, is what holds the air and the water onto the earth. But never has anyone ever been able to produce a real vacuum without a barrier around it to keep the air separated from the vacuumed space. There must be a solid barrier or it does not work. In this way, the globe makes no sense.
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.
“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.
120) The etymology of the word “planet” actually comes from late Old English planete, from Old French planete (Modern French planète), from Latin planeta, from Greek planetes, from (asteres) planetai “wandering (stars),” from planasthai “to wander,” of unknown origin, possibly from PIE *pele “flat, to spread” or notion of “spread out.” And Plane (n) “flat surface,” c. 1600, from Latin planum “flat surface, plane, level, plain,” planus “flat, level, even, plain, clear.” They just added a “t” to our Earth plane and everyone bought it.
48) On a ball-Earth Santiago, Chile to Johannesburg, South Africa should be an easy flight all taking place below the Tropic of Capricorn in the Southern hemisphere, yet every listed flight makes a curious re-fueling stop in Senegal near the Tropic of Cancer in the North hemisphere first! When mapped on a flat Earth the reason why is clear to see, however, Senegal is actually directly in a straight-line path half-way between the two.
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.
35) If the Earth were truly a globe, then every line of latitude south of the equator would have to measure a gradually smaller and smaller circumference the farther South travelled. If, however, the Earth is an extended plane, then every line of latitude south of the equator should measure a gradually larger and larger circumference the farther South travelled. The fact that many captains navigating south of the equator assuming the globular theory have found themselves drastically out of reckoning, moreso the farther South travelled, testifies to the fact that the Earth is not a ball.
135) Not only is the Moon clearly self-luminescent, shining its own unique light, but it is also largely transparent. When the waxing or waning Moon is visible during the day it is possible to see the blue sky right through the Moon. And on a clear night, during a waxing or waning cycle, it is even possible to occasionally see stars and “planets” directly through the surface of the Moon! The Royal Astronomical Society has on record many such occurrences throughout history which all defy the heliocentric model.
200) And finally, from Dr. Rowbotham, “Thus we see that this Newtonian philosophy is devoid of consistency; its details are the result of an entire violation of the laws of legitimate reasoning, and all its premises are assumed. It is, in fact, nothing more than assumption upon assumption, and the conclusions derived therefrom are willfully considered as things proved, and to be employed as truths to substantiate the first and fundamental assumptions. Such a ‘juggle and jumble’ of fancies and falsehoods extended and intensified as in theoretical astronomy is calculated to make the unprejudiced inquirer revolt with horror from the terrible conjuration which has been practised upon him; to sternly resolve to resist its further progress; to endeavour to over-throw the entire edifice, and to bury in its ruins the false honours which have been associated with its fabricators, and which still attach to its devotees. For the learning, the patience, the perseverance and devotion for which they have ever been examples, honour and applause need not be withheld; but their false reasoning, the advantages they have taken of the general ignorance of mankind in respect to astronomical subjects, and the unfounded theories they have advanced and defended, cannot be otherwise than regretted, and ought to be by every possible means uprooted.”
61) If the Earth were actually a big ball 25,000 miles in circumference, the horizon would be noticeably curved even at sea-level, and everything on or approaching the horizon would appear to tilt backwards slightly from your perspective. Distant buildings along the horizon would all look like leaning towers of Piza falling away from the observer. A hot-air balloon taking off then drifting steadily away from you, on a ball-Earth would slowly and constantly appear to lean back more and more the farther away it flew, the bottom of the basket coming gradually into view as the top of the balloon disappears from sight. In reality, however, buildings, balloons, trees, people, anything and everything at right angles to the ground/horizon remains so regardless the distance or height of the observer.