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.
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.

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.
Can someone make me understand of Curvature feet calculation which is mentioned in several proofs. As in 71 number proof ( or several other distanced based proofs ) That the Observer distance is 60 miles sea-level from Chicago buildings which should be 2,400 feet below the horizon. As per Nasa earth curvature goes down 8 inches per mile. 72 inches(6 feet) and 60 miles contain 60 x 8 = (480 inches) that is equal to (480/12) = 40 feet. How does it count to 2,400 feet?
I am new to flat earth and see way more logical proof to this idea than the spinning globe. I have often wondered about what we are taught as it didn't make sense but we believe because that's what we been taught. One item I have not seen in my research and maybe you can address. If one were to stand precisely at the point where the imaginary axis is that the globe spins on, at the North Pole area, or even say 1/4 mile away,or ten feet away, what the person would see or experience I think would be bizarre....essentially rotating in a 1/4 mile or ten foot circle during the 24 hr day...more bizarre if they were on the exact axis point. This I think could be proven easily by going there, but it seems to not have been, which to me adds more proof to flat earth.I am sure if one were to go there, they would not see any following a circular pattern as the 24 hrs pass. They would be stationary!
Consider a flat plane. The center of mass of a flat plane is in its center, so the force of gravity will pull anything on the surface toward the middle of the plane. That means that if you stand on the edge of the plane, gravity will be pulling you sideways toward the plane's middle, not straight down like you usually experience when you stand on Earth.
On November 12, 2016, I had the opportunity to conduct this experiment. I was near the water’s edge, just beyond the surf, at Virginia Beach from middle to late afternoon. When I began, the air temperature was 50 degrees F, and the temperature dropped a degree or two by the time that I was done, near sunset. The water temperature was 62–64 degrees F, so the air immediately above the water was at least ten degrees warmer than the air temperature a short distance above the water. I photographed two cargo ships as they made their way out to sea from the port at Hampton Roads. I mounted a digital SLR camera on a 3.5-inch Questar telescope, having a 1,200-mm focal length. The ISO setting on the camera was 100 for all photographs.
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.
For most media and angles of incidence, the light transmits from one medium to the other. However, when passing from a medium of higher index of refraction into a medium of lower index of refraction at a sufficiently high angle of incidence, there may not be a real value for the angle of refraction. When this happens, the light cannot pass into the second medium. Instead, the light is reflected off the interface and back into the first medium. We call this phenomenon total internal reflection. Many devices make use of total internal reflection. Total internal reflection allows a prism with two 45-degree angles and one 90-degree angle to reflect light at a right angle. One could use a mirror mounted at a 45-degree angle to do the same thing, but total internal reflection is nearly 100% efficient, while the best mirrors are perhaps 85% efficient. Many optical devices, such as binoculars and periscopes, make use of this. Fiber optics are thin wires of glass. Being so thin, fiber optics are flexible and as easy to handle as any metal wire. Glass has a relatively high index of refraction, so light shining down a fiber optic is totally reflected internally by the walls of the fiber optic, if the fiber optic is not bent too sharply. We use fiber optics every day with telephone, cable TV, and internet connections.
tar 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.
So the old folks were right after all! With all the proofs (don't forget the hard work and continuous effort invested in these by you) that you have given in this book really opened up a new perspective on how things work and how they are projected everyday. Really don't know why these so called "Elites" or whoever or whatever they are, trying to hide and concede the truth from people.The earth's shape, dinosaurs, evolution, the whole misconception about saturn (that it was a planet all along from the beginning, and it being associated with unwanted stuff..) are just to name a few.
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.
39) Practical distance measurements taken from “The Australian Handbook, Almanack, Shippers’ and Importers’ Directory” state that the straight line distance between Sydney and Nelson is 1550 statute miles. Their given difference in longitude is 22 degrees 2’14”. Therefore if 22 degrees 2’14” out of 360 is 1550 miles, the entirety would measure 25,182 miles. This is not only larger than the ball-Earth is said to be at the equator, but a whole 4262 miles greater than it would be at Sydney’s southern latitude on a globe of said proportions.
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.

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.
The first verse in Genesis chapter 1 are about the water on the earth before God spoke land or life into existence. Genesis 1:1 Verse 1 says, “darkness was on the face of the deep.” First of all the word “face” means a flat surface, like the face of a clock or the face of a building. Interesting that a clock has a circular, flat face under a dome of glass. The flat earth works in perfect precision like a clock.
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
×