185) We are told that the Earth and atmosphere spin together at such a perfect uniform velocity that no one in history has ever seen, heard, felt or measured the supposed 1000mph movement. This is then often compared to traveling in a car at uniform velocity, where we only feel the movement during acceleration or deceleration. In reality, however, even with eyes closed, windows up, over smooth tar in a luxury car at a mere uniform 50mph, the movement absolutely can be felt! At 20 times this speed, Earth’s imaginary 1000mph spin would most certainly be noticeable, felt, seen and heard by all.
8) The Suez Canal connecting the Mediterranean with the Red Sea is 100 miles long without any locks making the water an uninterrupted continuation of the two seas. When constructed, the Earth’s supposed curvature was not taken into account, it was dug along a horizontal datum line 26 feet below sea-level, passing through several lakes from one sea to the other, with the datum line and water’s surface running perfectly parallel over the 100 miles.
180) The spinning ball model dictates that the Earth and atmosphere would be moving together at approximately 500mph at the mid-latitudes where an LA to NYC flight takes place. The average commercial airliner traveling 500mph takes 5.5 hours traveling East with the alleged rotation of the Earth, so the return flight West should take only 2.75 hours, but in fact we find the average NYC to LA flight takes 6 hours, a flight time totally inconsistent with the spinning ball model.
169) So-called “satellite” TV dishes are almost always positioned at a 45 degree angle towards the nearest ground-based repeater tower. If TV antennae were actually picking up signals from satellites 100+ miles in space, most TV dishes should be pointing more or less straight up to the sky. The fact that “satellite” dishes are never pointing straight up and almost always positioned at a 45 degree angle proves they are picking up ground-based tower signals and not “outer-space satellites.”

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.
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.
193) No child or un-indoctrinated man in their right-mind would ever conclude or even conceive given to their own devices, based on their own personal observations, that the Earth was a spinning ball revolving around the Sun! Such imaginative theories nowhere present in anyone’s daily experience require and have required massive amounts of constant propaganda to uphold the illusion.
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.
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.
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)

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.
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,
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:– 
×