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) On a clear day from the highland near Douglas Harbor on the Isle of Man, the whole length of the coast of North Wales is often plainly visible to the naked eye. From the Point of Ayr at the mouth of the River Dee to Holyhead comprises a 50 mile stretch which has also been repeatedly found to be perfectly horizontal. If the Earth actually had curvature of 8 inches per mile squared, as NASA and modern astronomy claim, the 50 mile length of Welsh coast seen along the horizon in Liverpool Bay would have to decline from the center-point an easily detectable 416 feet on each side!
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.
194) From David Wardlaw Scott, “I remember being taught when a boy, that the Earth was a great ball, revolving at a very rapid rate around the Sun, and, when I expressed to my teacher my fears that the waters of the oceans would tumble off, I was told that they were prevented from doing so by Newton’s great law of Gravitation, which kept everything in its proper place. I presume that my countenance must have shown some signs of incredulity, for my teacher immediately added - I can show you a direct proof of this; a man can whirl around his head a pail filled with water without its being spilt, and so, in like manner, can the oceans be carried round the Sun without losing a drop. As this illustration was evidently intended to settle the matter, I then said no more upon the subject. Had such been proposed to me afterwards as a man, I would have answered somewhat as follows - Sir, I beg to say that the illustration you have given of a man whirling a pail of water round his head, and the oceans revolving round the Sun, does not in any degree confirm your argument, because the water in the two cases is placed under entirely different circumstances, but, to be of any value, the conditions in each case must be the same, which here they are not. The pail is a hollow vessel which holds the water inside it, whereas, according to your teaching, the Earth is a ball, with a continuous curvature outside, which, in agreement with the laws of nature, could not retain any water.”
150) If Earth were a spinning ball it would be impossible to photograph star-trail time-lapses turning perfect circles around Polaris anywhere but the North Pole. At all other vantage points the stars would be seen to travel more or less horizontally across the observer’s horizon due to the alleged 1000mph motion beneath their feet. In reality, however, Polaris’s surrounding stars can always be photographed turning perfect circles around the central star all the way down to the Tropic of Capricorn.
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 concludes thus: "He saw, indeed, that, in his faith in "Parallax," he had "written himself down an ass.") Well, then: trickery or no trickery on the part of the objector, the objection is a counterfeit - a fraud - no valid objection at all; and it follows that the system which does not purge itself of these things is a rotten system, and the system which 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.
"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 Schoedler 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.
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.
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.
Planets (from Ancient Greek ἀστὴρ πλανήτης [astēr planētēs, "wandering star"], or just πλανήτης [planḗtēs, "wanderer"]) are orbiting astronomical objects. The Earth is not a planet by definition, as it sits at the center of our solar system above which the planets and the Sun revolve. The earths uniqueness, fundamental differences and centrality makes any comparison to other nearby celestial bodies insufficient - Like comparing basketballs to the court on which they bounce.
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.
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:– 
×