In Figure 12, the ship now appears beyond the pier. Notice that the inferior mirage of the lettering on the hull is much more obvious now. In Figure 13, the lettering and its inferior mirage have not merged. In Figure 14, the lettering is difficult to see. This probably is because most of the lettering is below the horizon, and what appears to be the bottom of the hull is an inferior mirage of the top of the hull. This is clearly seen by the inferior mirage of the first layer of red containers below the turquoise. In Figure 15, the inferior mirage of the bottom layer of containers is more obvious, and the inferior mirage of the bottom of the bridge castle is beginning to show up. Clearly, at least half of the turquoise visible here is an inferior mirage. Most of the hull is below the curvature of the earth. Unfortunately, at this point the sun was about to set, so light levels were dropping quickly, forcing me to use longer exposures. At that point, I stopped taking photographs.
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.
In Figure 12, the ship now appears beyond the pier. Notice that the inferior mirage of the lettering on the hull is much more obvious now. In Figure 13, the lettering and its inferior mirage have not merged. In Figure 14, the lettering is difficult to see. This probably is because most of the lettering is below the horizon, and what appears to be the bottom of the hull is an inferior mirage of the top of the hull. This is clearly seen by the inferior mirage of the first layer of red containers below the turquoise. In Figure 15, the inferior mirage of the bottom layer of containers is more obvious, and the inferior mirage of the bottom of the bridge castle is beginning to show up. Clearly, at least half of the turquoise visible here is an inferior mirage. Most of the hull is below the curvature of the earth. Unfortunately, at this point the sun was about to set, so light levels were dropping quickly, forcing me to use longer exposures. At that point, I stopped taking photographs.
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.
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.
2. Another related thing I don’t understand: if the sun and moon are always above the disk of the Earth, why can’t everyone in the world see them at all times? Surely they should always be visible, at least at a low angle. I can’t draw myself any diagram where they are not always visible, but we see that that doesn’t happen. I can’t see how night time happens. Help!
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.
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.
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.

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.
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.
×