What a timeless work of truth you have created, thanks for your hard work Eric. Any stupid physicist that tries to deny flat earth by saying "relativity" proves it false, is completely wrong because relativity and all of quantum mechanics is wrong and no where near the real model of physics. Ken Wheeler's book "Unocovering the Missing secrets of magnetism" is the real model of physics & proves that the ether exists and that the standard (particle) model of physics is completely false b/c there is no such thing as "particles" b/c particles can not mediate action at a distance & or magnetism, electricity is not made up of "particles". Neither is "space" some type of object/medium that can act upon another object or be warped/ stretched as relativity states. The idea that "space" is "something," is obsurd on every level. There's no use in me trying to describe KW's work b/c a short explanation will not do the subject justice. For a brief starter explanation I will say that physics is based on golden ration incommensurablity(fractality)--, centripetal(counter-spacial) & centrifugal(spacial) forces. Any force is a result of an ether preterbation by torquing the ether aka the dielectric inertial plane (mainstream science calls this the Bloch wall in a magnet).


44.) It is in evidence that, if a projectile be fired from a rapidly moving body in an opposite direction to that in which the body is going, it will fall short of the distance at which it would reach the ground if fired in the direction of motion. Now, since the Earth is said to move at the rate of nineteen miles in, a second of time, "from west to east," it would make all the difference imaginable if the gun were fired in an opposite direction. But, as, in practice, there is not the slightest difference, whichever way the thing may be done, we have a forcible overthrow of all fancies relative to the motion of the Earth, and a striking proof that the Earth is not a globe.
188) Over the years NASA has twice changed their story regarding the shape of the Earth. At first they maintained Earth was a perfect sphere, which later changed to an “oblate spheroid” flattened at the poles, and then changed again to being “pear-shaped” as the Southern hemisphere allegedly bulges out as well. Unfortunately for NASA, however, none of their official pictures show an oblate spheroid or pear-shaped Earth! All their pictures, contrary to their words, show a spherical (and clearly CGI fake) Earth.

Both Davies and Hodgson talked of a reunion a couple of times, however, this would never come to pass. The first hint of a reunion came in 1993 when Davies and Hodgson reunited for an A & M dinner honoring Jerry Moss, co-founder of A & M Records. This dinner resulted in writing and demoing new songs, but it never went anywhere due to disagreements over management. Another hint of a reunion came in 2010 when Roger Hodgson approached Rick Davies about a fortieth anniversary of their very first album Supertramp (rogerhodgson.com). Rick Davies declined the invitation and any chance of Supertramp reuniting was squashed.
Categories: 1944 birthsLiving peopleSupertramp membersPeople from SwindonPeople with multiple myelomaEnglish keyboardistsEnglish emigrants to the United StatesMelodica playersEnglish pianistsBritish harmonica playersEnglish male singersEnglish singer-songwritersEnglish male singer-songwritersEnglish rock keyboardistsEnglish rock drummersEnglish expatriates in SwitzerlandEnglish organistsMale organistsBritish male pianists21st-century pianists21st-century organists21st-century male musicians
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)
156) People also claim to see curvature in Go Pro or other high altitude camera footage of the horizon. While it is true that the horizon often appears convex in such footage, it just as often appears concave or flat depending on the tilt/movement of the camera. The effect is simply a distortion due to wide-angle lenses. In lens-corrected and footage taken without wide-angle technology, all amateur high-altitude horizon shots appear perfectly flat.
156) People also claim to see curvature in Go Pro or other high altitude camera footage of the horizon. While it is true that the horizon often appears convex in such footage, it just as often appears concave or flat depending on the tilt/movement of the camera. The effect is simply a distortion due to wide-angle lenses. In lens-corrected and footage taken without wide-angle technology, all amateur high-altitude horizon shots appear perfectly flat.
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.
It has been shown that the meridians are, necessarily, straight lines; and that it is impossible to travel round the Earth in a north or south direction: from which it follows that, in the general acceptation of the word "degree" - the 360th - part of a circle - meridians have no degrees: for no one knows anything of a meridian circle or semicircle, to be thus divided. But astronomers speak of degrees of latitude in the same sense as those of longitude. This, then, is done by assuming that to be true which is not true. Zetetic philosophy does not involve this necessity. This proves that the basis of this philosophy is a sound one, and, in short, is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
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.
4) Rivers run down to sea-level finding the easiest course, North, South, East, West and all other intermediary directions over the Earth at the same time. If Earth were truly a spinning ball then many of these rivers would be impossibly flowing uphill, for example the Mississippi in its 3000 miles would have to ascend 11 miles before reaching the Gulf of Mexico.
"Is water level, or is it not?" was a question once asked of an astronomer. "Practically, yes; theoretically, no," was the reply. Now, when theory does not harmonize with practice, the best thing to do is to drop the theory. (It is getting too late, now to say "So much the worse for the factsI") To drop the theory which supposes a curved surface to standing water is to acknowledge the facts which form the basis of Zetetic philosophy. And since this will have to be done sooner or later, - it is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
The first main problem with globe model is that the next solar eclipse on August 21 is coming from the west. We have been told that the moon rotates around the earth from east to west just like the sun. But the moon during the solar eclipse is eclipsing the sun from the WEST. So how does that work on the Ball earth model? They say it’s just an optical illusion because of the angle of the sun. One scientist from NASA said its because the moon rotates from west to east! What? And another scientist said the the moon rotates around the earth twice as fast as the earth spins! Huh? When did that happen? The explanations from NASA get even more confusing and make no sense.

47.) In consequence of the fact being so plainly seen, by everyone who visits the seashore, that the line of the horizon is a perfectly straight line, it becomes impossible for astronomers, when they attempt to convey, pictorially, an idea of the Earth's "convexity," to do so with even a shadow of consistency: for they dare not represent this horizon as a curved line, so well known is it that it is a straight one! The greatest astronomer of the age, in page 15 of his "Lessons," gives an illustration of a ship sailing away, "as though she were rounding the top of a great hill of water;" and there – of a truth – is the straight and level line of the horizon clear along the top of the "hill" from one side of the picture to the other! Now, if this picture were true in all its parts – and it is outrageously false in several – it would show that Earth is a cylinder; for the "hill" shown is simply up one side of the level, horizontal line, and, we are led to suppose, down the other! Since, then, we have such high authority as Professor Richard A. Proctor that the Earth is a cylinder, it is, certainly, a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
If we take a journey down the Chesapeake Bay, by night, we shall see the "light" exhibited at Sharpe's Island for an hour before the steamer gets to it. We may take up a position on the deck so that the rail of the vessel's side will be in a line with the "light" and in the line of sight; and we shall find that in the whole journey the light will won't vary in the slightest degree in its apparent elevation. But, say that a distance of thirteen miles has been traversed, the astronomers' theory of "curvature" demands a difference (one way or the other!) in the apparent elevation of the light, of 112 feet 8 inches! Since, however, there is not a difference of 100 hair's breadths, we have a plain proof that the water of the Chesapeake Bay is not curved, which is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
With increasing distance from the object, the earth’s curvature causes the surface of the water to fall away from the beam of light. Over one mile, the amount of drop is eight inches, but the drop increases quadratically with distance. Consequently, after three miles the drop is six feet, and after six miles the drop is 24 feet. This is the point of the Bedford level experiment—the curvature of the earth ought to intervene to prevent the mast of the boat being visible from much more than three miles, let alone six miles. However, for the light from the distant object not to be visible, it would have to travel in a straight line. But with a temperature inversion, straight-line motion would carry the light from a cooler layer of air into a warmer layer of air at nearly a grazing angle. The light cannot do this, so it continually is internally reflected, causing the light to bend around the edge of the earth. Therefore, with a temperature inversion, one can see objects that lie well beyond the edge of the earth’s curvature when viewing close to the surface of water.
Every man in his senses goes the most reasonable way to work to do a thing. Now, astronomers (one after another - following a leader), while they are telling us that Earth is a globe, are cutting off the upper half of this suppositious globe in their books, and, in this way, forming the level surface on which they describe man as living and moving! Now, if the Earth were really a globe, this would be just the most unreasonable and suicidal mode of endeavoring to show it. So that, unless theoretical astronomers are all out of their senses together, it is, clearly, a, proof that the Earth is not a globe.
48.) In Mr. Proctor's "Lessons in Astronomy," page 15, a ship is represented as sailing away from the observer, and it is given in five positions or distances away on its journey. Now, in its first position, its mast appears above the horizon, and, consequently, higher than the observer's line of vision. But, in its second and third positions, representing the ship as further and further away, it is drawn higher and still higher up above the line of the horizon! Now, it is utterly impossible for a ship to sail away from an observer, under the, conditions indicated, and to appear as given in the picture. Consequently, the picture is a misrepresentation, a fraud, and a disgrace. A ship starting to sail away from an observer with her masts above his line of sight would appear, indisputably, to go down and still lower down towards the horizon line, and could not possibly appear – to anyone with his vision undistorted – as going in any other direction, curved or straight. Since, then the design of the astronomer-artist is to show the Earth to be a globe, and the points in the picture, which would only prove the Earth to be cylindrical if true, are NOT true, it follows that the astronomer-artist fails to prove, pictorially, either that the Earth is a globe or a cylinder, and that we have, therefore, a reasonable proof that the Earth is not. a globe.

We have abundance of evidence that the Sun moves daily round and over the Earth in circles concentric with the northern region over which hangs the North Star; but, since the theory of the Earth being a globe is necessarily connected with the theory of its motion round the Sun in a yearly orbit, it falls to the ground when we bring forward the evidence of which we speak, and, in so doing, forms a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

Mr Hind speaks of the astronomer watching a star as it is carried across the telescope by the diurnal revolution of the Earth." Now, this is nothing but downright absurdity. No motion of the Earth could possibly carry a star across a telescope or anything else. If the star is carried across anything at all, it is the star that moves, not the thing across which it is carried! Besides, the idea that the Earth, if it were a globe, could possibly move in an orbit of nearly 600,000,000 of miles with such exactitude that the cross-hairs in a telescope fixed on its surface would appear to glide gently over a star "millions of millions" of miles away is simply monstrous; whereas, with a FIXED telescope, it matters not the distance of the stars, though we suppose them to be as far off as the astronomer supposes them to be; for, as Mr. Proctor himself says, "the further away they are, the less they will seem to shift." Why, in the name of common sense, should observers have to fix their telescopes on solid stone bases so that they should not move a hair's-breadth, - if the Earth on which they fix them move at the rate of nineteen miles in a second? Indeed, to believe that Mr. Proctor's mass of "six thousand million million million tons" is "rolling, surging, flying, darting on through space for ever" with a velocity compared with which a shot from a cannon is a "very slow coach," with such unerring accuracy that a telescope fixed on granite pillars in an observatory will not enable a lynx-eyed astronomer to detect a variation in its onward motion of the thousandth part of a hair's-breadth is to conceive a miracle compared with which all the miracles on record put together would sink into utter insignificance. Captain R. J. Morrison, the late compiler of "Zadkeil's Almanac;" says: "We declare that this "motion" is all mere 'bosh'; and that the arguments which uphold it are, when examined with an eye that seeks for TRUTH only, mere nonsense, and childish absurdity. "Since, then, these absurd theories are of no use to men in their senses, and since there is no necessity for anything of the kind in Zetetic philosophy, it is a "strong presumptive proof" - as Mr. Hind would say that the Zetetic philosophy is true, and, therefore, a proof that Earth is not a globe..
There is much real evidence to prove the Flat stationary earth and it’s not just photos and hearsay. Many professional pilots and military personnel have come out as Flat Earthers, and have confirmed that there is no curvature on the earth, flights don’t make sense on a ball, and GPS is ground-based and more. Here are some of these very interesting interviews by Mark Sargent, a Flat Earther. They bring up some very compelling evidence and that will make even the most staunch Ball Earther think twice, or at least we can hope so. If anything, it should make you think about where we really live. These interviews are not made up or staged. They are real! You can prove their evidence correct with your own research.

As the mariners' compass points north and south at one time, and as the North, to which it is attracted is that part of the Earth situated where the North Star is in the zenith, it follows that there is no south "point" or "pole" but that, while the centre is North, a vast circumference must be South in its whole extent. This is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
The surveyor's plans in relation to the laying of the first Atlantic Telegraph cable, show that in 1665 miles - from Valentia, Ireland, to St . John's, Newfoundland - the surface of the Atlantic Ocean is a LEVEL surface - not the astronomers' "level," either! The authoritative drawings, published at the time, are a standing evidence of the fact, and form a practical proof that Earth is not a globe.
Millennials, the generation that thinks they know it all. Yes, we have unlocked all the secrets of the universe, including the REAL shape of the earth. According to a study by YouGovUS, millennials between the ages of 18 and 24 are more likely than any answer the question 'Is the earth flat or round?' with an answer flat (4%). Honestly, our ancient selves did not think that the shape of earth is still debatable...

In the past 60 years of space exploration, we’ve launched satellites, probes, and people into space. Some of them got back, some of them still float through the solar system (and almost beyond it), and many transmit amazing images to our receivers on Earth. In all of these photos, the Earth is (wait for it) spherical. The curvature of the Earth is also visible in the many, many, many, many photos snapped by astronauts aboard the International Space Station. You can see a recent example from ISS Commander Scott Kelly's Instagram right here:


If the Moon is a disc which faces us and whose orientation can be explained, for instance, as the head of a tennis racket as someone holds it out and turns, thus the same side of the head always faces to the inside of the circle path it travels, and if this disc faces down all the time on our FE, what purpose the craters and how did they get there?
Imagine an ant walking along the surface of an orange, into your field of view. If you look at the orange “head on”, you will see the ant’s body slowly rising up from the “horizon” because of the curvature of the orange. If you would do that experiment with the ant approaching along a long road rather than a round object, the effect would change: The ant would slowly "materialize" into view (depending on how sharp your vision is).

When the sun rises in the morning its light is just coming into view.  The sun's light then follows it as it journeys away from you, appearing to descend below the horizon. In reality it is not "going down" but moving away from you and going beyond the line of convergence and your eyesight. It takes it's light with it. You can clearly see this in time lapse videos of the sun moving away, causing a sunset. 
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:–
×