Examining The Recent Rise Of The Flat Earth Movement

The Recent Rise Of The Flat Earth Movement 2

By Makia Freeman

Contributing Writer for Wake Up World

The recent rise of the ‘Flat Earth Movement’ and those pushing the flat earth theory have taken the webosphere by storm.

For the record, I am not here to say I believe the Earth is flat, but I am open to the possibility. Clearly, more investigation needs to be done, and it would be wisest to admit we don’t know something rather than proceed as if we do – especially when deception has infiltrated every area of our lives.

Socrates, the father of philosophy, showed that questions are more powerful than answers; indeed, his questions were so powerful that the leaders of Athens put him to death for them. So, let us never be afraid to ask questions – it is the only way we can learn and be truly sure of things.


Whatever the answer turns out to be, the idea that the Earth on which we all live could indeed be flat has ignited intense curiosity and healthy debate – and has already shaken people out of their apathy and generated some genuine critical thinking. This in itself is a victory for freedom, because once enough people start to question their reality in every way, the global conspiracy being only held up by deception and subterfuge will collapse.

It Sounds Crazy, But Open Your Mind …

Virtually everyone who first comes to the subject of flat earth (myself included) is thinking: “Flat earth? Are you serious? You must be kidding. That’s crazy! Don’t waste my time. That Makia Freeman guy has really gone off the deep end this time …” I know, I know. That’s how I first reacted to this topic. Let’s face it: we’re all conditioned to believe the world is arranged in a certain way. Right from the moment we go to school around age 5, we are shown miniature globes of the world and told the Earth is a ball. Our society makes fun of people we perceive to be crazy or behind the times by deriding them as “people who still think the world is flat.”

But how do you know the Earth is a globe? Only because you were told so by your teacher, who was told by someone else, who was told by someone else, who was told by someone else, who was told by some “authority” or “expert”. We already know the tendency humanity has for worshipping those outside of itself, for unquestioning obedience to authority, especially other people in uniform, white coats or black robes. Somewhere along the way as a child, you were probably shown some books with photographs, but as has been well exposed, space photos and videos are easily faked, as NASA knows very well. Those at the very top of the pyramid, who control the media, publishing houses and the education curriculum, do have the means to pull of such a grand deception.

Is the Flat Earth the Mother of All Conspiracies?

The question of whether we live on a flat earth or globe-shaped earth is not some passing fad of little importance. If we have been deceived into thinking the earth is a globe when it is really flat, it conclusively proves just how easily we can be hoodwinked into believing lies and absurdities on a colossal scale. If we have been massively fooled about the very planet on which we live, we could have been fooled on any other topic in existence.

Is the debate over the flat earth the “Mother of all Conspiracies”? Not quite, in my opinion. If it’s true, it’s huge: I’d call it the second biggest conspiracy. The biggest conspiracy, though, is forgetting Who We Are – infinitely creative, spiritual beings having a brief human journey – and allowing other entities to siphon off our life energy. This includes the issue of what happens when we die (ie. whether we are forcibly recycled at the point of death through a soul net?)

In my opinion, flat earth is a close second, but ultimately, the two issues are connected; authors such as James of the WingMakers have joined the two in their work — by describing our world as the Hologram of Deception and describing the phenomenon of forced reincarnation. The notion that we are entrapped in some kind of holographic quarantine is highly disturbing, yet deserves our full attention.

Gleason's New Standard Map Of The World 1892 (Source: https://www.digitalcommonwealth.org/search/commonwealth:7h149v85z/)
Gleason’s New Standard Map Of The World 1892 – Source: https://www.digitalcommonwealth.org/search/commonwealth:7h149v85z

What is the Flat Earth Model?

The flat earth model contends that the Earth exists on a giant, flat plane, with the Arctic (or North Pole) at the center, and a giant wall of ice (the Antarctic) surrounding the entire disc and forming the circumference. The implication of this is that we live in a giant dome, that “space” as we know it does not exist, and that all the planets and stars we see at night are like projections on the ceiling of a planetarium.

Let’s take a look now at the points for and against the flat earth model.

Points For the Flat Earth Model

Lack of visible or measurable curvature: 

The horizon looks flat to the eye. Researchers have claimed that the skyline of cities such as New York City and Philadelphia are visible 40-60 miles away from the ground, when the alleged curvature of the Earth should not permit them to be seen. The famous Bedford Canal experiment performed in 1838 by Samuel Rowbotham showed that a canoe or small boat was visible from 6 miles away along a river (when the curvature of the earth should have rendered it invisible below the horizon or line of sight). Is this light refraction or evidence of a flat earth?

Lack of discernible spin:

When a plane is airborne, if the earth were really spinning, pilots should use a spinning earth in their calculations. Why don’t they? The plane would also be landing on a moving target. Why isn’t this accounted for?

Admiral Byrd’s Antarctic expedition:

Admiral Richard E. Byrd was a courageous explorer who earnt the trust of the US Government. They sent him to Antarctica on a military mission in 1947. He reported that in Antarctica he ran into UFOs – “vehicles which could travel from one pole to the other in less than an hour” as he wrote in his diary – and found his way into the center of the earth, “inner earth”, where the temperature was warm, vegetation grew and a Nordic race of people lived.

Remember, this was a hardened, rational military man writing such things. In this video interview, he also reveals that beyond the South Pole there was still much of Antarctica left unexplored (an area the size of the USA in fact). After this Governments of the world joined forces and made Antarctica off limits and all trips there are now highly regulated. Why?

The problem of the Sun’s heat: 

If the sun is really 93 million miles away, how does its heat travel through space (an apparent vacuum) to reach us? Can the vacuum of space conduct or transfer heat? If not, can the atmosphere of Earth take the sun’s light and transform it into heat? If so, how does that work? Has it been proven beyond all doubt?

The problem of the Sun’s light: 

flat earth sunshine

Sometimes you can see the sun’s rays coming in at wide angles. How could this be if they were all coming from 93 million miles away? From that distance they are essentially parallel. Does the atmosphere disperse them? If so, how? Has this been proven beyond all doubt?

Strange Southern Hemisphere flight patterns:

Why are there so few direct flights in the Southern Hemisphere? Why do planes flying from places like Sydney (Australia) to Johannesburg (South Africa) routinely go via places like Dubai in the Middle East, which is completely off course and out of the way? The direct flight would be around 12 hours and planes have enough fuel to do this without needing to stop. Why are planes’ GPS turned off during Southern Hemisphere flights, so that their exact trajectories can not be easily tracked?

For more questions and analysis, please check out the following article: www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html

Points Against the Flat Earth Model

Photographic evidence:

Some researchers have stated that almost all the spherical images we have of Earth are patched-together composites. However, that is “almost”. How do you explain the existing spherical images we have of Earth, such as this high-definition one, reportedly taken by Russia’s weather satellite, the Electro-L?

Faking of all space flights, space station and space footage:

We know how much fakery has gone with space footage, whether it’s NASA’s dubious photos and videos of the moon landings or the fake ISS (International Space Station) footage, some even showing people wearing scuba gear. China got in on the act too, as can be seen with this bubble escaping the “astronaut’s” or swimmer’s helmet. But given how much footage is out there, can 100% of it be fake?

Satellites:

How does the flat earth model deal with satellites? Do they exist or are they faked?

Varying star constellations: 

You can see constellations in the Southern Hemisphere that you can’t see in the Northern Hemisphere, and vice versa. How is this possible on a flat earth?

Other celestial bodies:

Other celestial bodies appear to be globes, such as the Moon and the Sun, not to mention other planets. Are they spheres? And if so, why are they spheres and the earth is not?

The existence of extraterrestrials:

Can the flat earth model support existence of extraterrestrials? How do they fit into the equation? Are other planets not globes or planets as such, but rather other discrete and enclosed holograms which can be linked by sophisticated technological travel?

[Sidenote: Washington lawyer Andrew Basiago, the man who claimed he teleported to Mars as part of DARPA and the CIA’s Project Pegasus in the 1960s and 1970s, now thinks he did not necessarily go to the planet “Mars” but rather an SQE (Synthetic Quantum Environment), an artificial holographic planetary domain that he was told was Mars. Basiago, by the way, revealed in this interview with Lisa Harrison that he intends to join the 2016 presidential race. Imagine the exposure a mass audience would receive if Basiago started delving into topics such as teleportation, Mars colonies, extraterrestrials and the flat earth theory …]

Whistleblower Randy Cramer/Captain K:

How do we reconcile the flat earth with Randy Cramer who, as part of the “USMC ss” (United States Marine Corps – Special Service), claims he was on a spaceship and literally saw it fly off into space, from the Moon to Mars?

Center of gravity: 

On a flat plane, isn’t the center of gravity at the center of the plane? If so, then when we fall, why are we pulled straight down to the ground rather than towards the center (the North Pole in the flat earth model)?

Alternatively, if the flat plane is rotating, wouldn’t the centrifugal force cause us to fall outward, toward the the edges of the plane (the Antarctic)?

The Catholic Church supported the flat earth:

The Catholic Church has been a leader throughout the last 2,000 years of suppressing information, keeping people scared and ignorant, and ruling through fear and guilt. It is highly strange and out of character, therefore, that when it comes to this issue of a flat earth, that the Church would be on the side of the truth. The Church killed or condemned at least 3 people (Copernicus, Galileo, and Giordano Bruno) for proposing the currently-accepted heliocentric model of our solar system. If the flat earth were true, why would the Church kill or condemn those who proposed a false model when it has a history of hiding the truth?

The Recent Rise Of The Flat Earth Movement 3

Could the Earth be Both Flat and a Globe?

Finally, I will end this article by quoting Project Camelot’s Kerry Cassidy on the flat earth subject. She wrote:

In my view the “flat earth” people are simply seeing things in a hyper dimensional (collapsing the wave) mode. They are seeing a Planet “plane-net” from the point of view that reduces everything out of the hologram view into a sort of continuum of unlimited horizons viewed condensed, as in, down to the “thought” of source vs. the multi-dimensional aspects which allow you and I to navigate and go deeper into the quantum moment for the purpose of ‘experiencing the whole’.

It is similar to the way we view time. We see time as linear when it is actually simultaneous. In reality, time is an illusion. All things happen simultaneously. Well, if space is viewed the same way you could in essence say there is no space … space is an illusion or hologram. Everything it is at the same time infinite and infinitesimal and can be reduced to a single point … zero point or simultaneity.

As David Icke, the late Michael Talbot (who wrote The Holographic Universe), some Western scientists and many others have said — the world is a giant hologram. It looks, feels, smells, tastes and seems like something solid, but is actually mostly empty space made from energy vibrating at a slow rate. Essentially, we live in a giant version of the Holodeck on Star Trek. Quantum physics has shown us that the atom can appear as a particle (matter) or a wave (energy) and displays characteristics of both simultaneously. The wave is all possibility until it “collapses” (due to our observation and intent) into a particle and solidifies.

Is it possible that flat earth people are looking at the “wave” aspect of the atom rather than the “particle” aspect? Could the Earth be flat on an unlimited plane, until it collapses into particle form and becomes a sphere?

It is an open question that remains to be solved, but meanwhile, it is greatly encouraging to see people taking such an active part in questioning everything around them, because it is only by asking questions that we can gain freedom from ignorance and enslavement.

The Flat Earth Theory – Simplified and Summarised


Sources:

Previous articles by Makia Freeman:

About the author:

Makia Freeman is the editor of The Freedom Articles and senior researcher at ToolsForFreedom.com, writing on many aspects of truth and freedom, from exposing aspects of the global conspiracy to suggesting solutions for how humanity can create a new system of peace and abundance. An avid promoter of freedom, truth and health, his mission is to expose the truth, raise awareness about the conspiracy to enslave mankind and to help create a critical mass of people to stand up against it – and thus restore peace and freedom to the world.

ToolsForFreedom.com - Knowledge is Power

Want to keep informed with news and analysis on the New World Order, Natural Health, Sovereignty and more? Visit Freedom-Articles.ToolsForFreedom.com for more, follow Tools For Freedom on Facebook or sign up for ‘The Freedom Articles’ blog updates.

 


Wake Up World's latest videos

 

Join Wake Up World's Ever Evolving Social Communities

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Google Plus

 

  • Richard Horrocks

    Isn’t this more likely to be a psy-op?

    • Jay Longshore

      That’s what I think. It’s a psyop designed to discredit the entire truth movement.

  • Jiri Ki

    Nice article until you get stuck in the limited view, sort of like thinking it’s a globe, of stating it’s a disc. It goes on en there are more suns out over the ice, with more people or Martians if you like.
    There are different people in this “movement” with different idea’s. I find it more plausible that IF the earth is flat, it is not a disc (with a dome) but an infinite plane. Mostly covered in ice. With a lot of “earths”. The conspiracy is about keeping us in a prison, a ball in the middle of nowhere. Opposed to an infinite plane full of life, very close. Admiral Byrd clearly has seen, or the next ring (Atlantis style) or the next ‘earth.
    They want us to feel small and helpless, on this lonely ball in space, far away from everything while we stand by and see our planet being destroyed.
    The same works for a disc.

    Keep up the research, there is more 😉

    • skysi

      What is your education level. Have you heard about physics?

    • Fred Beondo

      “They want us to feel small and helpless” – we ARE small and helpless.

      • Robin Raven

        No, we are very powerful beings and we are billions. You have merely bought into a “small and helpless” irrationality.

    • bigzac

      There is no “infinite” anything. What you’re implying completely violates the laws of thermodynamics. If there was infinite land, infinite water, infinite space, why are we so concerned about climate change and conservation of scare resources.

  • Joshua Martinez

    You’re going to seriously defend the church on an article talking about how the earth is flat?

  • Mel

    we should demand for the shut down of NASA!

  • skysi

    Eerr.. Inquisition rings a bell?

  • skysi

    Only an uneducated person keep his/her mind open to the possibility of a flat earth. Thousands of years of science proved long ago that the earth is a globe and all the planets are globes. If a person comes up to you and says you are not a human being but a dog, would you open your mind to that possibility?

  • David Weiss

    Varying star constellations: The reason we see different stars in the inner northern hemisplane and the outer southern henisplane is because the stars and everything else we see in the sky is very close and they travel out of view, past the point of convergence.

    Other celestial bodies appear to be globes: This is not necessarily true. When you personally look through a telescope we see something round that looks self lit and does not show the characteristics of a sphere in what you would expect to see by it reflecting sun light. If you zoom in you see something closer to sparkling shimmering light. All the planets are on the same plane because they are circling over a flat plane. When you go into the woods, you are surrounded by trees but you aren’t one. We don’t live on a planet, we live on a plane-t

    The existence of extraterrestrials: What makes more sense that ET’s travel millions upon millions of incomprehensible light years to find this spinning speck in an infinite cosmos or perhaps ET’s come from a much closer perhaps just a few thousand miles away across our plane. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3GGjTXsP68

    There is no curve. When you see the earth from high up you are seeing a big flat circle in all directions and your globe programming tells you its a ball.
    http://deepinsidetherabbithole.com/Is_the_earth_a_ball_.html

    • RickB

      “Varying star constellations” – The “point of convergence” explanation simply doesn’t fit with real trigonometry. This is something that FE’ers somehow can’t or don’t want to grasp. Yes, it’s true that “point of convergence” implies that, as you travel south, northern stars will get lower and southern stars will get higher. But the dirty little math secret is this: “point of convergence” implies that as you go south, all of the northern stars will converge TOGETHER, i.e. their angular separation decreases. All of the northern constellations should get distorted and “smooshed” onto the the northern horizon. Likewise as you travel north, the southern constellations would distort as all the stars converged on the southern horizon. But this is NOT WHAT WE OBSERVE. No matter WHERE we go on earth, the angular separation between each pair of stars remains fixed; there is never any smooshing or distortion of constellations (except due to minor atmospheric disturbance). We observe that the northern constellations simply roll over the northern horizon as you go south (with their various stars DISAPPEARING, not “converging”); the southern constellations roll over the southern horizon as you go north.

      Please just look at the flat-earth-and-dome model for a minute. See where the North Star is? On this model, it’s obvious you should be able to see the North Star from ANYWHERE on earth, even down by the “Ice Wall”! You can even calculate the angle you’d have to look up at: it’s tan^-1(h/d), where “h” is the height of Polaris, and “d” is your own distance from the north pole. Try it! On the equator the North Star should be quite high in the sky! But that is absolutely NOT what’s observed. Far northern stars are INVISIBLE to people in the far southern hemisphere. Ask anybody in Australia or South Africa if they can see the North Star from there. They can’t. That’s because they’re actually “down under”!

      “Other celestial bodies appear to be globes…When you personally look…we see something…that does not show the characteristics of a sphere.” OK, fair enough. Unless you’re talking about Mercury and Venus, which demonstrate phases like the moon; in fact, the exact phases you’d expect of spheres in the those observed positions relative to the sun. Oh, and Mars, which also shows a bit of a gibbous phase sometimes. Oh, and Saturn. Saturn’s rings cast shadows on the planet sometimes; and other times the planet casts its shadow on the rings. Those shadows would have distinctly different shapes if Saturn were a disk rather than a globe (and wouldn’t exist at all if Saturn were self-lit). And let’s not forget Jupiter. It casts shadows on its moons (at times and locations that can only be explained by a globe shape) and its moons cast shadows on the planet (ditto about the globe shape). So, yes. Except for Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn, all the planets look JUST like self-lit disks. (BTW, I have seen all the above phenomena with my own eyes. Not brainwashed by NASA.)

      Here’s what I’ve personally observed in 40+ years of amateur astronomy. All the stars in the sky form a spherical pattern of constellations, and that pattern rotates perfectly north and south proportionally according to how far I travel north and south (yes, I’ve measured this with equatorial telescopes in different cities), and with no distortion of constellations as one would clearly and obviously expect in a flat earth. Star trails (of all stars, in every observing location) are perfectly circular, instead of the elliptical ones that one would expect in a flat earth. The moon’s apparent diameter remains the same throughout the evening; in a flat earth, one would expect it to vary quite noticeably because the moon’s distance from the observer would obviously change quite a bit throughout the night. Ditto with the sun. I’ve seen the sun set. But in a flat earth, NO CELESTIAL OBJECT WOULD EVER ACTUALLY SET. (It’s astonishing to me that nobody notices this). PROOF: Choose a celestial object on the “dome” and say its height above the ground is “h” and its horizontal distance from the “north axis” is “r”. Now choose an observer located a distance “d” from the north pole. the LOWEST elevation angle the object can reach, relative to that observer, is tan^-1(h/(r+d)). This number never reaches zero (unless h=0), and in the case where h, r and d are on the same order of magnitude, the angle is actually pretty high. Furthermore, this LOW angle is reached only when the object is due NORTH of the observer. The object is considerably HIGHER than this when it’s to the east and west of the observer.

      THAT’S what you get when you apply actual, real math to the flat earth model. The sun and moon can’t set. But you know, I’ve SEEN them set. Must be my “globe programming”.

  • James Hayley

    Unreal!!! I always thought the reason it was night in Australia and the middle of the day here in the UK was because the Earth was round!!! How stupid can I be?!!!!!

  • Isobel Coetzee

    You started off so well but that last paragraph veered well off any logical argument.

    • Good thing that you’re here with your thoughtful, constructive, well-articulated counter claims then, eh! Criticising someone’s argument without providing one of your own is feeble minded indeed.

  • RickB

    I’ve been looking at all aspects of flat-earth theory for a few weeks now, have reviewed many videos and arguments, and find all of them spurious; they’re based on completely incorrect ideas about not only basic physics but basic geometry.

    “Lack of visible or measurable curvature” — Often claimed, never demonstrated. Even at very high altitudes, the horizon is EXPECTED to dip and curve only very slightly (e.g. 1.7 degrees dip at 10,000 feet) in a globe earth. Flat-earthers need to demonstrate that the dip and curve is actually less than predicted if they’re to be taken seriously. Re: Cities visible far away, and the Bedford Canal experiments; both CONCLUSIVELY shown to be due to atmospheric refraction. Cities DO start dipping below the horizon as they get farther away, just not as quickly as the simple horizon formula predicts.

    “Lack of Discernible Spin” — Pilots should use a spinning earth in their calculations? This is made-up physics, there is nothing in physics that implies this (I say this based on my B.S. degree in physics). “The plane would also be landing on a moving target.” Yes. And the plane is moving in the reference frame of the moving earth. This is no more mysterious than the fact that you can play tennis or juggle while riding on a moving ship, without the balls flying every which way. Flat-earthers don’t “get” the concept of relative reference frames so they make up their own laws of physics.

    “The Problem of the Sun’s Heat” — (sigh.) To reiterate 6th grade science; heat travels by convection, conduction, and RADIATION. Radiation is E-M waves, which can travel in a vacuum. “Can the atmosphere take the sun’s light and transform it into heat?…proven beyond all doubt?” OMG YES! Your generation is doomed to suffer the worst effects of global warming if you don’t get a handle on that mechanism.

    “The Problem of the Sun’s Light” — Let’s turn the question around this way. IMAGINE the sun is 93 million miles away, and imagine that it sends out two beams, one that strikes far to your left and the other far to your right. Just where would you EXPECT them to converge at if you followed them up? Would you EXPECT them to look parallel? Can you draw me a picture of that? Doesn’t that picture look like JUST WHAT YOU SEE? See, lines that are actually parallel can look decidedly non parallel when projected onto a different plane. That’s the “vanishing point” principle. Atmospheric dispersal not necessary or relevant.

    “Strange Flight Patterns” — Just yesterday, as a test, I googled “Johannesburg to Australia Flights”, and within about 2 minutes I was able to book a nonstop flight from Johannesburg to Perth, on South African Airways, flight time 9 hours, 20 minutes. Try this yourself (you can stop before the actual payment process). The strange flight patterns are myths. I very much suspect the thing about GPS being “turned off” is also a myth, and I challenge them to produce any evidence to support that.

    Another couple of points in the “Anti-Flat” column, based on elementary geometry:

    The flat-earth model says that the sun, moon, planets, and stars are all just a few thousand miles over our heads, riding on a dome (or something) that spins clockwise on a vertical axis through the north pole. But if this were true, then:

    * The sun and moon would very noticeably grow and shrink in size over a 24-hour cycle as they moved alternately closer and farther from a given observer (no such change is observed).

    * Every celestial object should reach its lowest elevation in the sky when DUE NORTH of the observer; we should never see things rise in the east & set in the west.

    * The paths of stars as they move throughout the night should be markedly elliptical when viewed from anywhere except the North Pole. Instead, they’re perfectly circular.

    * The shapes of constellations should be markedly distorted as viewed from different latitudes; instead, they’re identical at every latitude.

    * (A little trig here) The elevation of the Pole Star should be proportional to the inverse tangent function; instead it’s proportional to the distance from the north pole.

    These are just a few. There are many, many more.

    • I looked at this carefully too, mostly because internet friends who are otherwise curious and intelligent are buying into it. But it’s easily disproven, this new flat earth model is a lot less sophisticated than the Catholic one of the 15th century. Anyone who pays attention to the sky with basic geometric abilities should be able to figure this out. These are all great examples, I’ve got a few more in my post below based on my years of experience navigating on the ocean.

    • Sugarsail1

      Good comments, but I’m surprised with a BS in physics you would accept the doomsday scenario of global warming uncritically. Especially since the empirical data has not fit predictive models well. So unwell in fact that the NOAA has had to backpedal on their position and claim that the “excess” energy has hidden itself in the deep ocean (they are still assuming there is excess heat being trapped despite it not showing in measurements). At least they are altering their hypothesis to possibly account for the discrepancy, which is intellectually honest. To presume global warming will be rapid and detrimental just has no empirical basis, it’s conjecture at best, fraud at worst. To claim conjecture or computer model outputs as “truth” is also pseudoscience since science mandates empirical verification sorry Al Gore. Consider greenhouse farmers deliberately raise CO2 and heat levels to dramatically increase yields, the notion that climate change will be detrimental should raise serious doubt.
      A last consideration is a religious one. The narrative that mankind’s “sin” should invoke Divine Wrath, violent weather and a rise in sea level to create a great flood that will destroy civilization unless repentance is paid or salvation achieved, is a common mythic motif in the religions of the world (most know the Noah version). They are also all fictions It also happens to be the exact narrative of the global warming doomsday scenario. Now considering all religious zealots believe their myth to be “truth” it should at least raise some eyebrows regarding the “science” of global warming.

    • Sugarsail1

      Good comments, but I’m surprised with a BS in physics you would accept the doomsday scenario of global warming uncritically. Especially since the empirical data has not fit predictive models well. So unwell in fact that the NOAA has had to backpedal on their position and claim that the “excess” energy has hidden itself in the deep ocean (they are still assuming there is excess heat being trapped despite it not showing in measurements). At least they are altering their hypothesis to possibly account for the discrepancy, which is intellectually honest. To presume global warming will be rapid and detrimental just has no empirical basis, it’s conjecture at best, fraud at worst. To claim conjecture or computer model outputs as “truth” is also pseudoscience since science mandates empirical verification sorry Al Gore. Consider greenhouse farmers deliberately raise CO2 and heat levels to dramatically increase yields, the notion that climate change will be detrimental should raise serious doubt.
      A last consideration is a religious one. The narrative that mankind’s “sin” should invoke Divine Wrath, violent weather and a rise in sea level to create a great flood that will destroy civilization unless repentance is paid or salvation achieved, is a common mythic motif in the religions of the world (most know the Noah version). They are also all fictions It also happens to be the exact narrative of the global warming doomsday scenario. Now considering all religious zealots believe their myth to be “truth” it should at least raise some eyebrows regarding the “science” of global warming.

    • Sugarsail1

      Good comments, but I’m surprised with a BS in physics you would accept the doomsday scenario of global warming uncritically. Especially since the empirical data has not fit predictive models well. So unwell in fact that the NOAA has had to backpedal on their position and claim that the “excess” energy has hidden itself in the deep ocean (they are still assuming there is excess heat being trapped despite it not showing in measurements). At least they are altering their hypothesis to possibly account for the discrepancy, which is intellectually honest. To presume global warming will be rapid and detrimental just has no empirical basis, it’s conjecture at best, fraud at worst. To claim conjecture or computer model outputs as “truth” is also pseudoscience since science mandates empirical verification sorry Al Gore. Consider greenhouse farmers deliberately raise CO2 and heat levels to dramatically increase yields, the notion that climate change will be detrimental should raise serious doubt.
      A last consideration is a religious one. The narrative that mankind’s “sin” should invoke Divine Wrath, violent weather and a rise in sea level to create a great flood that will destroy civilization unless repentance is paid or salvation achieved, is a common mythic motif in the religions of the world (most know the Noah version). They are also all fictions It also happens to be the exact narrative of the global warming doomsday scenario. Now considering all religious zealots believe their myth to be “truth” it should at least raise some eyebrows regarding the “science” of global warming.

    • Sugarsail1

      Good comments, but I’m surprised with a BS in physics you would accept the doomsday scenario of global warming uncritically. Especially since the empirical data has not fit predictive models well. So unwell in fact that the NOAA has had to backpedal on their position and claim that the “excess” energy has hidden itself in the deep ocean (they are still assuming there is excess heat being trapped despite it not showing in measurements). At least they are altering their hypothesis to possibly account for the discrepancy, which is intellectually honest. To presume global warming will be rapid and detrimental just has no empirical basis, it’s conjecture at best, fraud at worst. To claim conjecture or computer model outputs as “truth” is also pseudoscience since science mandates empirical verification sorry Al Gore. Consider greenhouse farmers deliberately raise CO2 and heat levels to dramatically increase yields, the notion that climate change will be detrimental should raise serious doubt.
      A last consideration is a religious one. The narrative that mankind’s “sin” should invoke Divine Wrath, violent weather and a rise in sea level to create a great flood that will destroy civilization unless repentance is paid or salvation achieved, is a common mythic motif in the religions of the world (most know the Noah version). They are also all fictions It also happens to be the exact narrative of the global warming doomsday scenario. Now considering all religious zealots believe their myth to be “truth” it should at least raise some eyebrows regarding the “science” of global warming.

    • Sugarsail1

      Good comments, but I’m surprised with a BS in physics you would accept the doomsday scenario of global warming uncritically. Especially since the empirical data has not fit predictive models well. So unwell in fact that the NOAA has had to backpedal on their position and claim that the “excess” energy has hidden itself in the deep ocean (they are still assuming there is excess heat being trapped despite it not showing in measurements). At least they are altering their hypothesis to possibly account for the discrepancy, which is intellectually honest. To presume global warming will be rapid and detrimental just has no empirical basis, it’s conjecture at best, fraud at worst. To claim conjecture or computer model outputs as “truth” is also pseudoscience since science mandates empirical verification sorry Al Gore. Consider greenhouse farmers deliberately raise CO2 and heat levels to dramatically increase yields, the notion that climate change will be detrimental should raise serious doubt.
      A last consideration is a religious one. The narrative that mankind’s “sin” should invoke Divine Wrath, violent weather and a rise in sea level to create a great flood that will destroy civilization unless repentance is paid or salvation achieved, is a common mythic motif in the religions of the world (most know the Noah version). They are also all fictions It also happens to be the exact narrative of the global warming doomsday scenario. Now considering all religious zealots believe their myth to be “truth” it should at least raise some eyebrows regarding the “science” of global warming.

    • Sugarsail1

      Good comments, but I’m surprised with a BS in physics you would accept the doomsday scenario of global warming uncritically. Especially since the empirical data has not fit predictive models well. So unwell in fact that the NOAA has had to backpedal on their position and claim that the “excess” energy has hidden itself in the deep ocean (they are still assuming there is excess heat being trapped despite it not showing in measurements). At least they are altering their hypothesis to possibly account for the discrepancy, which is intellectually honest. To presume global warming will be rapid and detrimental just has no empirical basis, it’s conjecture at best, fraud at worst. To claim conjecture or computer model outputs as “truth” is also pseudoscience since science mandates empirical verification sorry Al Gore. Consider greenhouse farmers deliberately raise CO2 and heat levels to dramatically increase yields, the notion that climate change will be detrimental should raise serious doubt.
      A last consideration is a religious one. The narrative that mankind’s “sin” should invoke Divine Wrath, violent weather and a rise in sea level to create a great flood that will destroy civilization unless repentance is paid or salvation achieved, is a common mythic motif in the religions of the world (most know the Noah version). They are also all fictions It also happens to be the exact narrative of the global warming doomsday scenario. Now considering all religious zealots believe their myth to be “truth” it should at least raise some eyebrows regarding the “science” of global warming.

    • Sugarsail1

      Good comments, but I’m surprised with a BS in physics you would accept the doomsday scenario of global warming uncritically. Especially since the empirical data has not fit predictive models well. So unwell in fact that the NOAA has had to backpedal on their position and claim that the “excess” energy has hidden itself in the deep ocean (they are still assuming there is excess heat being trapped despite it not showing in measurements). At least they are altering their hypothesis to possibly account for the discrepancy, which is intellectually honest. To presume global warming will be rapid and detrimental just has no empirical basis, it’s conjecture at best, fraud at worst. To claim conjecture or computer model outputs as “truth” is also pseudoscience since science mandates empirical verification sorry Al Gore. Consider greenhouse farmers deliberately raise CO2 and heat levels to dramatically increase yields, the notion that climate change will be detrimental should raise serious doubt.
      A last consideration is a religious one. The narrative that mankind’s “sin” should invoke Divine Wrath, violent weather and a rise in sea level to create a great flood that will destroy civilization unless repentance is paid or salvation achieved, is a common mythic motif in the religions of the world (most know the Noah version). They are also all fictions It also happens to be the exact narrative of the global warming doomsday scenario. Now considering all religious zealots believe their myth to be “truth” it should at least raise some eyebrows regarding the “science” of global warming.

  • bigzac

    this is actually a good question, however when you see a stick in a glass of water, youre not seeing a curve, youre seeing a distinct bending due to the dramatic and massive difference in density of the medium the light is traveling through, the reason you see a curve is because the density changes gradually over time the higher up you travel away from the surface of the earth. The reason this example does not work is that the earth is not sitting within any medium that causes the refraction, as a stick is sitting in water.

    • Craig Packer

      I think we do actually see the bending of light at the surface, due to changes in heat and moisture, and maybe other factors. This is why we sometimes see mirages, due to changes in heat near the surface.

      • bigzac

        You are correct sir. We are able to see distortions of the path light takes on the surface of the Earth. But they are never constant distortions, they change rapidly which produces visual shimmers or haze. The two best examples are, the air that is near an airplane turbine on a hot runway (distortion) and the air at a certain distance from you in the desert (shimmer).

  • bigzac

    Teach your children to be critical thinkers that is good. Teach your children to doubt some of the certainties that science has identified over the years without understanding the science behind them, is bad.

  • Fred Beondo

    “At sea level the horizon drops about six feet per mile” – more like 8 inches.

    • Joe Silver

      squared by the distance

  • Velvia Blue

    im not convinced you see curvature when you get to a high altitude. Imagine holding a hula hoop around your head at eye level. it will look like a flat line. Thats the horizon you see standing at sea level and looking all around you. now move the hula hoop down to your waist. it is still a flat disk but now you see it takes on a circular shape or curvature. A flat earth disk will give you the same effect

    • bigzac

      Well, the correct term would be “curve and depth”. I’m not sure what specific point you are making with this hula hoop example. But regardless, there is much better proof of the ellipsoidal earth than anything that is discernible by the naked eye alone.

    • Craig Packer

      This is actually a great analogy, because it identifies the horizon as an equidistant line of points, surrounding the observer – a flat circle. When the Earth’s sphere has a radius of 6371km, that circle of vision, at 2m above the surface, is apparently 4.5km. Therefore, every point which we see on the horizon is the same distance away and will always appear as a straight line. Extreme height (above the atmosphere) creates a larger circle, but eventually the curve becomes visible.

  • bigzac

    Why is google using planes? Because Satellites probably are being allocated to other tasks. Why do GPS systems work in consideration of the earth being flat? They do not. On a flat earth we wouldn’t need gravity because the atmosphere in the dome would keep us down. False, what keeps the atmosphere down? Why do you return to earth when you jump? This example in particular makes NO SENSE. You doubt our planet is spinning? Well doubt all you want, that changes nothing. Airliners do consider distance, but just because there is a “shortest route” does not mean that there is “a place to land” or “an available runway”. A lot more goes into flight paths and schedules than a single planes route and the most desirable route for that single plane to travel.

  • RRB

    Ummmm…no one has ever gotten to the edge…but they have sailed aROUND the world!

  • Mark Wilson

    I’m not a seaman, but I can see your ship at sea! One of the arguments of the ancients was the the mast of the ship was the last thing seen as the ship sailed away; therefore it was sailing over the curvature of the earth.

    Introduce telescope. Same appearance at first blush, UNAIDED by the telescope. However, look now in telescope and, voila! Ship didn’t go over no stinking curve AT ALL! It’s still there on the flat horizontal water. It had just gone beyond the horizon (and as we all know “horizon” is equivalent to “vanishing point”). Telescope extends vanishing point.

    See my above post concerning the irrefutable fact observed in nature that Lake Michigan has NO curvature whatsoever.

  • Mark Wilson

    It IS a straightforward calculation. Pull up iPhone’s Blue Marble, or NASA’s images of the perfectly round earth. Hold up a quarter between you and the image. The images match the roundness of the quarter perfectly.

    Therefore, distance squared times 8. In you belief system, all water on the planet MUST maintain the perfectly round ball shape. The formula on the 25,000 mile circumference ball is, distance squared times 8.

    The truth of the matter is, it is irrefutably proven that there is NO curvature of any water anywhere!

  • RickB

    Thanks. I’ve done the math. I was doing that math years before I ever heard of flat-earthery.

    I’ve also heard of mirages long before I’ve heard of flat-earthery. Sounds like you’ve only heard of “inferior” mirages, which are the upside-down kind. Google “superior vs. inferior mirages,” and you’ll get and explanation of how a mirage can be either right side up or upside down, depending on the temperature gradient of the air layers.

    I also googled “chicago 60 miles lake michigan” as you suggested, and found lots of cool pictures. Some WERE upside down mirages; others were (allegedly) superior mirages. And one thing certainly stood out in the “right side up” ones; namely, you just can’t see anything at all near the street level.

    This, of course, is what you’d expect in the case of a ball earth. We “ballers” would say that refraction (which can manifest itself as a mirage) can cause the image to appear higher than it normally would (see the diagrams for superior mirages). Refraction through variable-index media is a well known, well understood effect, duplicatable in a lab. But it has its limits; that’s why we can’t see all the way down to the street.

    What’s the flat-earth explanation for the fact that we can’t see all the way down to the street? I keep hearing the magical word “vanishing point”, with no coherent explanation behind it. What, precisely, is blocking the light rays originating from near the street level, while letting through all the light rays that originate from higher up?

    “Waves” is not a good answer, unless you’re saying that the waves are about 50 feet tall or more. (And they never seem to break up or down.)

    Also: If the earth were flat, we ought to be able to back up another 60 miles, and still see Chicago. It should look half as big, but still easily visible through a telescope. Is it? What about if we only back up 30 more miles? Then Chicago should still be visible at 2/3 of its 60-mile size. Is it?

    I would have to say “No.” Because at that point, not even refraction can bend the light rays around the earth’s curvature.

    Flat-earthers always talk about these extraordinary feats of distant vision–but they’re never really THAT extraordinary. They’re always within the range that can be explained by atmospheric refraction. When you start talking about distances like 200, 300, 500 miles, all of a sudden, all these things disappear; even huge things like mountain ranges, which should be very plainly visible through telescopes, on a flat earth.

    Flat-earthers tell me, “but you can’t SEE mountains that far away,” because of haze, moisture, etc. But wait. I have seen the moon sitting on the ocean horizon, through my telescope. Flat-earthers tell me the moon is only 30-ish miles across, which means some of the craters I’m looking at are not more than half a mile across. So here I am, looking out over the pacific ocean, in the direction of Japan, and I can clearly see a small lunar crater on the horizon (through all that “haze and moisture”), but somehow I _cannot_ see any of the mountainous topography of Japan, which is BIGGER and CLOSER. Ever. Why is that?

  • bigzac

    Questions: Darkness, light, night, day are all not the same things…what are you implying by this? If the first thing to “appear” was darkness, what existed before the darkness? What is the sun and the moon then according to your assertion? The structure of this sentence is very confusing “Satellites, see the worlds underground under the oceanic cable lines for the answer there” what question regarding satellites is being answered by the worlds under the cable line? Since you clearly do not believe in the heliocentric model of the universe, but there is clearly movement of the celestial bodies, what exactly is moving? The entire solar system is revolving around us?

  • Chris Ferguson

    Having an open mind is one thing, but having one that is so open that your brain falls out is something else. This flat earth stuff is more about religion than it is about anything else. Many people that are pushing this world view believe in a supernatural conspiracy to hide God.

  • Reticent Arc

    A recurring theme in this argument is that governments and scientists are trying to keep this information from us and make us all believe the earth is round but my question is why would they bother? I can’t think of any benefit this might give them. Is “Big Air” trying to keep us all paying for expensive airline tickets? I dont think so. Also if there was a conspiracy by these organisations then how come in all these centuries there hasn’t been a leak or a whistle blower reveal the big con. Never mind all the empirical or mathematically proof that the earth the arguments for flat earth simply make no sense. It is the same with nearly all conspiracy theories, dubious science and misinterpretation with a pinch of paranoia the recipe is always the same, just differing quantities.

  • Kerry Cassedy’s explanation of rational flat earth proof is like that guy that Damon Waynans played, the one that was in prison on the show In Living Color. We see the camera pan back showing him in his cell spewing a bunch of big words mixed with nonsensical words in a torrent of unintelligable rhetoric, all in the effort to sound “intelligent.” Like the man said, “The mind is a terrible thing.”- ?.

  • Ofelas

    Mm. This is the stupidest conspiracy theory ever concocted.

    1) The horizon exists. When you’re at the beach, point a telescope or binoculars at the horizon along the ocean. You’ll notice the horizon *ends*. You don’t see for hundreds of miles, you only see for about 15.

    2) The Coriolis Effect exists. If you don’t believe it exists, then talk to someone in Australia about which way their toilet water spins when they flush.

    3) The phases of the moon exist. Also, the phases are different in the northern vs. southern hemisphere. Ask someone in Australia or Argentina or South Africa if you don’t believe this.

    What I really don’t understand is why the idea that the world is flat would be so psychologically satisfying to anyone. Is the hope that there are more continents to be discovered out beyond the barrier of ice? Is that it?

  • Craig Packer

    I don’t believe the curvature of the earth is visible in the horizontal plane. This is due to the characteristics of any sphere – where an observer, at low altitude on the surface of the sphere, will witness a horizon of equal distance, through 360? of view. When we consider that the radius of the earths sphere is 6731km and that 100,000 ft elevation is about 27.5km, it is completely reasonably to reach the conclusion that you need to reach incredible heights before you can “see” curvature. (On a 1m radius sphere, 100,000ft is represented by about 4mm.)
    Therefore, with the combination of the scale, and the mathematics of ‘horizon line’ (circle) on a sphere, there should be no reasonable expectation to witness curvature from the surface, or even at quite a distance above it. The lack of visible curvature is no logical indicator of a flat earth.

  • Craig Packer

    try again. Make sure you understand what you are seeing, and make sure that you are watching a ship sailing ‘away’ or ‘towards’ you, and not ‘along’ the horizon.

  • Craig Packer

    The most interesting thing about flat earthers is their conviction of being right about an idea or model which is completely impossible and can not possibly work, based on a massive set of common daily observations which contradict the idea.

    They seem to lack the basic thinking skills and the ability to connect basic building blocks, similar to the way that a baby struggles to connect two pieces of Lego. Strangely, the flat earther never learns to connect the pieces of Lego, and suggests that people who know how to put Lego blocks together have been indocterinated as if they are drones, and what’s more they are ungracious and rude when it comes to addressing more successful Lego users.

    This is a really bizarre state of mind and I would really like to learn more about what causes it.

  • bigzac

    You are confusing how a telescope seems to work vs the actual way it works. Telescopes do not “magnify” the OBJECT that you are seeing, they magnify the LIGHT that is traveling a specific path. There is no “seeing further” when it comes to telescopes, only “seeing things that are small when far away”. IF the ship is visible on a telescope, it is visible to the naked eye (but simply too small too see). IF the ship has sailed beyond the horizon, it will not be visible with a telescope or the naked eye.

  • This flat-word and geocentric theory is interesting. Of course I was like, Um… noooo… But the flight patterns and covert operations in Antarctica seem to life my eyebrow the most. The constant look of the constellation was promising to, but then again on a global universe, it could millions of years to notice change of arrangement. I’m open minded, but in the current model, I do know for a fact that NASA or no one can break the atmospheric barrier with our technology because I do see weightlessness a possibility in a gravity-locked universe the a velocity (acceleration) of light speed. We are safe right now in the physics of our so called prison with the sun’s gravity. Yes, I said sun, not earth, as it’s an illusion of centrifugal force in which the earth spins at the right speed versus the path and speed of it’s orbit. I believe upon night, we push against the earth, as it falls freely to the sun, and by day, the earth pushes upon us as we fall head first toward the sun. I believe in dark energy that may curve between time and space during this orbit which allows us the maintain an average gravitational dependency to the Earth’s surface between 12 am and 12 pm. Also the orbit is not a 2-dimensional but 3 dimensional as we a wobbling plate, allowing anyone walking on earth within the polar points to remain same average G-force, but it’s all sun, and of course a greater gravitation pull repeating same properties on the sun. That said, between the earth and some point PAST the moon the gravity free-fall is felt. No rest for the weary engines. Once we pass the barrier from the earth (and moon) , if it is possible, we would projectile into our own orbit of the sun, now referencing the space and environment as 40,000 MPH. The vessel must have an advance anti-gravity in order to propel and change direction but We should be safe within the new physics (being depended on the sun). Projection from the sun, will be automatically put us dependent on speed of galaxy, dodging solar systems most likely. That is my theory on gravity. Space travel is breaking gravity prisons , anti-gravitation (time curving techniques), and dropping out of WARP is you may, to make distance from A to B. This right here would make a flat Earth with potential worlds outside of the ice walls an easier method of inter-terrestrial exploring.

  • I will bet any one any amount of money that boats NEVER EVER go over ANY curvature- you were taught a lie.

  • Would you like to look at the evidence- no boat EVER goes over the curvature. EVER