Jump to content
  • Sign Up
Sign Up To Remove Ads! | Purchase An Ad Slot!


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies. Want this topic removed from the archive?


Flat Earth Goes Mainstream - Neil deGrasse Tyson Says that Flat Earthers are "harmful to the health ... and the security of our citizenry"

Recommended Posts

In this video, Neil deGrasse Tyson first fires off the DUMBEST responses to the flat earth argument and then says that influential flat earthers are dangerous to democracy and "harmful to the health, the wealth, and the security of our citizenry."  This video alone should cause a reasonable person to think there's something to the flat earth.

See you in a FEMA camp my fellow truth activists!




More mainstream acknowledgment that the Earth may be flat - this time from rapper B.o.B. (never heard him before in my life).  I would call it an Illuminati PSYOP if it wasn't for the fact that there's no visible curvature.






Just because our evil overlords talk about it, doesn't mean that it's not true.  Come on people - time to open your minds to the possibility.

Tila Tequila


"Tila Tequila Brings Up Some Really Valid Points About the Earth Being Flat"

See also: http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/tila-tequila-insists-earth-flat-bizarre-twitter-rant-article-1.2489596

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

A 50-Point Case for the Flat Earth


Like many others, I entered the flat Earth debate because I wanted to debunk this insane theory for the sake of my conspiracy-minded friends.  I was going to save legitimate flat earthers from a seemingly obvious government Psychological Operation (PSYOP) meant to forever discredit "conspiracy theorists" everywhere.  I truly believed that the leading flat earthers were probably government agents who wanted to discredit, by way of guilt by association, anyone who doubted the moon landings, 9-11, Sandy Hook, the Boston Bombing, vaccinations, etc. 

Of course, anyone who even has a modicum of education makes fun of flat earthers.  For example, Obama preached, "We don't have time for a meeting of the Flat Earth Society," (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB9--MF0tx0) and derogatorily referred to Republican candidates as people "who would have been founding members of the Flat Earth Society" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rsz3uLxTwQs).  On the other side, you have "independent" Joe Rogan (a former moon landings skeptic) who loves to make fun of flat earthers "obsessing over nonsense," conservative Alex Jones who referred to the flat Earth theory as "clearly ridiculous" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmOB36NuvDw), and many others.  Only crazy imbeciles would ever consider the arguments of the flat Earth, right?  You can see boats disappear behind a curvature or airplane, right?  Boats would fall off the edge of the Earth, right?  And all of those photos of the Earth, how can anyone doubt NASA? 

That's where I began - to expose once and for all the silliness and supposed PSYOP origins of the flat earth movement.  I continually researched, considered, pondered, and somewhat hoped to uncover the falsehoods of the flat earth movement.  After several weeks and dozens of hours later, it didn't happen; instead, I found many valid arguments in favor of the flat Earth - arguments that were not being answered effectively by mainstream science.  In the end, the evidence supporting the flat Earth was much more compelling and far exceeded the evidence supporting a globe Earth.  As you will see, the evidence in support of a globe Earth is scant, intellectually vacuous, easily refutable, and often based on little more than name calling and "scientific" conformity.  For a quick visual of how the flat Earth model works, please watch this short video from Rob Skiba:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R52_PdZlSq8

I am asking you, as a reasonable thinking person to consider the following 50 arguments in favor of the flat Earth theory.  I fully understand how ridiculous it sounds to you.  Indeed, for someone to say that the Earth is flat sounds so awful that it may even shock you to your core as though someone attacked one of your most cherished beliefs.  But ask yourself, why is it so offensive?  Logically, it shouldn't be offensive at all but society has made it extremely horrible, why?  If I am wrong, and I could be, at the very least you'll gain a much better understanding of how the world works as you logically defend the "official" model.  But don't let years of conditioning since you were a child prevent you from allowing scientific inquiry; true science would always welcome such questions but mainstream "science" has devolved into something similar to strict religious conformity that makes no allowance for independent thought or questioning. 

I have no stake in this debate other than the truth.  Being very new in very recent history, the flat Earth theory doesn't have an answer for every question but if we all work together we may be able to create a true model of the Earth.  If I am wrong, and I could be, then I would appreciate well-reasoned counter arguments instead of irrelevant Wikipedia talking points or just pathetic name-calling.  There isn't a legitimate flat earther out there who wouldn't welcome being proven wrong because the implications of control and widespread ignorance are so frightening.  As for me, I believe it is more likely than not that we live on a flat Earth and so I now refer to myself as a flat earther.  If you can, please prove me wrong and pull me out of this rabbit hole.

"He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him."

- Proverbs 18:13

Watch this engineer struggle with many valid questions raised by the flat Earth movement:

Exhibit 1 - No Visible Curvature

The fact that the curvature has not been witnessed by anyone but NASA and other space agencies is one of the strongest pieces of evidence in support of the flat Earth and it has not been debunked by anyone.  You can test this evidence yourself with an ultra-zoom digital camera which makes this evidence very dangerous to the official story.  What astounds nearly everyone is how much curvature there is based on the "official" dimensions of the alleged globe Earth and how this curvature should be easily detectable not only by instruments but also by just everyday life.  Furthermore, no one ever taught this to you at school or college, why?  For example, did you witness a curve of 755 miles (or 3,985,350 feet) when you took that flight or drove from Los Angeles to New York (distance of 2,445 miles)?  Did you witness a curve of 6,666 feet when you recently drove just 100 miles or did the world seem flat to you (excluding mountains, hills, valleys, etc.)?  Here's a video of a letter written from a truck driver that describes his experience and belief that he has never seen a curvature of 750+ miles between Los Angeles and New York:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtDmivPPLQY.  The telescopic measurements reach the same conclusion - there's absolutely no detectable spherical Earth curvature.

If you're new to the flat Earth and are still skeptical (and you should be), you may argue that you have seen boats disappear over the curvature or that you saw the curvature from an airplane.  However, these common knee-jerk responses you heard in school are provably wrong.  First, you can bring the boats, hull and all, back into view with a powerful telescope.  The boats are disappearing behind the atmosphere, not a curvature and the video proof is compelling.  For example, here's a cargo ship, only visible by a telescope, that should have disappeared behind the curvature long ago but instead became obscured behind the atmosphere:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awCx5ob04ZY.  The fact that boats disappear behind the atmosphere also explains why objects cannot be viewed across extreme distances on a flat Earth with a powerful telescope.  In short, many objects that should be hidden sometimes behind thousands of feet of curvature are clearly visible with an ultra-zoom camera and the official excuses of refraction and looming are insufficient explanations. 

Second, in addition to there being no measurable curvature at the ground, there is no curvature at an altitude of 130,000 feet as proven via video of weather balloons and others.  For example, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQITXbcz2hg (121,000 feet).  Thus, you did not see a curvature in an airplane at 30,000 feet and very likely witnessed an optical illusion caused by a curved window.  What about all of those photos and videos showing a curvature of the Earth from parachutists, airplanes, weather balloons, etc.?  All of those photos and videos of the supposed Earth's curvature were filmed with fish-eye or wide-angle lenses, like the GoPro, which created a false curvature effect.  This isn't a theory because you can easily witness the distortion as the alleged curvature alters between convex and concave during the Felix Baumgartner jump or any other GoPro footage.

How do you calculate the curvature the Earth?  The distance below the curvature (how much of the object should be hidden behind the Earth) is calculated by squaring the distance to the object in miles and multiplying the answer by 8 inches: "To find the curvature in any number of miles not given in the table, simply square the number, multiply that by 8, and divide by 12."  Remember, this is trigonometric math based on the "official" globe model dimensions.  As shown below, after the first few miles, the curvature becomes so great that there should be no difficulty in detecting it.  This can be tested on land as well as you can see mountains in the far distance that should be substantially below the curvature but never are (as seen in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPgYTP7tf74).

Curvature Table

Miles Away                                    Math                                                  = Drop

1                                                     1 x 1 x 8                                              = 8 Inches

2                                                     2 x 2 x 8                                              = 32 Inches

3                                                     3 x 3 x 8 / 12                                       = 6 Feet

4                                                     4 x 4 x 8 / 12                                       = 10 Feet

5                                                     5 x 5 x 8 / 12                                       = 16 Feet

6                                                     6 x 6 x 8 / 12                                       = 24 Feet

7                                                     7 x 7 x 8 / 12                                       = 32 Feet

8                                                     8 x 8 x 8 / 12                                       = 42 Feet

9                                                     9 x 9 x 8 / 12                                       = 54 Feet

10                                                   10 x 10 x 8 / 12                                   = 66 Feet

20                                                   20 x 20 x 8 / 12                                   = 266 Feet

40                                                   40 x 40 x 8 / 12                                   = 1,066 Feet

60                                                   60 x 60 x 8 / 12                                   = 2,400 Feet

80                                                   80 x 80 x 8 / 12                                   = 4,266 Feet

100                                                 100 x 100 x 8 / 12                               = 6,666 Feet

120                                                 120 x 120 x 8 / 12                               = 9,600 Feet

Curvature calculator:   https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/

From islands, buildings, mountains, to lighthouses, there are many examples of objects that should be below the curvature from the observer's point of view. 

In the following video, Oahu is visible from Kauai - approximately 100 miles away.  Based on the spherical model, 4,559 feet of Oahu should be hidden below the curvature.  The highest point on Oahu is 4,003 feet but the whole island is clearly visible in the photograph.

Beginning at 10:16, Jeranism provides a few examples of how boats do not disappear behind the curvature.

Here's amazing footage of different islands off the coast of Wellington Harbor in New Zealand.  Many of the islands should be ENTIRELY below the curvature but aren't.

In the next video, a weatherman accounts for a photograph of the Chicago Skyline from Michigan as a "Mirage."  Ridiculous!

Footage from Felix Baumgartner and two different weather balloons (very high) that show a flat horizon.  

Rob Skiba shows that there is no curvature at even 130,000 feet.

Many examples of objects that are visible but should be far below the purported curvature. 

Start at 8:36 to see other examples of objects that should be below the curvature.

The following video was created to DEBUNK the flat Earth; instead, Reds Rhetoric again proved that ships disappear behind the atmosphere, not a curvature (watch at 2:40 to see the sail disappearing behind the atmosphere). 

At 12 miles out, the ship in the next video should have disappeared behind the horizon but it is still visible.  Waves do begin obscuring the bottom portion of the boat as it get further away (the waves closer to the photographer become bigger in relation to the size of the boat) but the entire boat should have disappeared.

Felix Baumgartner's jump at supposedly 128,000 feet.  The flat horizon is seen right at the beginning of the video (taken from inside the capsule).

More footage of Felix Baumgartner's jump with clear indication (at 3:55) that the video was taken with a fish-eye lens (the horizon bends from concave to convex).

Here's a video from the Air Force that shows a flat horizon at supposedly 317,000 feet.  I don't believe it went that high but the claim and the footage is extraordinary.

Under the globe model, radio towers, which operate under direct lines of sight, would have to impossibly transmit through hundreds of feet of Earth (watch at 9:56).

Exhibit 2 - No Photos of Earth from Space

Did you know that NASA admits that all of the photographs from 1972 to 2012 were faked to meet "people's expectations"?

All of us have seen dozens of photographs of the Earth from space, right?  Unfortunately, each of those "official" photographs is provably false.  The photographs were made by CGI, paintings, and composite photographs - nothing more.  NASA has even admitted that nearly all of its photographs of the Earth were fake and based on "people's expectations."  Again, this was shocking to me - I thought there were hundreds of legitimate photographs of the Earth, but there aren't and the ones that are "official" have unmistakable errors (e.g., repeating cloud patterns, changing land mass sizes, clouds that span the entire diameter of the Earth, the word "SEX" spelled out by the clouds, etc.).  

The most famous photograph of the Earth ("The Blue Marble") was allegedly taken in 1972 by Apollo 17 during the obviously faked moon landings and so that photograph must also be fake.  All of the remaining pictures are admitted paintings and artist CGI renditions.  In addition, many alleged time-lapse videos of the Earth's rotation have failed to show morphing clouds as the Earth rotated, an unequivocal impossibility.  However, CGI is getting better and morphing clouds have been recently included by an alleged Japanese satellite but the video still seems to have distinct errors and may be nothing more than weather radar superimposed on a spherical picture of the Earth.  Also, if NASA and other space agencies lied continually for the past 50 years, why should we now believe them?  

In the following video and article, NASA's Robert Simmon (aka Mr. Blue Marble) admitted in 2012 that NASA's photographs of the whole Earth from space (from 1972 to 2012) were fake and based on "people's expectations":

"Then we wrapped the flat map around a ball.  My part was integrating the surface, clouds, and oceans to match people's expectations of how Earth looks from space.  That ball became the famous Blue Marble."

- NASA's Robert Simmon, http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/about/people/RSimmon.html

This isn't a conspiracy theory - NASA admitted on its own website that it FAKED its photographs of the Earth to match your mistaken beliefs.  That is how propaganda works, NOT science.

If you really want to know what utter nonsense NASA tries to pass as real footage, watch the recent alleged video of the moon crossing the Earth.  According to NASA:  "This animation features actual satellite images of the far side of the moon, illuminated by the sun, as it crosses between the DSCOVR spacecraft's Earth Polychromatic Imaging Camera (EPIC) and telescope, and the Earth - one million miles away."  Try not to laugh because this "real" satellite footage is painfully fake. 

On Apollo 11, the crew, which was supposed to be approaching the Moon, clearly attempted to fake a picture of the Earth (with a cloud that spans the entire diameter of the Earth) by using the circular window of their high-flying craft just above the Earth to frame a circular Earth.  If Apollo 11 faked this and man did not go to the Moon (as proven by many points of evidence), why would you believe the Apollo 17 "The Blue Marble" photograph is real?

For many examples of the fake photos of the Earth, begin watching at 11:40. 

One hyper-realist artist, Mathew Boylan (aka Math Powerland), has come forward and convincingly said that he was a freelance hyper-realist artist for NASA and painted "photos" of distant planets, etc. that were used by NASA as "real" photographs and that the cartoon blue of the oceans of the Earth is an impossibility.  This only confirms NASA's admission above that the photographs were faked.  In addition, Boylan claimed that upper-level NASA employees told him at a party that the Earth was flat.  Here's Mathew Boylan's interview as a NASA insider followed by a subsequent comedy routine. 

NASA admits that the "real" photos of Earth are just composites. 

NASA's recent "real" photo of the Earth includes the word "SEX" in the clouds (watch at 0:50).

More fake photos of the Earth (watch at 11:45).

Exhibit 3 - Water Seeks Its Own Level

The natural physics of water is to be level; even a small child can prove the same.  However, mainstream science wants you to believe that an invisible force, which cannot be replicated, detected, or proven in a lab, is responsible for bending oceans, lakes, and rivers and has created uniform spherical bulges in water measuring thousands of miles deep.  When I first heard about the flat Earth, I assumed that gravity was well-proven in a lab since science says that gravity constitutes the driving force behind the formation of the universe.  I was shocked to find out that gravity has never been proven and remains an unsubstantiated theory.  Gravity is a farce that was created ex nihilo to only explain why we're not flung from a ball spinning at 1,000 mph.  Gravity, as commonly understood, simply doesn't exist and you can try an experiment yourself.  Stand next to a large mountain or cliff and dangle a rock from a string.  Does the rock move horizontally towards the mountain even if you place it millimeters away from the face of the cliff?  Nope, the rock only dangles perpendicularly towards the ground and has zero attraction towards that mountain.

In the next video, Yoda, among other good arguments, points out that water on a sphere is impossible (start at 2:23).

Here, Know the Truth shows how water in a lake forms a level plane and has no curvature.

According to Eric Dubay's "200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball" (http://www.mediafire.com/view/l679prcg097ny8u/200_Proofs_Earth_is_Not_a_Spinning_Ball%21.pdf):  "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 .... One portion of the Nile River flows for a thousand miles with a fall of only one foot. Parts of the West African Congo, according to the supposed inclination and movement of the ball-Earth, would be sometimes running uphill and sometimes down. This would also be the case for the Parana, Paraguay and other long rivers."

"The surface of all water, when not agitated by natural causes, such as winds, tides, earthquakes, etc., is perfectly level.  The sense of sight proves this to every unprejudiced and reasonable mind.  Can any so-called scientist, who teaches that the earth is a whirling globe, take a heap of liquid water, whirl it round, and so make rotundity?  He cannot.  Therefore it is utterly impossible to prove that an ocean is a whirling rotund section of a globular earth, rushing through 'space' at the lying-given-rate of false philosophers." - William Thomas Wiseman, "The Earth An Irregular Plane."

Exhibit 4 - Airline and Submarine Pilots Do Not Account for Curvature

If the Earth was a sphere, airplane pilots would have to constantly correct their altitudes by dipping their nose downward to account for the curvature of the Earth.  At a normal cruising speed of 500 mph, a commercial airplane pilot would would have to repeatedly dip the nose of the plane downwards and descend 2,777 feet every minute or the plane would quickly fly into space.  Airplane pilots never perform this action.  Gravity doesn't solve this problem because gravity could supposedly pull the entire plane down but could not pull the nose downward more than the rest of the plane. So, even if gravity could somehow keep the plane at the same altitude around a spinning ball, the nose of the plane would eventually be pointing towards space.  Again, this can be tested yourself - get on a small airplane and level it out in the air and pay no attention to the horizon as you just maintain that exact same angle.  After about 45 minutes, if the spherical model is correct you should have to make a correction of nearly 6,000 feet to return to the same altitude; instead you will remain perfectly level with the ground.  Submarine captains say the same thing - they make the submarine level and maintain that angle for hundreds if not thousands of miles and never accidentally launch out of the ocean due to a failure to consider curvature. 

This next video is popular on YouTube and details an airline pilot's experience with seeing objects that should be well beyond the curvature and other facts supporting a flat Earth (start at 4:29 to skip the boring introduction). 

Here, a flight instructor confirmed that he flies over a flat Earth (the interview starts at 11:40; at 31:00 the pilot says that even flying distances of up to 300 miles that nothing changes with respect to an alleged curvature).

An experienced retired NAVY submarine Chief confirmed that no curvature is taken into account as he helps pilot submarines over hundreds of miles at flat levels below the ocean (at 10:45, the submarine Chief confirmed the same via an introductory letter; the interview starts roughly at 11:15).

Exhibit 5 - Artillerymen, Naval Gunners, Railroad and Industrial Engineers, Surveyors, et al. Do Not Account for Curvature

But it doesn't end with airplane pilots and submarine captains.  Naval gunners and artillerymen do not account for curvature.  Missiles make no adjustment for curvature.  Targeting lasers "light up" targets that should be thousands of feet below the curvature as calculated under the spherical model.  What about surveyors, railroad, and other industrial engineers?  Again, no curvature is ever taken into consideration (except in textbooks) as actual plans do not account for curvature over even hundreds of miles.  For example, in order for the Australian train racks to span across the entire continent, the curvature between the two edges would be approximately 750 miles high - and yet the railroad engineers don't account for a curvature of 750 miles.  Also, large canals like the Suez and Panama Canals were constructed with no adjustments for curvature.  These facts are simply impossible on a spherical Earth.

Naval Missile Instructor - No Curvature.

U.S. Army Artillery Operator - No Curvature.

Industrial Valve Expert - No Curvature.

Exhibit 6 - The Cover-Up

NASA and other official groups do their best to fake a curvature even when there clearly isn't one.  The first video below shows that this deception is intentional as they took video from a weather balloon showing a flat horizon and artificially (with software) bent the photographs to make the Earth appear spherical.  The Felix Baumgartner jump is another example (videos earlier in Exhibit #1).  The one picture of Felix taken from inside the capsule as the door is opened shows a flat horizon but the actual jump photos and video were made with wide-angle lenses which are evident from the distortion of the curvature as the horizon line alternates between concave and convex.  If you still believe that the video shows the curvature of the Earth, then you have to ask where the oceans disappeared to because all of you can see is land under Felix Baumgartner.  In addition, NASA provides photos like The Blue Marble showing the Earth as a perfect sphere.  However, so-called scientists now tell us that Earth is an oblate spheroid.  Therefore, even big science can't make up their minds as to what the shape the Earth is.    

In the next video, the editors purposely changed a flat horizon into a curved horizon to fit the spherical model. 

Here's another example of using a fish-eye GoPro camera to produce a deceptive spherical Earth.  The distortions are clear but the curved picture of the Earth was still advertised on mainstream websites everywhere.

Rob Skiba again shows that there is no curvature at even 130,000 feet but also points out how often fish-eye lenses are used to fake the curvature.

Exhibit 7 - The Vacuum of Space Against the Atmosphere

According to the official model, the vacuum of space surrounds our atmosphere and yet our atmosphere isn't sucked out into this enormous vacuum.  What holds the atmosphere in place?  Supposedly, gravity is the answer but our common sense says that gravity generated by the mass far below, which should have very little effect on the low-mass atmosphere, could not counteract the more powerful force resulting from the immeasurably immense vacuum of space.  One must also ask why the Moon's claimed gravitational pull has no effect on the Earth's atmosphere but still causes the tides.  Global theorists counter that the mass of the atmosphere is so little that the Moon wouldn't have an effect on it; but if that's the case, how does the gravitational pull of the Earth counteract the powerful vacuum of space if gravity has so little effect?  Nature abhors a vacuum (horror vacui) and any pressure seeks to equalize with its surroundings and mainstream science has no good explanation of how our atmosphere parallel to a very large vacuum is maintained.

The following video discusses the above argument and makes some other excellent points. 

DITRH presents proof that a vacuum is much more powerful versus gravity.

Exhibit 8 - Fluid Dynamics vs. the Atmosphere Wheel

According to the spherical model, the entire atmosphere moves synchronously, like a solid wheel, with the ground that is spinning at approximately 1,000 mph.  This is pure nonsense!  First, imagine a model of the globe Earth being placed in a swimming pool and begins spinning at speeds over 1,000 mph.  Empirical experience tells you that the water would quickly begin spinning around the sphere as well.  However, the speed of the water would NEVER be synchronous (like a wheel) with the spin of the ball.  Now imagine that you're looking down at the spinning ball in the swimming pool.  The water closer to the ball would move much faster than the water further away and the water would form a spiral like a whirlpool around the ball as the ball spins in the pool; you would NEVER see the water spin like a wheel connected to the ball like spokes connected to an axle of a bicycle.  This whirlpool motion is fluid dynamics and if the spinning sphere model was correct, our atmosphere would most certainly behave like a whirlpool but doesn't.  In fact, we see ZERO evidence of the fluid whirlpool dynamics of a spinning atmosphere. 

Second, because the mass of the atmosphere (already very low) substantially decreases as you get higher in elevation, the increasingly lower mass atmosphere (the higher you go up) would necessarily be impacted less by the claimed gravitational pull of the Earth and so the atmosphere could not move synchronously with the ground.  Among other problems, this raises the skydiver problem.  High-altitude skydivers should end up hundreds of miles away from their targets but always fall where they started (excluding weather patterns).  Watch the following video from My Perspective:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kUNqH0smC8.  Similarly, excluding wind and other weather, volcanic eruptions always shoot straight up into the air; however, logic says that if the Earth was spinning, the top of the plume should be well pointed away from the rotation of the Earth if the Earth was indeed spinning at 1,000 mph. 

Third, if the ground was spinning at 1,000 mph, the top of the atmosphere would have to be moving at a ridiculous speed of roughly 10,000 mph (the ISS supposedly travels at 17,000 mph) to keep up with the Earth far below - it would be very difficult to re-enter Earth's atmosphere from space.  In short, the wheel-like or synchronous theory of the atmosphere makes no sense and violates the testable and empirical principles of fluid dynamics. 

Watch the plumes of these volcanic eruptions and try to explain to yourself how these plumes rise straight up into the air over the ground that is supposedly spinning at 1,000 mph.

Exhibit 9 - No Worldwide Change of Stars When the Earth is at Opposite Sides of the Solar System

Under the sanctioned model, the Earth revolves around the Sun and is at opposite sides of the Sun every 6 months.  Now, imagine or sketch a picture of the Earth on the left of the Sun and a second Earth (6 months later) on the right side of the Sun.  For both Earths, the daylight of the Earth will always be pointed towards the Sun in the center.  For the Earth on the left side of the Sun, daylight will always be on the right side.  For the Earth on the right side of the Sun, daylight will be on the left side now blocking the view of the the stars that were previously visible on the Earth on the left side.  Therefore, nighttime on the Earth will point in opposite directions away from the Sun every 6 months.  Accordingly, the Earth should have a nearly new set of stars every 6 months.  To be clear, although the stars do shift between the northern and southern hemispheres, the stars remain constant for the entire Earth.  Meaning, on any given night, you could traverse the Earth from the northern to the southern hemisphere and you would pretty much see every star and constellation out there.  This should be impossible under the heliocentric model.  Because the Earth is necessarily facing an entirely different nighttime sky every 6 months under the globe model, the stars should almost be entirely different - they're not.  This proves that the Earth does not move and so the entire heliocentric model of the solar system is wrong. 

Exhibit 10 - No Change of Weight From the Equator to the North Pole

We are told that gravity keeps us from being flung from the Earth as it rotates at nearly 1,000 mph. However, the speed of the Earth's rotation is admittedly much less at the poles than at the equator.  There's no question here - the speed of rotation must be less at the poles since the ground at the poles does not traverse as much distance than the ground at the equator every day.  Because you're moving much faster at the equator, you need more gravity to keep you from being flung from the Earth to offset the centripetal force.  Because you're moving much slower at the poles, you should need much less gravity to keep you from being flung from the Earth.  Accordingly, gravity would have to be stronger at the equator (to keep you from flying into space) and a weight should weigh many times more at the North Pole (where no centripetal force is causing you to be flung from the Earth but only the force pulling you towards the ground remains) than it would at the equator; or, someone who was at the north pole would be able to jump up like he's on the Moon should he travel to the equator.  But there here is no change in weight.  In addition, no one has ever felt or measured the ten fold change in the centripetal force caused by the spin versus the pull from gravity as they traverse the alleged globe. 

Exhibit 11 - Weather Patterns and Jet Streams Fit Perfectly on a Flat Earth

Have you ever noticed that the jet streams and weather patterns plotted on a globe or a recognized map make absolutely no sense.  Take those same jet streams and weather patterns and place them on a flat Earth map and see what happens.  Ocean currents and temperature patterns form concentric circles that fit perfectly where the Sun and Moon make their spiral rotations around the flat Earth. Moreover, because the Sun and Moon are plowing through the atmosphere (flat Earth model) approximately at the equator circle, it make sense as to why storms often spin in opposing directions in the northern and southern hemispheres.

Watch at 1:02.

Exhibit 12 - International Space Station (ISS) Fakery

Multi-layered CGI is making NASA fakery much better but big mistakes are still being made with the footage on the ISS.  Permed hair that does not flow like it should in zero gravity, bubbles on space walks, lighting mistakes, obvious use of harnesses, impossible rotations of cameras, astronauts almost drowning in space, etc.  These BIG mistakes point to the obvious - if NASA, et al. are faking any of it - then they are probably faking all of it despite the theatrical effects.

According to the heading of the next video:  "The International Space Station, just like everything else brought to us by NASA, is a Freemasonic hoax, a complete fabrication done with special effects, models, pools, zero G planes, and various camera tricks. The following video exposes key points of evidence for the hoax and breaks down exactly how the illusion is created and maintained."  The harness at 1:50 is classic! 

With clips from the movie Gravity, you can see that multi-layered CGI can make anything look real and allows for minutes of prolonged fakery on the ISS, which is becoming more common.  Watch at the beginning and at 4:43 for how Sandra Bullock appears to be floating through the ISS.  Our space agencies may have other CGI methods as well to create prolonged "weightless" movement on the ISS.

Here's an article describing the incident where the astronaut almost drowned while on a alleged space walk at the ISS.  Common sense says that the astronaut almost drowned in NASA's admitted giant spacewalk testing swimming pool.

No reasonable person should believe NASA and in the ISS after watching this HUGE mistake of the wandering and wobbling moon which was supposedly filmed on the ISS.  Again, if they obviously faked this footage, why should we believe any of it?  Why would any footage be fake if the ISS was real?

Jeranism points out some obvious lighting and directional mistakes of the ISS (to skip the introduction, start at 1:50).

Another video from Jeranism.  Begin at 18:57.  In addition to lighting mistakes, the movement of the camera with the background is simply impossible at 19:35.

Watch at 3:33 where we get very conflicting reports from different astronauts ("the sky is almost white with the light of the universe with the uncountable number of stars" vs. "I don't remember seeing any [stars]").

So what are people seeing when they look at the ISS through a telescope?  Yoda speculates that it's a hologram (start at 5:37).  Others argue that the it's a balloon in the upper circular jet stream or a U-2 spy plane (NASA has one - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fqrGzML1BA, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLsHVKgndrA) with extra attachments or projection technology.  Maybe it's a combination of methods?

Exhibit 13 - The Space Shuttle Hoax

Was the Space Shuttle an advanced space craft that could enter low-Earth orbit or a combination of a model (which was ditched off into the ocean at launch) and a peculiar looking jet that was used only at landing and incapable of even low-Earth orbit?  There is substantial evidence of Space Shuttle fakery including one video where the Space Shuttle disappears at launch.  Was the Challenger Disaster a real event or a hoax?  It seems as though the Challenger Disaster astronauts are still very much alive; some with even the same name.  Have you ever asked yourself why every schoolchild was required to be tuned in at the time of the Challenger Disaster - a bit coincidental don't you think?  Supposedly, the Space Shuttle acts as a glider when it falls from space.  It certainly doesn't look like a glider and the videos below seem to indicate that the Space Shuttle had jet engines that don't seem to come from any escort jet.  Once you do the research, it becomes pretty evident that the Space Shuttle, along with the continuing ISS scam, was only a repeated hoax bought and paid for by the American taxpayer.

Dmurphy25 asks some very poignant questions especially whether the Space Shuttle really is a glider during its descent as claimed by NASA.

Clear sound from the Space Shuttle's jet engines.

More problems of the Space Shuttle and more proof that the Space Shuttle is not a glider but a jet pretending to be a glider with escort jets.

Is the Space Shuttle Challenger crew still alive?  This compelling video says that the crew is still alive and many received comfortable teaching jobs in exchange for their deceptive efforts.

Jungle Surfer makes some very valid points regarding the silliness of the Space Shuttle as it sits on a flimsy structure on takeoff.

Laughable footage of the Space Shuttle with a man's head accidentally next to the small model.  Again, if they faked this one, then they probably faked all of it.

The Space Shuttle with a support beam.

The disappearing Space Shuttle (watch at 6:53).

In the next video, the Space Shuttle looks like a reinforced balloon or model with a visible tether pulling it up (probably tethered to another jet outside the view of the camera).  Do you really think that this would have worked with a craft with a real weight of 165,000 pounds attached to a Boeing with only those tiny automated rods?  I'm pretty certain that the Boeing, which was not made for carrying weight on top, would have collapsed under the extreme weight of the Space Shuttle. 

Here is a video from Jeranism showing a bunch more ridiculous clips of NASA's repeated fakery involving the Space Shuttle. 

Exhibit 14 - No Complete Shift Between Night and Day When the Earth is on Opposite Sides of the Sun

A mean solar day (the time required for a single rotation of the Earth on its axis with respect to the Sun) is 24 hours.  How many degrees does the Earth rotate in one solar day?  Common sense says that the Earth should rotate 360 degrees.  However, if the Earth rotated 360 degrees per day, every 6 months, night and day would be opposite.  Again, think of the Earth on the left side of the Sun.  Daylight on the Earth would be on the right side, i.e., pointed towards the Sun on the right.  Pick up the Earth in that same position and place it on the right side of the Sun (like the Earth just traveled across the solar system after 6 months).  The daylight side, which was on the right side of the Earth 6 months earlier, would now be pointed away from the Sun and be night, i.e., day and night would have shifted entirely. 

Of course, mainstream science recognized this obvious problem and came up with an answer and a new word for it.  According to the official model, the synodic day is the period during which Earth rotates one time relative to the Sun. This rotation is supposedly slightly more than 360 degrees, because the Earth has to rotate a little extra (beyond a full 360 degrees) in order to reach the starting point relative to the Sun. This is the day we allegedly experience.  Under this model, if the Earth rotates 361 degrees per day, day and night would not switch every 6 months.  In other words, official "science" recognized the above problem and revised the model to make it fit but "science" did not answer why the Earth would maintain a perfect day/night balance and spin 361 degrees per day? 

What are the astronomical odds that the Earth rotates perfectly just to keep day and night from switching as the Earth moves to the other side of the Sun; why would gravity care whether night and day shifted every six months?  Is this how science has worked over the last 500 years, the model becomes unworkable and so "science" contrives preposterous facts to fit the presumed model.  In other words, the presumed but false model controls the facts and not the other way around and so we get "facts" that were only created to maintain a mistaken model.  Official "science" has become nothing more than circular reasoning.  As Joseph Jastrow said, "Create a belief in the theory and the facts will create themselves." 

Exhibit 15 - The Horizon Remains at Eye Level No Matter How High You Go Up

Some have a difficult time grasping this argument but it essentially means that if we lived on a sphere, as you go higher up (e.g., in an airplane), the horizon should get lower from your view and should not remain at a horizontal eye level; you should have to tilt your vision downwards the higher you get.  Why?  Because the Earth would have to necessarily curve downward on a sphere and the downward angle would increase the higher you go up but this doesn't happen.  The horizon always remains flat and at eye level no matter how high you travel up.  A horizon that remains at eye level and flat should be impossible on a ball. 

In the following video, Rob Skiba demonstrates via computer animation what the horizon should do on a flat plane vs. a sphere.

Exhibit 16 - Moonlight is Cold and Uniform

The fact that moonlight is cold does not necessarily prove that the world is flat but it does evince that we aren't being the told about the truth of our reality and a cold moonlight certainly does not meet the "reflecting sunlight" claim of mainstream science.  The experiments have been repeated across our flat Earth (there are a dozen videos) and it's becoming a near 100% proven fact that moonlight is a strange cold light.  Also, there is no hot spot on the moon. Take a globe and shine a light on it and the side closest to the light will be brighter than the other parts of the globe. However, the moon's light, where it is lit, is uniform. 

Exhibit 17 - Admiral Byrd

Admiral Byrd (1888-1957) was a well-respected naval officer, aviator, and explorer.  In the video below, Admiral Byrd discussed an astonishing discovery on the "other side" of the South Pole in Antarctica - an unexplored and the "most valuable" land mass greater in size than the United States with plentiful resources, especially coal.  Admiral Byrd's testimony certainly does not fit the globe model of Antarctica and raises a very possible reason of the deception - i.e., to hide land from the people and keep the people psychologically locked behind make-believe fencing.  Shortly after Admiral Byrd's statements, Antarctica was shut down by treaty to all commercial ventures.  No country has ever tried to challenge the treaty even at the height of the Cold War and its borders remain guarded with warships.  

Rob Skiba discusses Antarctica and the Antarctica Treaty.

 Exhibit 18 - The Lunar Wave

Crrow777 is the discoverer of the Lunar Wave and deserves all of the credit.  The Lunar Wave is a phenomenon that has now been filmed on over a dozen occasions and seemingly proves that the Moon is something different than what we're being told.  It is not a camera artifact and not explainable by mainstream science.  Indeed, the Lunar Wave seems to evince that the Moon may even be hologram but that is only speculation.  As expected, mainstream science has ignored this fascinating discovery.

For the best video example of the Lunar Wave, watch at 8:30.

Exhibit 19 - Tides and the Moon

Our controlled "science" says that the Moon's gravitational pull causes the ocean tides.  How can the Moon move oceans but has no effect on anything else, including large lakes and rivers?  Also, the Moon's position seems to have no logical bearing on where the high tides are located.  You would expect that the tides would clearly follow the Moon if they're being pulled by the gravity from the Moon; however, the tides don't exhibit such a relationship.  Furthermore, the tides simultaneously occur on the opposite side of the alleged globe, i.e., away from the Moon (through some 8,000 miles of ground).  How does official "science" explain this phenomenon?  Officials nonsensically say that the entire ground of the Earth is pulled up by the Moon which causes the ocean water to bulge at the opposite side from the Moon.  Preposterous!  Official "science" discovered another glaring problem with the tides and contrived absolutely silly "facts" - the daily Earth bounce - an immeasurable movement that has never been measured, felt, detected in relation to the stars, or had an impact on the Earth's orbit.  But of course, the Moon's gravity has no effect on the Earth's atmosphere, airplanes, weather balloons, rivers, lakes, the ISS, etc. but can still pull the ocean water even on the opposite side of the Earth by way of the Earth's daily bounce?  Remember that just because official "science" has a ridiculous explanation does not mean that the explanation is genuine. 

For the official story of the daily Earth bounce, watch at 5:34.

In the following article, WaykiWayki discusses many issues with respect to gravity, the tides, and the moon.

Exhibit 20 - Plane Flights Over the Southern Hemisphere

Flight patterns between cities on different continents over the southern hemisphere are VERY strange on a globe model but make perfect sense on a flat Earth.  Non-stop flights between major cities in the southern hemisphere appear to be relatively rare and somewhat difficult to book.  Instead, the vast majority of the flights in the southern hemisphere take inexplicable and very long v-shaped detours to the northern hemisphere.  Also, no GPS tracking is available for these southern hemisphere flights.  Are the very few bookable non-stop flights between southern hemisphere cities even real or do they just end up with a "detour" after the flight is booked?  It's difficult to find out since the GPS is turned off for these flights.  However, it should be noted that there is no agreed model of the flat Earth and so making conclusive determinations from this Exhibit are still problematic.    

Mark Sargent's famous video addressing the planes in the southern hemisphere issue.

StinkyCash addresses the fact that GPS is turned off for flights over the southern hemisphere.

More demonstrations of the fact that non-stop flights over the southern hemisphere between continents are extraordinarily rare (start at 2:04).

Interesting evidence that the non-stop flights between continents in the southern hemisphere are not real.

Exhibit 21 - The Sun is Not 93 Million Miles Away

Time lapse videos, trigonometry, and crepuscular rays prove that the sun cannot be 93 million miles away.  For example, when you're high enough, you can even see that the Sun appears to start at a near point and grows many times bigger as it passes over the camera and then reduces in size as the Sun moves away toward the vanishing point.  This would be impossible if the Sun was 93 million miles away. 

Interestingly, the Sun setting over oceans appears much different than the Sun setting over land.  Over an ocean, the Sun appears bigger and warped and seems to be sliced from the bottom up.  Over land, the Sun shrinks to a point if there are no obstructions (e.g., mountains, hills).   The difference is caused by the fact that the water vapor and haze over the ocean is much thicker and creates a "melting" illusion.  Watch this video from Jamie Newton:

Another terrific time lapse video (this time from an international flight) proving that the Sun is not 93 million miles away.

The whole now 10-part series by Shahzwar Bugti is terrific, but here's footage of a hot spot made by the Sun (Dog Cam footage) which proves that the Sun cannot be 93 million miles away (watch at 3:59).  Globulists say that it's a reflection but it doesn't look like a reflection or act like a reflection as proven in the second video below from P-Brane. 

Here's another time lapse video of the winter Sun in Fairbanks, Alaska that shows a shrinking Sun.

A video shared by DITRH (made by Zeteticism DotCom) that shows how the Sun increases and decreases in size throughout the day - an impossibility if the Sun is 93 million miles away.

Here's a time lapse video of the Sun on a flight provided through StinkyCash.  Clearly, the Sun decreases in size as it moves towards the horizon and the decrease in size has nothing to do with mere degrees of luminosity in the atmosphere.

From MrThriveAndSurvive:  "When the record is checked - there is NO SYMMETRY with advancing light and darkness on the earth. Symmetry is geometry's mandate for a round sphere turning once on its axis in a given period of time. There is no acceleration or deceleration in this 'spin'. When date and time is analyzed for advancing sunrise and sunset, we find huge anomalies that can't be explained other than the sun moving over a flat plane and changing in its apparent height during the day. This opens up the possibility of looking at the flat earth map with some possible modifications, explains why time seems to work with the amount of daylight and darkness no matter how far north or south you are. A chance in the altitude of the sun answers many problems that are present with the globe model and it also totally eliminates any hope for a concave model to work."

Exhibit 23 - The Selenelion (Horizontal Eclipse) Problem

The fact that a horizontal eclipse or selenelion even exists seriously calls into question the origins of lunar eclipses.  A selenelion occurs when there is a lunar eclipse but the Moon and the Sun are both above the horizon.  This is not geometrically possible.  Officially, this is supposedly caused by light refraction.  In other words, mainstream science has no clue and so made up the refraction excuse to explain it away.  Again, as Joseph Jastrow said, "Create a belief in the theory and the facts will create themselves," no matter how unbelievable the supposed facts are.

In the following video, MrThriveAndSurvive demonstrates that a selenelion is impossible under the spherical model.

Exhibit 24 - Airy's Failure

In 1871, G.B. Airy used a telescope filled with water as an intended method to slow the light of stars to confirm the heliocentric model.  Unfortunately for the globulists, Airy's water-filled telescope failed to prove the Copernican model and confirmed geocentricism.  Of course, "official" excuses are out there but the "failed" test results remain.   

Exhibit 25 - The Arctic Nights and Days Problem

Arctic 24-hour nights/days from a Sun 93 million miles away is VERY problematic for the official model and should be impossible.  

The wavelike motion of the Sun over the arctic during the 24-hour daylight period is seemingly also impossible on the spherical model.

Exhibit 26 - Antarctica is a Closed Continent

Touring the depths of Antarctica is generally prohibited by treaty (why no commercial ventures where there are vast mineral deposits). No commercial flights are ever taken across Antarctica.  Non-stop flights over long distances below the equator are almost non-existent.  Independent explorers who have attempted to explore Antarctica have been arrested. 

Exhibit 27 - No Bulging of Oceans at the Equator

According to the official story, the Earth is spinning near 1,000 mph at the equator and slows down to less than 100 mph at the poles.  Gravity supposedly holds all of the water on the Earth which also magically offsets the stronger centripetal force of the Earth's spin.  But even with the gravity excuse, why haven't the oceans noticeably flowed towards the equator where the spin of the Earth is the fastest, creating a giant bulge of ocean water?  Gravity would seemingly have to include the magical abilities of keeping the oceans spherical even where the centripetal force increases ten fold from the poles to the equator.  It's just common sense, water could not be spherically uniform on the Earth because the spin at the equator must be much faster and so water would have to flow towards the equator and away from the poles.  This does not happen.  Also, shouldn't lava under the surface do the same and bulge at the equator over the alleged hundreds of millions of years of creation?  Official "science" now seems to argue that Earth is "pear-shaped" or an "oblate spheroid" but that also seems contradictory when you look at the fake photographs of the Earth from space that always show a perfect sphere. 

Exhibit 28 - Satellites are Fake; the Thermosphere is Too Hot to Support Satellites, ISS, and Hubble

With all of those videos of the Earth from the ISS, have you ever seen the thousands of claimed satellites flying by?  I have never seen one.  The thermosphere reaches temperatures supposedly up to 2,000 degrees Celsius, how is it possible that satellites even exist?  I know, NASA says the satellites are covered in a gold aluminum foil and so they're perfectly fine.  However, until one of those guys at NASA sits inside NASA's large vacuum chamber directly under a blast furnace with only a gold-colored tinfoil blanket as protection to prove that heat of the blast furnace won't transfer to the person, I won't believe it. 

GeoShifter points out many problems associated with the official story of satellites, including the fact that thousands of satellites are high enough to take pictures of the entire Earth and yet none of them do (skip ahead to 1:50), but GeoShifter adds that some satellites could be real over the flat Earth taking advantage of high jet streams.

What about GPS?  Aaron Dover shows that GPS is and always has been land-based and explains why skyscrapers were built in part.

Exhibit 29 - The Earth Does Not Spin; the Round-trip Airplane Model Would Produce Unequal Times on a Sphere Spinning 1,000 mph; Planes Could Not Land on a Spinning Ball at 1,000 mph; the Cannonball Test

A flight from Las Angeles to New York takes the same amount of time as a flight from New York to Los Angeles.  How is this possible on a sphere spinning easterly at 1,000 mph?  Spherical theorists argue that its similar to playing ball in a car but ignore the fact that the car is closed - i.e., does the Earth have a dome that seals it?  This also is similar to the wind problem, how does wind (and storms) flow the opposite direction of a ball that is pulling an atmosphere with it at 1,000 mph?

Many years ago, in order to prove the Earth was flat and stationary, researchers from the International Flat Earth Society launched a series of cannons straight into the air.  Amazingly, all of the cannon balls fell down right next to the cannons and some even ended up back into the same cannon barrels - a repeatable experiment.  Thus, the flat Earthers researchers concluded that the Earth is not spinning at approximately 1,000 mph as all of the balls should have landed to the west.  These cannonballs, being very dense, should have counteracted much of the alleged easterly movement of the atmosphere.

In the next video, TheMorgile discusses the cannonball experiment of the International Flat Earth Society (watch at 15:19).

Exhibit 30 - The Counter-Clockwise Rotating Moon

The time lapse video contained within the video below proves that the moon's counter-clockwise rotation movement does not match the claims of established science.  In fact, at least over the southern hemisphere, the moon rotates approximately 130 degrees over a night.  Again, the facts clearly contradict the "official" story.

Exhibit 31 - The Phases of the Moon Every 6 Months Do Not Evince Movement of the Earth around the Sun

The Moon's phases should be reversed at opposite times of the year because the Earth (and the Moon) is at the opposite side of the solar system while the Sun remains roughly in the middle.  The phases never reverse and always maintain the same 29.5-days cycle.  That's not possible when the Earth supposedly appears on opposite sides of the Sun.

Exhibit 32 - The Diverted Flat Earth Baby Flight and International Shipping Routes

Although this Exhibit builds on the other exhibit discussing southern hemisphere flight patterns, this story most certainly fits the flat Earth model as it pertains to both hemispheres.  In October 2015, a China Airlines flight from Bali to Los Angeles was diverted because a woman prematurely had her baby on the flight.  A fun story but it also proves the flat Earth because the flight was strangely diverted to and made an emergency landing in Anchorage, Alaska.  Get out your globe and you will see that there is no way that Anchorage, Alaska was anywhere near the route of the flight which could have just easily continued its path straight to Los Angeles or landed in Honolulu.  However, on the flat Earth Azimuthal Equidistant Map (the same one that matches the UN flag), Anchorage, Alaska is very near the route. 

Although this needs more research, there are some clear indications that international shipping routes match the flat Earth Azimuthal Equidistant map and make no sense on a globe.  This also matches the diverted baby from Los Angeles to Anchorage described above.

Exhibit 33 - Various Clues:  the Illuminati Card Game and Gleason's 1892 Illuminati "New Standard Map of the Earth"

Most people have seen the creepy prescient Illuminati card game which has cards seemingly predicting the 9-11 attacks and the Boston Bombing and has a card which even correctly indicates that the moon landings were faked in a studio.  Interestingly, the Illuminati card game also has a flat Earth card which says, "People laugh, but the Flat Earthers know something."  As shown herein, the Flat Earthers do seem to "know something" that is being ignored by nearly everyone.

The Gleason's 1892 "New Standard Map of the Earth" includes a pyramid with an Illuminati all-seeing eye under which includes the words, "AS 'IT IS'" and the statement, "SCIENTIFICALLY AND PRACTICALLY CORRECT."  Under the "June Solstice" paragraph at the bottom of the map, it reads:

"In the figures June and December, the white represents the Sun's position in his respective months, at NOON.   This shows sunlight inside the Arctic Circle for 24 hours.  From June 21, the Sun moves around the Tropics in a spiral circle, widening every day, until it reaches its destiny on the southern or outer Solstice, on December 21."

Under the subtitle "December Solstice," the map reads: 

"On December 21, the Sun moves around the Tropic of Capricorn, and during the day lights up the southern portion of the Earth from the Arctic Circle to some portions of Antarctica.  There is no 'sunlight' beyond 80° south but unknown regions of ice.  On the 23rd of December the Sun commences his northward journey again, returning to his starting place, and thus completes his seasons." 

In other words, the Gleason's map presents the flat Earth model.

Exhibit 34 - The Concentration of Sunlight

Building on an earlier exhibit, as shown in time-lapse videos, the sun gradually decreases in size and intensity as it moves further away which would be impossible to notice if the sun was 93 million miles away.

When the Sun sets the sun light does not end on a wide uniform plane; instead the light gradually follows and comes toward and localizes at the setting Sun.  This should be impossible if the Sun is 93 million miles away.  P-Brane's work on this subject is highly commendable.

Exhibit 35 - Eclipses Prove that Mainstream Science is Wrong

In the videos below, MrThriveAndSurvive demonstrates many problems associated with the "official" model of the lunar eclipse.  For example, there is simply no way that the sunsets on Earth cause the Moon to take on a reddish color during a lunar eclipse. 

Exhibit 36 - View of the Moon When it Should Be on the Other Side of the Earth

In the video below, a rocket was launched in northern Nevada up towards space and the footage catches a glimpse of the Moon very far away; however, the Moon should have been on the other side of the Earth, over Australia, at the time of the launch.  Also, the Moon still looks far from the horizon.  It seems from the video that the Sun and Moon are on the same horizontal plane (the Moon is not even close to the horizon) and proves the spherical model is wrong.

Exhibit 37 - No Movement of the North Star

According to the official model, the Earth is currently spinning at 1,042 mph (at the Equator), wobbles, and even bounces daily (from the gravitational pull of the Moon that allegedly causes tides on opposite sides of the Earth).  The Earth is also revolving around the Sun at 66,700 mph.  Simultaneously, the Sun is moving at 447,000 mph (taking the Earth and the solar system with it).  The whole galaxy moves at 373 miles/second while the entire universe continues to expand at some other obscene number resulting from the outward thrust of the Big Bang.  Meaning that the Earth is moving at more than 1,860,000 mph.  The problem?  The North Star has NEVER changed its position in known history.  Cement a narrow tube in your yard pointed at the North Star and the North Star will be in the same spot year after year.  Of course, science says that the North Star is so far away that you wouldn't see any movement but I say hogwash; there is no way that the North Star could remain constant, century after century, as the Earth moves at those speeds while spiraling, wobbling, daily bouncing, and other varying positions. 

In this video, TheMorgile correctly points out that repeating orbital comets would be 100% impossible on a spiraling solar system hurtling through space at over 1,000,000 mph.  

Exhibit 38 - Under the "Official" Globe Model, the Moon Should be Visible Only During Daytime for 13 Consecutive Days Each Month

As stated earlier, the Earth should have a new set of stars every six months due to the position of the Sun and the Earth.  Similarly, the Moon should not be visible for approximately 50% of the month in the nighttime sky as the Moon circles (total time = 27.3 days) between the Sun and the Earth.  In other words, for roughly 13 consecutive days each month, the Moon should not be in the night sky for the entire night (for even a minute) across the entire Earth.  The rotation of the Moon is allegedly almost on the same plane as the Earth in its relation to the Sun (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon).  Accordingly, a 2d model is appropriate in describing this proof.  It is shocking that no one has previously thought of this, especially our "esteemed" astronomers.  You only need to watch the first couple minutes of the following video.

In the following "official model" video describing how the Moon supposedly orbits the Earth, you can clearly see for yourself how the Moon should not appear in the night time sky across the entire alleged globe for a period of approximately 14 consecutive days when the Moon is between the Earth and the Sun. 

Exhibit 39 - Gyroscopes and Gyro Navigation would Not Work on a Spherical Earth

This argument is a bit technical but the videos below argue that gyroscopes and gyro navigation are impossible on a sphere.

In the next video, Rob Durham, using a high-class gyroscope to prove that gyroscopes do not measure curvature and the ability of Foucault's Pendulum to measure the spin of the Earth is fake.

Exhibit 40 - The Coriolis Effect Proves the Flat Earth

Often cited by globe theorists as one of the best pieces of evidence in support of a globe Earth, the Coriolis Effect actually seems to add much more support to the flat Earth and makes no sense on a globe.  Further, if the Earth's atmosphere rotates synchronously and attached by gravity to the ground as claimed by official "science," then the Coriolis Effect should not even exist - it clearly contradicts the globe model. 

Exhibit 41 - The Farce of Gravity

As discussed above, gravity allegedly has the ability to keep us from being flung from a ball spinning at 1,000 mph and gravity can still somehow change its effect on individuals and objects between the poles and the equator where the centripetal forces are up to ten times different in magnitude.  It doesn't end there because the Earth supposedly orbits the Sun at 67,000 mph as the Earth spins at 1,000 mph.  If you are on the side of the Earth facing the path of the Earth's orbit, the ground below you is moving 67,000 mph towards your feet, like jumping on a VERY fast elevator that is going up.  If you are on the opposite side of the Earth facing the backside of the Earth's orbital path, the ground below you is moving away from your feet, like jumping on a VERY fast elevator that is going down.  This change should happen to you every day but no one has ever experienced it.  You would certainly feel these changes on an airplane or a train, but why not on the Earth that is moving much faster?  Gravity cannot explain it.  Furthermore, as the Earth spins, the speed of the Earth will increase as it spins in the direction of the orbital path and will decrease in speed as it spins opposite of the orbital path.  Again, this change should happen every day on the "official" model but you have never felt it.

In the following two videos, My Perspective illustrates these and other examples proving the farce of gravity.

Exhibit 42 - Stars Often Appear through the Dark Side of the Moon During Its Phases

Again, this doesn't necessary prove the Earth is flat but stars are often filmed and photographed through the dark side of the Moon during its phases.  How do stars shine through a supposed shaded rock ball?  It makes no sense under mainstream science and so these facts are only ignored. 

Start at 1:30 and notice how the the two stars on the right of the Moon end up appearing on the dark side of the Moon once they pass the lit side of the Moon.

Exhibit 43 - The Compass Problem

How a compass works on a sphere is problematic.  For example, someone using a compass in South America should have a difficult time finding north.  Why?  Because the magnetic north pole would nearly be straight under foot, i.e., directly towards the ground.  A compass needle aligns itself and points toward the top of Earth's magnetic field, which is now supposedly over far northern Russia.  However, there is no indication that compasses have any more difficulty finding north in Southern Chile, South Africa, or Australia. 

Exhibit 44 - Captain Cook and The Old Explorers of Antarctica

In 1773, Captain Cook became the first modern explorer known to have breached the Antarctic Circle and reached the ice barrier.  During three voyages, lasting three years and eight days, Captain Cook and crew sailed a total of 60,000 miles along the Antarctic coastline never once finding an inlet or path through or beyond the massive ice wall  Captain Cook wrote:  "The ice extended east and west far beyond the reach of our sight, while the southern half of the horizon was illuminated by rays of light which were reflected from the ice to a considerable height.  It was indeed my opinion that this ice extends quite to the pole, or perhaps joins some land to which it has been fixed since creation."

"'Yes, but we can circumnavigate the South easily enough,' is often said by those who don't know, The British Ship Challenger recently completed the circuit of the Southern region - indirectly, to be sure - but she was three years about it, and traversed nearly 69,000 miles - a stretch long enough to have taken her six times round on the globular hypothesis."  - William Carpenter, "100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe."

"During Captain James Clark Ross’s voyages around the Antarctic circumference, he often wrote in his journal perplexed at how they routinely found themselves out of accordance with their charts, stating that they found themselves an average of 12-16 miles outside their reckoning every day, later on further south as much as 29 miles."  Captain Ross also wrote of the Antarctic ice wall as, "extending from its eastern extreme point as far as the eye could discern to the eastward.  It presented an extraordinary appearance, gradually increasing in height, as we got nearer to it, and proving at length to be a perpendicular cliff of ice, between one hundred and fifty feet and two hundred feet about the level of the sea, perfectly flat and level at the top, and without any fissures or promontories on its even seaward face.  We might with equal chance of success try to sail through the cliffs of Dover, as to penetrate such a mass."

Exhibit 45 - No G's for Our Astronauts; Impossible Video Stabilizers on Space Rockets

Compare the G's incurred by a very experienced Blues Angel pilot vs. astronauts.  Are astronauts really experiencing less G's than the Blue Angels pilot when they have to get up to 17,500 mph?  Even at 3 G's, the astronauts would certainly show it in their faces and yet the ride seems rather pleasant to them.  Also, what kind of stabilizer does NASA and these other space agencies use to totally eliminate the powerful vibration of the rockets?  It's more likely that it is only CGI. 

Awesome video of the talented Blue Angels.  Pay attention to the pilot's face as he experiences high G's. 

Skip to 4:27 and watch the Russian astronauts on a very pleasant liftoff into space.

You cannot see their faces well but fast forward to 5:13 and see these astronauts moving at 5,000 mph with no effort whatsoever.

Watch this video from WaykiWayki, which shows the astronaut even writing during the launch.

How did they make such an amazing stabilizer for a camera sitting on the outside of a rocket?  I also have to ask why the rocket isn't spinning like every other rocket (that's not from an official space agency).

Exhibit 46 - The Sun and Moon are the Same Size

Our beloved conformist scientists say that the Sun is 93 million miles away with a diameter of 864,938 miles.  On the other hand, the Moon is 234,000 miles away with a diameter of 2,159 miles.  However, the Sun and Moon just happen to appear as the same size from our perspective on Earth.  What are the nearly impossible odds of this occurring?  Or is it more likely that the Sun and Moon are just about the same size circling over a flat Earth?  Again, the flat Earth model seems to be the better and simpler explanation.  It seems that the distances and diameters of the Moon and Sun were only invented to fit the accepted model.  

Exhibit 47 - The Stars, Venus, and Jupiter Do Not Seem to Be What the Official Story Says They Are

If legitimate, these photographs should be fascinating to everyone but it is largely ignored by mainstream science since these photographs do not fit the "official" story.  It appears as though stars, under a land-based telescope, are something very different than what we're told.  Isn't it interesting how mainstream science does its best to ignore these fascinating subjects, such as cold moonlight, etc. 

In the following video, Ashlee Webster takes a closer look at stars from a telescope and how they show patterns similar to what is created by sound waves.  Some contend that the photographs are only caused by pixilation and refraction, but the non-repeating patterns belie such claims in my opinion.    

Is Venus a rock ball with a toxic atmosphere that is 80% the size of Earth?  The footage of Venus below certainly does not fit the explanation offered by mainstream science. 

Here's a strange video of what is supposed to be Jupiter.  If this is Jupiter than we most certainly have no clue as to what Jupiter is.  These videos should be investigated further to determine their legitimacy.

Exhibit 48 - Because Sound is Independent of the Earth's Alleged Spin, the Doppler Effect Proves a Flat Earth

Because our Earth is supposedly spinning at 1,000 mph (depending on your location), you could not hear thunder (moving at 768 mph) if you were standing on the side facing the rotation of the Earth.  Sound moves independently of the atmosphere.  According to MrThriveAndSurvive:  "Sound is ENERGY and NOT the atmosphere nor does it ever become a PART of the atmosphere. Otherwise lightening would be 1000 MPH FASTER than the CONSTANT going with the earth spin and 1000 MPH slower going the other way with no effect due north and south. The EARTH does not move and getting this concept down is imperative."

Exhibit 49 - The Moon is Not 234,000 Miles

As witnessed by everyone, when the Moon is behind clouds, the Moon does not light up all of the clouds in the sky; instead, the Moon only lights up those clouds surrounding the Moon.  Empirically, the moonlight seems much more local.  Other time lapse measurements prove the same.  Because the moonlight is local, the Moon cannot be 234,000 miles away from the Earth.

Watch at 37:58, as dmurphy25 points out this argument.

How does the Moon move at the same speed as the stars.  My Perspective eloquently addresses this and other questions.

Here's a time lapse video showing how the Moon (like the Sun) shrinks in size as it moves across the sky.

Exhibit 50 - No Sound or Feelings Associated with the Spin of the Earth

According to the official story, the Earth is spinning nearly 1,000 mph at the equator and slows down to less than 100 mph at the poles.  Gravity supposedly holds everyone on the Earth which also magically offsets the stronger centripetal force of the Earth's spin and its orbit at 67,000 mph.  Somehow, you cannot feel these offsetting and drastically changing forces in any manner.  Add on the moon's alleged gravitational pull of the tides (and the Earth's daily bounce) and you have a whole lot of movement, spinning, and pulling.  However, have you ever heard the spin of the Earth or felt it?  Wouldn't there be some sound produced with all of this spinning and pulling?  Logically, there should be some major sounds of a spinning Earth at 1,000 mph and the Earth's orbit at 67,000 mph, and a normal person should at least feel or detect the competing and directional changing motions by either traveling across the globe (where rotations speeds would vary) or in some other manner.  Our senses say that the Earth is not moving in any manner.


If the Earth is flat, as the vast amount of evidence seems to show, then the flat Earth conspiracy amounts to the biggest cover-up and lie ever perpetrated against humanity; a lie that has literally lasted for hundreds of years and must permeate many institutions.  If true, the implications of how much brainwashing and control we're under is absolutely frightening.  But is there any other "fact" that we were programmed to believe more than the shape of the Earth?  Are scientists ever taught to challenge the status quo?  The globe model was pushed on us from the earliest age, why?

For me (others may disagree), the strongest pieces of evidence in support of the flat Earth are the following:

  1. No Curvature.  No measurable curvature even though the curvature should be easily detectable with modern instruments and experienced in everyday life.
  2. No Photographs of the Earth.  Despite the claim that there are thousands of satellites far away enough from the Earth to take a picture of the whole Earth, there are admittedly no legitimate photographs of the Earth; NASA even says that these photographs were created to "match people's expectations."  Is that science or propaganda?  Other evident fakery from space agencies, including the ISS and the Space Shuttle, further supports this argument.
  3. The Sun and Moon are Local.  The Sun is not 93 million miles away (and the Moon is not 234,000 miles away) as proven from various time-lapse videos, decreasing/increasing sizes, light concentration, trigonometry, and other means.
  4. The Professionals.  Pilots, engineers, surveyors, gunners, artillerymen, etc. do not account for curvature in any manner.
  5. The Non-Spinning Atmosphere.  The atmosphere evinces no properties of spin as required by fluid dynamics.  The purported 1,000 mph spin of the Earth at the equator should have a tremendous impact on flights, water, volcanic eruptions, skydivers, wind, etc., but there's no evidence of such a spin.   
  6. No Centripetal Force.  Even though the centripetal force increases ten fold from the arctic (e.g., Northern Canada) to the equator (from 100 mph to more than 1,000 mph), weight does not change and the radical centripetal force change has no physical effect on an individual.  Also, the Earth supposedly orbits the Sun at 67,000 mph as the Earth spins at 1,000 mph.  On one side of the Earth, the ground would be moving 67,000 mph towards your feet.  On the other side of the Earth, the ground below you would be moving away from your feet at 67,000 mph.  This daily and drastic change should be felt or measured daily and gravity cannot account for it.
  7. The Explanation of Daylight is Not Workable on the Globe Model.  Based on the "official" globe model where daylight should be located between the Earth and the Sun, there should be a global change of stars every six months and the Moon should be only in the daytime sky for approximately 13 consecutive days each month as the Moon passes between the Sun and the Earth.  Because this doesn't happen, the globe model must be false.    
  8. Same-Sized Sun and Moon.  Despite the purported extreme differences in distance and size, the Sun and Moon are the same size from our perspective - a statistical impossibility.
  9. Properties of Water.  The level properties of water and no bulging of the oceans at the equator despite the spin demonstrate that Earth is not a spinning a ball. 
  10. The Impossible Moon.  In the video of an amateur rocket launch, the Moon appears very small but well above the horizon when it should be on the other side of the Earth proving that the Moon and Sun circle above a flat surface.
  11. The Vacuum.  There's no way that our atmosphere supposedly parallels an enormous vacuum.  The vacuum of space would overpower any hold that gravity would have over the low-mass atmosphere. 
  12. The North Star.  The "official" globe model says that the Earth is currently spinning at 1,042 mph, wobbling, bouncing daily, and revolving around the Sun at 66,700 mph; the Sun (taking the Earth with it) is moving at 447,000 mph; the whole galaxy is moving at 373 miles/second; and, the entire universe continues to expand from the Big Bang.  Meaning that the Earth is moving in various direction at more than 1,860,000 mph.  The problem?  The North Star has NEVER changed its position in known history and that certainly belies common sense.  

Why the deception? 

This is only speculation but I think there may be a few reasons:

  1. To hide land and resources; to keep the human cattle within their imaginary fences (like The Truman Show).
  2. To hide God.
  3. To control our minds; a psychological matrix, i.e., to make us believe that 2+2=5.  If our evil overlords can convince us to ignore our own experience and blindly trust the illogical "official" story, then we can be controlled to do and accept anything.  

In the book 1984, George Orwell presciently wrote the following (pertinent excerpt below: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Authors/Part_Three_1984.html):

O'Brien silenced him by a movement of the hand. "We control matter because we control the mind. Reality is inside the skull. You will learn-by degrees, Winston. There is nothing that we could not do. Invisibility, levitation-anything.  I could float off this floor like a soap bubble if I wished to. I do not wish to, because the Party does not wish it. You must get rid of those nineteenth century ideas about the laws of nature. We make the laws of nature.". . . .

"But the whole universe is outside us. Look at the stars! Some of them are a million light-years away. They are out of our reach forever."

"What are the stars?" said O'Brien indifferently. "They are bits of fire a few kilometers away. We could reach them if we wanted to. Or we could blot them out. The earth is the center of the universe. The sun and the stars go round it.". . . . When we navigate the ocean, or when we predict an eclipse, we often find it convenient to assume that the earth goes round the sun and that the stars are millions upon millions of kilometers away. But what of it? Do you suppose it is beyond us to produce a dual system of astronomy? The stars can be near or distant, according as we need them. Do you suppose our mathematicians are unequal to that? Have you forgotten doublethink?" 

Watch this video from Jeranism beginning at 3:42:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqhYA76MRRA

War is peace.

Freedom is slavery.

Ignorance is strength.

The Visible Flat Earth is a Sphere.

Questions and Answers

Question 1 - How do the sun and moon rotate on a flat Earth?  How do lunar phases work on a flat Earth?   How do the seasons work on a flat Earth?

StinkyCash takes a shot at answering these difficult questions.

Rob Skiba answers how season work on a flat Earth.

Question 2 - What causes the "ramp-up" to distant objects if not the curvature of the Earth?

In the following video, the cameraman demonstrates that on a flat road the wheels disappear first and then the lower part of the car.  This is often the same effect you would see with the missing hull effect, which may also be caused by waves increasing in size in relation to the object getting smaller in the distance.

Question 3 - Does the Coriolis Effect prove a spherical Earth?

No, in fact, the Coriolis Effect proves the flat Earth.  See the exhibits above.

Question 4 - Is there an agreed on map of the flat Earth?

No, there's no agreed map of the flat Earth.  However, the Azimuthal Equidistant and Gleason's 1892 "New Standard Map of the World" ("AS 'IT IS'") are the most cited.  However, it appears that all maps may not truly represent correct sizes, etc. 

Question 5 - Are there satellites?

Satellites are a possibility but not like the official story.  Interestingly, there are no college or upper-level degrees for satellite engineers.

Question 6 - How come the Sun doesn't disappear into a dot if it is just getting further away on a flat plane?

Although not nearly as large and as far away as claimed by the official story, the Sun is still thousands of miles away and is very large.  Because it already is far away (it's not near us) it doesn't have a huge decrease in size as it approaches the vanishing point.  However, at certain viewpoints the Sun does decrease to a point.  See the exhibits above.

Question 7 - What about comets, asteroids, and meteors?

If the dome theory is correct, then comets, asteroids, and meteors all have to be events inside the dome.  Potentially, pieces breaking off of the dome could offer some explanation.  I don't subscribe to the dome theory at this time and think that these events could still somewhat occur within the unknown universe above the flat Earth and can be spotted with telescopes, etc.

Question 8 - Because other objects in space are spherical, doesn't that mean the Earth is spherical as well?

The presumption is based on the universally false idea of an Earth flying through space as one of a quadrillion spheres in the universe.  Take away the presumption and try instead assuming that the universe circles above an endless plane called Earth.  Then calling the Earth based on the shape of distant lights above would be like saying that because you see trees in the forest, that the items in space must also shaped like trees.  The Earth is different and may be the foundation of the universe.

Question 9 - Does sunlight under the clouds prove that we live on a spherical Earth?

No, a sun 93 million miles away could not ever appear under the clouds of the Earth as the light comes in parallel to the Earth.  However, sunlight under the clouds does evince a flat Earth.

Question 10 - Why can't you see objects across oceans on a flat Earth with a telescope?

In short, our atmosphere and the laws of perspective prevent one from doing so.  As shown in the many boat examples above (Exhibit #1), ships disappear behind an increasingly opaque atmosphere - not a curvature.  Even with a telescope, you simply cannot see anything horizontally beyond roughly 150 miles (often much less) through our atmosphere that is full of moisture, gasses, dust, pollutants, etc.  Furthermore, we cannot, being close to the ground, see past the vanishing point in accordance with the laws of perspective.

Watch at 11:02 as The Morgile explains this argument.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Try not to post it everywhere roth! its a good post i give you that but i don't want to have to remove it :D spam rule etc!

That said i think it needs seeing more. so maybe its own thread?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ukshep said:

Try not to post it everywhere roth! its a good post i give you that but i don't want to have to remove it :D spam rule etc!

That said i think it needs seeing more. so maybe its own thread?

Sorry, I won't do it anymore.  I was just trying to get feedback.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Rothbard said:

Sorry, I won't do it anymore.  I was just trying to get feedback.

Or you could link to it at the new place. I think it also deserves a page on the blog, and I can make that happen if you want, or show you how to post in the blog.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Rothbard said:

Sorry, I won't do it anymore.  I was just trying to get feedback.

Not a big deal roth :) Its a lot to go through.... but its well thought out.... I suggest making a thread for it..... passing it around..... flat earthers will be able to rip it apart. Give good feedback and improve upon it if possible.

Hell i might as well make a video on the post :) give my 2 cents.... link to it etc. i dunno just spitballing.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Challenger said:

Or you could link to it at the new place. I think it also deserves a page on the blog, and I can make that happen if you want, or show you how to post in the blog.

just remember we don't allow linking to forums you own :D thats the exception. bad business otherwise.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ukshep said:

just remember we don't allow linking to forums you own :D thats the exception. bad business otherwise.

Okay. Blogs?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Challenger said:

Okay. Blogs?

On their own yes.... connected to a forum no.

anyway i feel like im derailing the thread... i'll stop

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

These 2 theories must be so popular now they need to be smear campaigned? Looks like the GQ article is using the let's-make-a-joke-of-it strategy, downplaying flat earth & clones. This seems to be a way they address conspiracy theories nowadays. Flood with info & theories, all including a bit of truth but never the whole picture. 

I know it sounds a bit silly that our leaders are clones, I catch myself laughing at it occasionally. Anyone have good info on this subject?

Grav I know you said that the greys are clone/robotoids for the reptilians. Any further info on that?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Ned Tugent said:

These 2 theories must be so popular now they need to be smear campaigned? Looks like the GQ article is using the let's-make-a-joke-of-it strategy, downplaying flat earth & clones. This seems to be a way they address conspiracy theories nowadays. Flood with info & theories, all including a bit of truth but never the whole picture. 

I know it sounds a bit silly that our leaders are clones, I catch myself laughing at it occasionally. Anyone have good info on this subject?

Grav I know you said that the greys are clone/robotoids for the reptilians. Any further info on that?

Wake up, sheeple :biggrin:

Tila Tequila, who's she? A singer?

Mainstream outlets don't dare show that they believe ct, least of all flat earth.

As for whodunit, Advanced Beings, no doubt. Ruthless s.o.b.s too. They destroy the earth and rebuild it every 12,000 years or so. Archons, Reptilians, Draconoans, shapeshifters :1XqXnoz: ET writers, and maybe Bill Cooper, claim the greys are cyborgs. 

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, grav said:

Wake up, sheeple :biggrin:

Tila Tequila, who's she? A singer?

Mainstream outlets don't dare show that they believe ct, least of all flat earth.

As for whodunit, Advanced Beings, no doubt. Ruthless s.o.b.s too. They destroy the earth and rebuild it every 12,000 years or so. Archons, Reptilians, Draconoans, shapeshifters :1XqXnoz: ET writers, and maybe Bill Cooper, claim the greys are cyborgs. 

She's like a reality star type of celebrity sort of thing? :blink: 

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.