The Flat Earth Controversy
IF YOU'D RATHER WATCH AND LISTEN THAN READ THIS PAGE, PLEASE CLICK ON THE VIDEO BELOW:
EASY GLOBALIST ARGUMENTS TO REFUTE
Obviously, those of us who believe in the globe view of the earth have a lot of arguments against those who believe in the flat/enclosed earth model. But honestly, some of them are not that impressive. I'm just going to list a few of the most common arguments I've seen so far:
Globalist Argument #1: On my Facebook page, many have made mention of the fact/belief that all of the other stellar bodies we can observe appear to be spheres. They say, "If everything else we can observe is, this must mean our earth is too." Does it really? If you were an Asian, born to Asian parents, living in Asia, where all you ever saw were Asians, would that ipso facto have to mean that all humans, everywhere must be Asian-looking too? No. Of course not. This has to be the most lame of the arguments I've encountered, yet it comes up over and over again.
Globalist Argument #2: What about this argument: "Well, if the earth is flat, how come ships aren't going over the edge?" This is one of those knee-jerk arguments. If you actually take the time to look into what the Flat Earthers really believe, you will find that none of them have this view of the earth as depicted in pictures such as the one to the right. That's an old fairy-tale view of a concept that was held in the ancient world. Such images however do reveal the fact that they did seem to understand the earth was flat. As a result, they imagined there must be a point at that "ends of the earth" they've been reading about, where everything just drops off into nothingness. If indeed this was a widely held view, it shows they did not fully understand what the ancient texts were saying. While the texts do talk about "corners" and the "ends of the earth," they also describe an enclosure, which would prevent such falling off the ends scenarios from happening.
This enclosure includes a 200+ ft. high cliff wall of ice and stone:
The Biblical model looks more along the lines of something like this:
So, we can toss out the argument of anyone falling off the edges of the earth. It's another uninformed and lame, knee-jerk argument.
Globalist Argument #4: "What about time zones? How can you have time zones on a flat earth?" This argument presupposes a couple of things: 1) the earth is essentially a flat piece of paper with continents on it and 2) the sun is just shining straight down on the whole thing. The Flat Earther model refutes this by showing something like the following, depicting the sun and moon in an enclosed system, much smaller and much closer than where we consider them to be in our standard globalist view:
In this model, the sun acts like a "point light" with a limited throw of light, leaving the unexposed areas in the dark. This effectively gives the same results as a rotating earth would in terms of time zones. It also helps to explain the vertical meter stick and shadow experiment. If the much smaller and closer sun is standing over one meter stick, the shadow will be straight down, whereas the one further away will be casting a longer shadow. It's not rocket science.
Globalist Argument #5: This one is a bit more interesting: Many have said, "But I've flown in planes and we've seen the curvature of the earth. Thus, we know it is curved!" I have to admit, I've said the same thing myself. But did we really see the curve or did we convince ourselves that we did because we were told it is? In an effort to refute some of the things I was posting on Facebook regarding my dismissal of such claims of seeing the curve, a fellow researcher named, Joseph Jordan sent me the following link, which provides some interesting insight into the reality of people allegedly seeing it: http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf This article states:
So, according to this article, above 60,000 ft. the curve is supposed to be "obvious." OK. Now watch this video shot by civilians using a camera that does not have a fish-eye lens:
If the curvature is supposed to be clearly seen above 60,000 ft (an altitude 99% of us will never get to see for ourselves with the naked eye), why then is it not so "obvious" at 75,572 ft with a camera that is spinning around giving us a 360 degree view, yet even in multiple angles it still yields the same flat result when parallel bars are placed over the horizon at the same angle?
In response to me posting the above pic, someone adjusted the contrast on it to show that there is a "bulge" in the middle. I agree there is a slight rise in the middle, but it appears to be related to the haze and not the land. So, I did another screenshot at a lower altitude, which provided the only shot I could find where there was less cloud haze directly obscuring the earth's visible horizon:
The above shot, inverted with the contrast and saturation cranked up, shows no "bulge" but rather somewhat of a curve up at the ends. Still, accounting for the lens issue, it looks quite flat to me. At worst, it is inconclusive. Even the author of the above article stated...
So, atop high mountains with a "relatively unobstructed" field of view, this experienced photographer and observer could not "convince himself" of a curve. Interviews done with pilots indicated that you needed to be above 50,000 to really see an "obvious" curve. Yet, at 75,000+ ft. using a camera that does not have a fish-eye lens mounted to a weather balloon reveals what certainly appears to be a flat horizon. What's the deal? I'm seeing stuff that is anything but "obvious" to me.
Ultimately, I believe we have been so brainwashed by NASA and other footage, which is always shot with a fish-eye lens, that we've convinced ourselves we have seen the curvature of the earth. Here's a prime example of the difference in camera lenses and what each can make you believe you are seeing:
Additionally, people say the same thing about ships "going over the horizon." I have personally watched a cruise ship appear to do just that as it headed out to sea away from where I was. But when I zoomed in with my camera, I could still see it - all of it - sitting on the water's surface. Clearly, it had not gone over the horizon on an alleged 8"in per mile curve. Others have done similar experiments. One of the most famous of these curvature/horizon experiments that I have seen so far is the Bedford Level Experiment:
The Chicago skyline from Grand Mere State Park (on the other side of Lake Michigan)
Here we have the impossible. The distance between Grand Mere State Park in Stevensville and Chicago is about 60 miles. At that distance, Chicago should be nearly a half-mile (2,400 ft) below the horizon - assuming we are on a ball with a curvature of 8" per mile! So, how do they explain it away? "Oh, that's just a mirage." Seriously? Give me a break!
I'm sorry, but this is total B.S.! I'm not buying it and listening to the guy selling this crap, I'm not even sure he buys it either. Note the horizon is perfectly straight all the way across. The buildings are not leaning away or to either side. They are straight up and down and looking quite solid. I'd bet they would look perfect through binoculars or a telescope.
At this point, I do not believe we have any conclusive evidence for a curvature - at least nothing I personally will trust without doing an experiment of my own. And that is exactly what I intend to do sometime in the not too distant future. But what the above news clip shows me is that if I were to do any kind of experiment along these lines and we are able to see something that should not be there, then it's going to be written off by all the monkeys suffering from cognitive dissonance as a "mirage." Sorry Charlie. No. When something like this can be repeated over and over again, it's called empirical evidence.
Speaking of empiracle evidence... I recently began to do some of my own testing of the curvature. On April 30th, my wife and I flew to San Diego for a conference. Even though nearly the entire flight at 37,000 ft was over cloud cover, I still could only see a totally flat horizon out of my window:
As soon as we arrived in San Diego, Sheila and I got a bite to eat at a restaurant near the USS Midway aircraft carrier. We had the time, so we went on the tour of the ship (AMAZING!). I didn't get very far into the tour, when I saw this Azimuthal (Flat Earth) Map on a plaque hanging over a display of a model of the ship:
I also got a great video clip of the tour guide explaining how all GPS is run by the United States:
So, we just "let the world use it." Convenient.
Later in the week, I went to Malibu. I saw a good place to pull over and check the horizon. The buildings and island in the distance gives you a sense scale/distance from the camera. Note the totally flat horizon:
Panning to the right. Flat as a pancake:
Continue to pan right. Still flat:
Panned all the way to the right. Flat:
Later in the week, I met with my friend Jef Anderson and we had some interesting discussion. He told me about being a lifeguard in Ventura and how on a clear day, he could see the Anacapa Arch island bridge from the beach. This 40ft high arch is more than 18 miles away from the Ventura County Fairgrounds, which means it should be considerably below the horizon and NOT visible IF we are on a curved earth. Yet, somehow, everyone there has seen it on clear weather days. Hmmmm...
1 mile - 8 inches
2 miles - 32 inches
3 miles - 6 feet
4 miles - 10 feet
5 miles - 16 feet
6 miles - 24 feet
7 miles - 32 feet
8 miles - 42 feet
9 miles - 54 feet
10 miles - 66 feet
20 miles - 266 feet
30 miles - 600 feet
40 miles - 1066 feet
50 miles - 1666 feet
60 miles - 2400 feet
70 miles - 3266 feet
80 miles - 4266 feet
90 miles - 5400 feet (over a mile now)
100 miles - 6666 feet
With the above in mind, check out the following graphic, which Jef sent to me:
So, my friend took this little math problem to a college level math professor. After the guy said such a thing should not be seen, Jef said, "But we've all seen it. I'm referring to the Anacapa Island arch." Doh! In a text message to me after talking with the math professor, Jef said, "Needless to say, the math guy was intrigued."
What I am perhaps more intrigued about myself was my ability to take some truly amazing pictures of Mars from my Spirit Airlines seat on the plane ride home:
As you can see in the pic below, I was sitting just behind the wing. Funny how a curved window, especially if slightly out of focus can create an amazing illusion of a curved "planet" in space:
Now, of course, these pics were all taken with my iPhone camera, which has a limited depth of field. With the proper lens, and F-stop setting, shooting out of a round window (like oh, I don't know... say that of a "space capsule"), instead of a rectangular window like in my plane, the window's edge could be completely out of focus and the background "planet" can truly shine. Even still, here's where I adjusted my iPhone camera's focus to be on the ground in order prove the point. And wow - check out at those Martian mountains and valleys in this pic:
Taking a little tour around the side of the red planet:
Woah! Look at that! Is that a road or a carved canal on Mars...
Maybe we should spend a few billion dollars to go check it out!
Yep. I'm on to you now NASA, you clever dog you:
Oh! And I almost forgot to mention this, but while I was out orbiting Mars, I saw the International Space Station up there too! Can you believe it? Cool huh?
But then, when I came back to Earth, I saw the ISS there too! How did that happen? Are there two space stations now? Hmmmm...
So, why am I wasting time showing you all of this? Because NASA did the same thing I did above to fool you back in the late 60s:
If that's not enough for you please consider what Math Boylan has to say about NASA foolery and his own role in bringing fake imagery to us (Caution: these clips contain foul language):
Consider also how Stanely Kubrick got us to believe in space travel and orbiting around our earth back in 1968, before we allegedly put a man on the moon:
See, what I am showing you here is that you simply cannot trust what NASA, the government and pentagon are telling and showing you. It's too easy to fake. Especially nowadays! So, again... when it comes to the issue of the earth's alleged curvature, I will only believe what I can personally test myself. I would suggest you do the same, because it is very difficult to form any real conclusion concerning the curve from other sources. You have NASA and others shooting everything with a fish-eye lens, making you believe the earth is a ball. But then, you also have videos like this one, which challenges that view:
Globalist Argument #6: Many will point to the fact that there are some stars visible in the southern hemisphere that cannot be seen in the norhtern. Fair enough. But it seems to me that this is easily explained. Imagine an extremely large bowl over a massively huge plain. Now imagine you are under the central (northern) area of the bowl. You see Orion, perhaps the most recognizable of all the constellations, and one that is visible in both hemespheres. He looks quite big with his head facing upward toward the north. Then, you go toward the outer (southern) regions of the plain and look up again. Not only does Orion look inverted (because you are essentially now looking up his skirt), but you also see stars on the lower ends of the dome that were not visible to you when you were much further away, under the center of the dome.
The Orion constellation is interesting to me for many reasons, but since it is so clearly visible in both "hemispheres," I tend to believe that Yeshua will return from that general direction, thus, every eye will see Him. For interesting potential comfirmation of that idea, see:
At first, I thought it might be a nail in the Flat Earther's coffin. That is until I looked up the Antarctica Flights website and saw their flight path. Now, I'm not defending the Flat Earther's here, but the debunkers are saying we are "flying over the South Pole." I think not. They are flying over the eastern territories:
As I looked over those territories, I couldn't help but laugh when I saw "Shackleton's Nimrod Hut." I know the Nimrod Hut is named after Shackleton's dwelling place, who went down there on a ship named the Nimrod. His trip was called The Nimrod Expedition. Again... you can't make this stuff up. Why is Nimrod always somehow involved? Whether we're talking about the the governments of the world or their military, NASA and their various missions (Apollo, Orion, etc.) and now this? Always Nimrod... and of course his sister-mother-wife Isis/Ishtar/Columbia. Always.
Whenever I see Nimrod involved, my radar lights up with red flags. And so should yours.
Those are the top few questions I've seen on my Facebook page challenging the Flat Earther's point of view. But then someone posted this video:
Here's where I started having some doubts in my own position concerning the spherical earth. When I tossed out NASA, the military and world governments as sources for "proving the earth is round," I looked for other arguments I could give to support my current belief that the world is round. Watching the above video as a typical example of "proof" for a round globe, it honestly left me cocking my head thinking, "Really? These are the Top 10 Reasons Why We Know the Earth is Round?" So, I decided to flip the board and see how I could argue against these points:
Reason # 10: Just because the sun, moon, and other planets are round, that does not mean the earth "has to be" round too. That's an assumption. That would be like growing up in Africa as a black man, seeing only black people all around you and assuming all people are black. Or growing up in Asia, seeing only Asian people all your life and assuming everyone in the world must look like you, your family and friends. You get the picture. It's an assumption, nothing more (see Globalist Argument #1 above).
Reason # 9: Time Zones still work in the flat earth model. In fact, there is no difference in that concept (see Globalist Argument #4 above).
Reason # 8: Admittedly, the Coriolis Effect is a good argument and one that I honestly do not have a counter-argument for... but that doesn't mean there are none. See, with this one, we are proceeding from a premise to derive a conclusion, without considering any other potential premise that could lead to the same conclusion. But how would you know unless you started looking? For example, nearly all Nephilim researchers proceed with the assumption that Genesis 6:4 indicates multiple incursions after the Flood based on the one phrase, in one sentence in the whole Bible that reads, "and also after that." So, they don't even bother looking for other alternatives for the post-Flood return of the Nephilim. I left that pre-conceived notion, which is held by most, and as a result, I found lots of evidence for what I believe to be a far more plausible, and textually supported thesis. But I never would have even gone down that route had I not challenged the original presuppositions. I suspect we still have much to learn regarding the Coriolis Effect - especially if the Flat Earthers prove to be correct. I remain open to other possibilities for this one, while still considering it one of the stronger "proofs" for a round earth.
Reason # 7: 90° Triangles. OK. I can accept this as a good argument, though I fail to see what it proves. How many massive 90° angle triangles are there drawn on this earth? Just because you can draw three 90° angles and get a triangle on a ball, that doesn't mean the earth is one. Who "walks 10,000km, takes a right, walks 10,000km more, takes a right and 10,000km later ends up where they started" anyway? I mean, it sounds good, but in terms of miles, that equates to traveling on three 6,213.7 mile legs of a journey! I am unaware of anyone who has done this to prove the earth is a globe. If you are, please let me know.
Reason # 6: This argument shows a lack of understanding of the various flat earth models concerning the sun and its relation to the "circle" of the earth. I often get the impression the "Round Earthers" think the "Flat Earthers" believe there is just a piece of paper on the ground labeled "Earth" and a light bulb strait overhead labeled "Sun" when they make these arguments (see Globalist Argument #4 above... again).
Reason # 5: The changing of star views from North and South is quite interesting, but not really the best argument if you ask me (see Globalist Argument #6 above). As an artist, I know I could design something in a way that certain things would be visible from one angle and not from another, assuming the surface is big enough (and it is in this case) to do that and the "dome" overhead is shaped just right to create whatever illusion I desire to convey to the audience. Stage magicians create illusions all the time. Also, take the recent BET Music Awards ceremony, where at one particular spot, some of the speakers had an upside-down shadow of themselves falling on the ground/wall behind them, while everyone else had normal shadows being cast on the ground. If the set designers of the BET Music Awards and stage magicians can do it, don't you think YHWH could do the same thing (and a whole lot better) if He wanted to? I personally think the Flat Earther's model of the earth with the southern hemisphere sloping upward could account for this. It's an OK argument, but not a powerful enough one to be conclusive proof of a globe in my opinion.
Reason # 4: Ferdinand Magellan circumnavigating the earth is a lame argument (see Globalist Argument #3 above). Going in a circle still works just the same on a flat disk as it does on a globe. Think about a record player. The needle starts at one spot on the disk, goes in one direction and returns to the same spot (give or take a fraction of an inch due to the grooves).
Reason # 3: Ships on the ocean has to be about the most lame of all of the arguments (see Globalist Argument #5 above). The eye gives us the illusion of ships disappearing over the curve. Great. Go to the beach and do it. Wait for a cruise ship to disappear to your eyes. Then, go get a high-powered set of binoculars and TA DA! POOF! There it is again, looking just as it did before. Keep watching until you see it again appear to disappear. Then, assuming it's a nice clear day, go get a powerful telescope and check it again. TA DA! POOF! There it is again. This is not possible if the earth is curved. Also, if the earth were curved, then from your angle, distant cities should look like they are all leaning away from you, and not look straight up-and-down as - what do you know? - they do! They even draw this out at 1:51 in the video. Note how the cities look compared to the stick figure. On a curved earth, the buildings are leaning away from you. But that's not what you'll see with your eye, your binoculars, a telescope or anything! This is definitely not worthy of being in the Top 3 in this list.
Reason # 2: The lunar eclipse is a really good argument, and so far, I don't have a good argument against it, which is one of the reasons I do still believe in a globe model myself. This along with comets and meteors remain unresolved in my mind when considering the Flat Earthers model. I have not heard an argument that really makes sense to me to refute this one - but then, I also have not looked into all of the claims concerning the "weirdness of the moon" that I keep hearing others talking about concerning 'crrow777's' lunar wave videos. Still, there are aspects of the moon that don't make sense to me if it is rotating around the earth as it rotates around the sun. The phases should change in ways they do not. The moon is quite mysterious to me for a number of reasons. This one definitely deserves a spot in the Top 3, if not the #1 slot in my opinion.
Reason # 1: The #1 reason we know the earth is round is because we have "photographic evidence?" We're talking about "evidence" that is proven to be composite images and in some cases just artistic paintings and creative PhotoShop work! This "#1 proof" is primarily supplied to us by an occult, Luciferian, Freemasonic organization founded by Project Paperclip Nazis who have a thing for Antarctica and who have been lying to us for decades. I'm supposed to accept that as the best proof? LOL! Please. Sorry. Nope.
So, really, for me, looking at the "TOP 10 Reasons Why We KNOW the Earth is Round," quite a number of them are really lame arguments. With the exception of just 2 of these 10 arguments (#8 and #2) , I really don't think we have a very strong case. And of the 2 that I can accept and not (yet) poke holes in, I have not taken the time to look for any alternative possibilities. So, at best, I have just 2 reasons to believe the earth is round in the usual arguments given to support it:
Nearly every other argument I've heard or read can also - at least in my mind - be explained away with reasonable, plausible, differing points of view. I said "nearly" because not all are so easily refuted. In fact, the following video is definitely worth watching as one that aims to debunk the Flat Earther's views (it's probably the best one I've seen):
And so... the quest for truth begins.
COMING UP NEXT: Part 3 - Questioning Everything
If you have been blessed by these materials and would like to contribute toward our ministry,
Please note, we are NOT a 501c3, which means our message is not regulated by the government,
nor are we able to give you a tax deductible receipt for any contributions.
If you enjoyed this blog, please be sure to "Like" and share it with others, by using the buttons below:
Flat Earth beliefs around the world:
Flat Earth Bible:
Arguments for Geocentricity:
Fair Education Foundation, Inc. on the Fixed Earth:
The Scriptural Basis For A Geocentric Cosmology:
The Flat Earth:
Observe Temperature, Wind and Wave Currents on the Flat Earth:
(more to come I am sure)