Flat Earth Logic

Flat Earth Logic

Menu

Change pages in menu

 Earth is proven to be a flat, stationary greenhouse.

   It's time to wake up. They're lying to us.

   There are a lot of fake flat earthers and disinformation groups like the Flat Earth Society out there to discredit the awakening. Protect yourself from lies by ONLY believing what you yourself can prove.

    I've made this website to get pass all that disinfo so you can research flat earth and MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND!

   This website will have Eric Dubay's book "200 Proofs The Earth Is Not A Spinning Ball" and some of my content. The video here is the book in video form and the best overall, but here is the book in full form fellowing the video. Please watch or read with an open mind.


Here's the best video on the subject. Well worth the time. Watch with an open and unbiased mind.

   One must ask himself why are globe believers turning into flat earthers. Are people suddenly dumbing down or wakening up. ONLY believe what you can prove.

 1) The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government “space agencies” show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos.  

  If everyone on a plane right now all across the world stuck their face to the window they would see a flat horizon. If you add all these flat horizons together does it create a ball? If not how many flat horizons does it take to create a ball?  Do we really have to believe without observation?

Observable provable.

Observable provable.

In reality the horizon line doesn't curve downward but remains at eye level.

2) The horizon always rises to the eye level of the observer as altitude is gained, so you never have to look down to see it. If Earth were in fact a globe, no matter how large, as you ascended the horizon would stay fixed and the observer / camera would have to tilt looking down further and further to see it.

   If the ship is going behind downward curvature at sea level then how can it remain at eye level as you ascend above sea level for over 100,000 feet? It's suppose to be curving downward, correct?

A whirling ball of water? Where's the proof.

   3) The natural physics of water is to find and maintain its level. If Earth were a giant sphere tilted, wobbling and hurdling through infinite space then truly flat, consistently level surfaces would not exist here. But since Earth is in fact an extended flat plane, this fundamental physical property of fluids finding and remaining level is consistent with experience and common sense.

   No matter where we go no matter what shore we go to, water is always flat. Yet the oceans are wrapped around a whirling ball? One is observable the other is not 

Government puppet scientist lie but water doesn't.

Government puppet scientist lie but water doesn't.

Do rivers run uphill.

   4) Rivers run down to sea-level finding the easiest course, North, South, East, West and all other intermediary directions over the Earth at the same time. If Earth were truly a spinning ball then many of these rivers would be impossibly flowing uphill, for example the Mississippi in its 3000 miles would have to ascend 11 miles before reaching the Gulf of Mexico.

5) 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.

   Water will travel 1000s of miles to find seaLEVEL. You have NEVER seen a curved ocean horizon. 

 

   6) If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference as NASA and modern astronomy claim, spherical trigonometry dictates the surface of all standing water must curve downward an easily measurable 8 inches per mile multiplied by the square of the distance. This means along a 6 mile channel of standing water, the Earth would dip 6 feet on either end from the central peak. Every time such experiments have been conducted, however, standing water has proven to be perfectly level.

Flat water is not a conspiracy, it's a fact.

Flat water is not a conspiracy, it's a fact.

Reality debunks false claims. Period.

   7) Surveyors, engineers and architects are never required to factor the supposed curvature of the Earth into their projects. Canals, railways, bridges and tunnels for example are always cut and laid horizontally, often over hundreds of miles without any allowance for curvature.

8) The Suez Canal connecting the Mediterranean with the Red Sea is 100 miles long without any locks making the water an uninterrupted continuation of the two seas. When constructed, the Earth’s supposed curvature was not taken into account, it was dug along a horizontal datum line 26 feet below sea-level, passing through several lakes from one sea to the other, with the datum line and water’s surface running perfectly parallel over the 100 miles.

This railroad track at 301 mile is missing 60,400 feet of curvature.

This railroad track at 301 mile is missing 60,400 feet of curvature.

Above is a video on engineers, pilots and sailors not having to account for curvature.  

 "It's not a matter of what is true that counts but a matter of what is perceived to be true." 

                           Henry Kissinger

   9) Engineer, W. Winckler was published in the Earth Review regarding the Earth’s supposed curvature, stating, “As an engineer of many years standing, I saw that this absurd allowance is only permitted in school books. No engineer would dream of allowing anything of the kind. I have projected many miles of railways and many more of canals and the allowance has not even been thought of, much less allowed for. This allowance for curvature means this - that it is 8” for the first mile of a canal, and increasing at the ratio by the square of the distance in miles; thus a small navigable canal for boats, say 30 miles long, will have, by the above rule an allowance for curvature of 600 feet. Think of that and then please credit engineers as not being quite such fools. Nothing of the sort is allowed. We no more think of allowing 600 feet for a line of 30 miles of railway or canal, than of wasting our time trying to square the circle”

These examples are all across this great plain of ours.

These examples are all across this great plain of ours.

10) The London and Northwestern Railway forms a straight line 180 miles long between London and Liverpool. The railroad’s highest point, midway at Birmingham station, is only 240 feet above sea-level. If the world were actually a globe, however, curving 8 inches per mile squared, the 180 mile stretch of rail would form an arc with the center point at Birmingham raising over a mile, a full 5,400 feet above London and Liverpool. 

11) A surveyor and engineer of thirty years published in the Birmingham Weekly Mercury stated, “I am thoroughly acquainted with the theory and practice of civil engineering. However bigoted some of our professors may be in the theory of surveying according to the prescribed rules, yet it is well known amongst us that such theoretical measurements are INCAPABLE OF ANY PRACTICAL ILLUSTRATION. All our locomotives are designed to run on what may be regarded as TRUE LEVELS or FLATS. There are, of course, partial inclines or gradients here and there, but they are always accurately defined and must be carefully traversed. But anything approaching to eight inches in the mile, increasing as the square of the distance, COULD NOT BE WORKED BY ANY ENGINE THAT WAS EVER YET CONSTRUCTED. Taking one station with another all over England and Scotland, it may be stated that all the platforms are ON THE SAME RELATIVE LEVEL. The distance between Eastern and Western coasts of England may be set down as 300 miles. If the prescribed curvature was indeed as represented, the central stations at Rugby or Warwick ought to be close upon three miles higher than a chord drawn from the two extremities. If such was the case there is not a driver or stoker within the Kingdom that would be found to take charge of the train. We can only laugh at those of your readers who seriously give us credit for such venturesome exploits, as running trains round spherical curves. Horizontal curves on levels are dangerous enough, vertical curves would be a thousand times worse, and with our rolling stock constructed as at present physically impossible.”

A curved surface wouldn't reflect like this would it

A curved surface wouldn't reflect like this would it

  12) The Manchester Ship Canal Company published in the Earth Review stated, “It is customary in Railway and Canal constructions for all levels to be referred to a datum which is nominally horizontal and is so shown on all sections. It is not the practice in laying out Public Works to make allowances for the curvature of the earth

13) In a 19th century French experiment by M. M. Biot and Arago a powerful lamp with good reflectors was placed on the summit of Desierto las Palmas in Spain and able to be seen all the way from Camprey on the Island of Iviza. Since the elevation of the two points were identical and the distance between covered nearly 100 miles, if Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, the light should have been more than 6600 feet, a mile and a quarter, below the line of sight!

14) The Lieutenant-Colonel Portlock experiment used oxy-hydrogen Drummond’s lights and heliostats to reflect the sun’s rays across stations set up across 108 miles of St. George’s Channel. If the Earth were actually a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, Portlock’s light should have remained hidden under a mile and a half of curvature.

This chart is debunked with lighthouses, long distance photography and railroads and canals. Change the page in the menu section.

This chart is debunked with lighthouses, long distance photography and railroads and canals. Change the page in the menu section.

X