Eric Dubay on YouTube Censors Flat Earth Videos

Eric Dubay on YouTube Censors Flat Earth Videos

I have some issues with Eric Dubay and I’m sure you do to. But one thing you have to give him credit for and that is making some good flat earth videos and bringing this whole flat earth topic to the people.

Along the same topic on YouTube banning, here is another topic that is “tabbo.” I wonder why?

YouTube hardens stance against white supremacists and Holocaust deniers. Click Here.



Posted in media lies, mind control | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

No Air Conditioning Units in Space

This video talks about air conditioning units and there are no signs of it on the space station. In fact AC units can’t work in a vacuum or where there is no air.

As you watch these videos, it’s good to take notes and this way, you’ll be able to answer most questions people have.

Posted in NASA Space Programs | Tagged | Leave a comment

Heliocentric Universe and Spiritual Bondage

By the governments of the world keeping us in a belief of a heliocentric universe (as opposed to a geocentric universe) keeps us in spiritual bondage. When we are kept in a spiritual bondage, it makes the people turn to their respective governments for all their daily needs instead of Yahweh, God.

The belief of a heliocentric universe (one where there are billions of suns and planets traveling through space destroys our belief in the Holy Bible, for, along with a belief that we, on planet earth, are just one of billions of planets that can have life on it, it makes the belief that God has no personal interest in us. In fact, it’s very easy to not believe in God, because IF he exists, he would be remote – remote, like one billion light years away.

Whereas a belief in a geocentric universe (one where it’s just heaven and earth), it brings the Bible to life, it means that heaven is literally right above us, as the Bible says; and that God has all his interest on us, as we are right below his feet.

In the Bible we are told that God’s footstool is the earth. Now, how can earth be a footstool if we are:

  • a globe
  • spinning at 1,000mph
  • going around the sun at 67,000mph
  • going around the Milky Way at 500,000mph
  • leaving the ‘centre of the Big Bang’ at the speed of light?

How can we be a ‘foot stool’ even metaphysically speaking? We can’t, UNLESS we are stationary; this verse in the Bible conveys a stationary earth. When people realise this, they should take the Bible more seriously and ask themselves, “What else has the government and even the preachers in churches covered up?”

When you realise that we are the only ones out ‘there’ and that God is above the firmament of the earth, as the Bible says, that means we should read, obey and put into practice his Laws, Statues and Judgements as the Bible says.

Posted in Bible and Flat Earth | Tagged

Heresy Against The State, part 2

Heresy Against The State, part 2

  It is important to distinguish between the two types of heretics, otherwise you may lose sight of one of history’s heroes – the independent thinker. If you are programmed to believe that anyone who thinks independently of the establishment is a heretic you should think again. Don’t judge too hastily, and don’t get indignant too quickly towards someone who stands alone against established opinion. It might be that the establishment is in error and the heretic is right (flat earther).

To more clearly understand how a heretic can be a good guy, let’s look closer at the meaning of the Greek word for “heresy”:

HAIRESIS (Strong’s #139, noun form): a choice (i.e., a private decision or opinion)

HAIRETIZO (Strong’s #140, verb form): to make a choice.

This, we see that heresy is simply a choice to be separate from the established norm. So, why did “heresy” change from meaning a choice to meaning a false doctrine? Webster’s 1828 Dictionary gives us the answer in the definition for the word, “heresy”:

…in countries where there is an established church, an opinion is deemed heresy when it differs from that of the church…as men differ in the interpretation of Scripture, an opinion deemed heretical by one body of Christians, may be deemed orthodox by another. In Scripture and primitive usage, heresy meant merely “sect,” “party,” or “the doctrines of a sect,” as we now use “denomination” or “persuasion,” implying no reproach.

Webster’s 1828 Dictionary

Notice that there was no sense of reproach with the original meaning of the word! You can see by Webster’s definition that it was only through the eyes of the church Establishment that “heresy” and “heretic” came to mean something bad. The new usage came from the perspective of the controllers. They didn’t want separatism to exist. They didn’t want people to be able to choose or think for themselves. They wanted to control people and remain in power over them. Thus, the charge of “heresy” is to the church as the change of sedition is to the central government: i.e., tools of control.

In like manner, when people react to flat earthers name of: conspiracy theorists and nutter. If the person is against X, they are given other names – depending on what the topic is. The public is condition to react in a negative way – without them even realising it. The public is so hard-wired in their “conditioned-response” that they don’t even listen to our arguments, much less do research or their own.

Thus, we find another case where the public, instead of having the good sense to distrust the church, acted irresponsibly and allowed others to do their thinking for them. They gullibility sided with the church against the independent thinkers – the separatists who only wanted the freedom to follow their own conscience. The establishment has always been the enemy of the people, and “heretics” have always been enemies of the establishment.

Heretics were the good guys – the heroes who stood against all odds in confronting the powerful establishment. We have been taught to think negatively about heretics, but that was wrong. With the correct definition of “heresy” we can understand that it is NOT right to suppress independent thought. We should not support the establishment (any establishment) which suppresses the freedom of conscience. And we should be grateful to all the heretics who had the guts and moral courage to stand against this tyranny in the past.

Today, heresy against the church establishment still exists in more than one way. Even though people have been duped into believing otherwise, there is really no separation of Church and State in America. The State Church has simply shed its trappings of religion and is now known as the Central Government. The state religion is still there under the guise of faith in its Constitution. As bad as that is, the Government makes up it’s on laws as they go along. You must accept the “America: Love it or Leave it” mentality. And, to think of question the system or suggesting that we need a different one – one that doesn’t murder and rob its people – is “unpatriotic.”

A recent addition to this American religion is that of the holy sacraments of earth worship. Anyone who refuses to parrot the media hype or who questions global warming, or the depleted ozone, is a heretic. Dissent is viewed as blasphemy against orthodoxy.

It is ironic that in America, a land supposedly based on liberty and independence, questioners (independent thinkers) are frowned upon. Thinkers and questioners generate Independence. When anyone questions the globe earth and how we can stay on a spinning ball whirling through space, you are a heretic. The doubt you express against the universe, as it’s taught, all kinds of names are hurled at you.

Heresy Against Those In High Places

We see when people fall prey to those in “authority” and their organizations who try to convince the people unify under them.

Inevitable, the High Priests of whatever topic points a finger at the heretic who questions traditional beliefs. The heretic is looked upon with suspicion, and the people all think, “He must be a bad guy or else no one would have accused him of anything.” The heretic is rejected ostensibly because of doctrine, but in reality it was because he refused to join, and thus sanction their conspiracy. The doctrinal issues in question are not allowed to be questioned because truth is not their objective – rather, they seek power through cohesion. That is the way the educational system and government works.

Faithful Heretics

God loves the essential heretic because he stands against an overgrown, oppressive establishment. The heretic Abraham dismissed the gods of his fathers and separated himself to another land. The heretic David stood up against Goliath who represented the establishment. Martin Luther was a heretic as well as Patrick Henry and Nicola Tesla. I could list more names but that would be a little too much for this article.

As it concerns the flat earth, for example, instead of critics searching Scripture, the resort to phrases like:

He’s crazy!

She’s anti-science!

He’s a right-wing radical!

She’s a Christian extremist!

They are government plants to discredit Christianity as a whole!

The High Priests of the Big Bang/Cosmos say something like this:

“Only the professors have the authority to determine the truth! Don’t argue with them; just have faith, they know what is best.”

Or they use scare tactics. If name-calling doesn’t work, perhaps being fired from your job (on some other pretext, of course) will suffice.

One is prone to ask, “What are they afraid of? Why is open examination offensive?” The question is, will the people blindly accept priestcraft, or will they think for themselves?”

Heresy Against The State, part 3

Jesus Christ was an essential heretic because He was one man standing up against the establishment. He preached and taught a message that was unacceptable to the state religion. His message taught separatism rather than unity.

Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:

For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two and two against three.

The father shall be divided against the son, the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

Luke 12:51-53

When you read the story of Jesus’ life, you find He remained true to His plainly-stated purpose of causing division among the people. Everywhere He went, people because separatists as a result of His preaching. Some believed Him and some rejected Him. The result was that truth was separated from falsehood. The ruling priesthood of His day thought of Him as a heretic against the state because He was teaching contrary to what they had pre-defined as truth. Because of this they crucified Him.

Jesus knew that men have not the answers to life. To admit that one man is one sinner is to admit that a group of men is no better than just one sinner. In fact, when sinners organize they are worse than an individual sinner – and less likely to find the right answers.

Paul also states another reason for separatism:

For there must be also HERESIES (separations) among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

1 Corinthians 11:19

Separatism is a natural thing in the purpose of Yahweh, because it provides freedom to discriminate between truth and error. Furthermore, separatism is a part of our faith from Abraham.

How Do We Determine The Truth?

Sometimes heresy cease to be something you read in a history book. It hits right home. Maybe heretics aren’t being burned at the stake, but reputations are slandered and friendships are shattered over accusations of heresy. You could suddenly find yourself on one side or the other in a dispute between two schools of thought, or two sects. All negations of “heresy” could ensue.

If you ever have a hard time telling which side is right, part on it in earnest. Also, you need to determine which form of heresy you are dealing with. Is it a case of “heresy against truth,” or “heresy against institutionalized error”?

A few simple observations should expose the priestcraft if it is present. Priestcraft tries to stifle separatism and independent thought. The essential heretic, on the other hand, tries to encourage it. The essential heretic may not be totally correct in his conclusions, but he honestly seeks truth, and encourages others to seek it, rather than defending blind tradition of an oppressive establishment.

Political and religious demagogues (priests) are not concerned about truth and justice. They seek only power. Most politicians and preachers are still of this ilk, so don’t trust them – especially when they pretend to have personal interest in you. Keep one hand firmly on your wallet. Don’t abandon your personal freedom from conscience!

If someone calls you a “heretic,” or one of a dozen other so-called negative words – REJOICE. You’re in good company. Heretics are usually the good guys!


Posted in False Preachers, flat earth critic | Tagged , | Leave a comment

What Words Used To Be

What Words Used To Be

As part of the Communist anti-Christ control of the people, word meanings have to change. Here are some changes:

What used to be called modesty is now called a sex hang-up.

What used to be called Christian discipline is now called unhealthy repression.

What used to be called disgusting is now called adult.

What used to be called moral irresponsibility is not called being freed up.

What used to be called chastity is now called neurotic inhibitions.

What used to be called self-indulgence is not called self-fulfillment.

What used to be called living in sin is not called a meaningful relationship.

What used to be called perversion is not called alternative life-style.

What used to be called depravity is now called creative self-expression.

When you want to describe someone or some act, use the original words – tell it like it is!

What used to be called murder is now called family planning.

What used to be called an unborn child is now called a lump of tissue.

What used to be called justice is now called revenge.

By The American Christian, Medford, Oregon.


Posted in media lies, mind control | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Heresy Against The State, part 1

Heresy Against The State, part 1

The “heresy” and “heretic” is normally used in a religious context. Flat earth believers are called many names, one of those names we might as well be a heretic. Though this word is usually applied within the church, the implication is much further than that.

In the church, if you are called a heretic, that means you don’t believe in what your church denomination says. So, too, this can be applied to flat earth believers. After all, we don’t believe in what the government tells us; what the “scientists” tell us.

The purpose of this article is to explore the origins of the words “heresy” and “heretic.”

“Heresy” is idea of an individual who stands against the establishment. He is history’s unsung hero. He’s the one who represents the oppressed. He finds unwelcome truth and holds them before us. He demands independence from politicians and slick Preachers

The word “heresy” by itself inherently is neither good nor bad; it is only by the context in which it is used that we pick up a moral value either “good” or “bad”. So, when speaking of heresy one must know the context in which it is used before we can know if it is used in a negative sense or positive sense.

Heretic is used both ways in the Bible as the following examples show:

Heresy Against Truth

The Bible gives specific instruction regarding heresy against truth.

But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2 Peter 2:1

In this verse, the literal Greek rendering for “damnable heresies” is destructive sects. These are small sects comprise of “groupies” who followed this man or that man, instead of following Christ

A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject;
Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.
Titus 3.10-11

Now, the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies (separations).
Galatians 5:19-20

Obviously these heresies were not good. Separatism (heresy) from Christ amounts to rejection of man’s only salvation. But “separatism” of itself is not a bad word when used in other contexts. Heresy is separatism; heretics are separatists.

Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate saith the Lord…
2 Corinthians 6:17

Historically the word heresy is almost only associated with the church. Therefore for more than a millennium those who disagreed with the authorised canonized doctrines of the established church were branded heretics. They were sometimes called “protesters” or “protestants”. But in retrospect they are not usually considered “bad guys”.

Heresy Against Institutionalized Error

“Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.” Thomas Jefferson

As you read this, also think in terms of a flat earther.

“Hershey,” among men, implies a minority opinion. But minority opinions are not necessarily wrong. For example, when the Supreme Court renders a verdict on a case there are two opinions rendered. 1, The majority opinion and, 2, The minority opinion. The majority opinion the one with the most votes, is it the one that receives sanctioned by the authority of the Supreme Court. The majority opinion (the one who was the least votes) is rejected but it remains on record. Those judges who voted for the minority opinion are then, by definition, heretical because it was not sanctioned.

This curiosity is paralleled in church history by the church councils held to determine “orthodoxy” and authorized doctrine. In each council there were debates on doctrines, each doctrine having proponents on various sides of the argument. After the council considered the arguments for and against the different views, and after they had voted the winners, all the various dissenting opinions were declared “heresies” and the dissenters were allowed (demanded) to confess the newly authorized “truth” – or be declared “heretics”. Needless to say, many forced confessions were less than sincere.

But, what man, or group of men, can ultimately decide what is truth – or change it at his/their discretion? And, when a truth is changed, what of the “heretics” who were already burned at the stake because they disagreed with the “former truth” – which has now been changed? Are they still heretics even though the church has changed its mind about the issue for which they were condemned? Or was the church wrong and thus murdered innocent men? Or, does the majority rule when it comes to defining “truth”? And, if truth changed, does that mean God changed, too? What if one person defines truth differently than another? Or, what if one disagrees with the centralized church establishment – or government? Is it heresy when the common man points out the emperor is wearing no clothes?

Well, it depends upon which side of the issue you find yourself. One man’s “heresy” is another man’s truth.

In countries where there is an established church, an opinion is deemed heresy when it differs from that of the church.
Webster’s 1828 Dictionary

In Acts 24, the bible describes Paul as a heretic. In this passage, Paul had been arrested for spreading what the establishment termed “sedition.” Prior to Paul appearing before King Agrippa, Ananias (the High Priest) and the elders hired a professional speaker to present their case against Paul in a preliminary hearing before Governor Festus. This, in part, is what the speaker said:

For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the SECT of the Nazarenes: Acts 24:5

Paul, on the other hand, testifying without a professional advocate, said:

But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call HERESY, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets: Acts 24:14

The two words “sect” (verse 5) and “heresy” (verse 14) are both translated from the Greek word: hairesis. “They” refers to the centralized group; the established church and the Roman government. Together, “they” legislated “truth” for the people in their domain. Paul stepped on their toes when he expressed a separate opinion about who was king, and a separate belief about the raising of the dead. This opinion didn’t fit into the official church/state definition of “truth”. Therefore, according to the State, Paul was a “heretic” (a separatist) and his teachings were “heresies”.

Putting this into the flat earth topic, are we not fighting against “science so-called”? Are we not on the opposite of NASA, the government and the media? Flat earthers are against the “truth” of these institutions and therefore declared “heretics” – though different words are used, the idea is still the same.

Truth is not established by what a government says, an institution says or even if what the majority of the people believe.

To be continued…


Posted in False Preachers, flat earth critic | Tagged , | Leave a comment

UFOs and the Bible

UFOs and the Bible

There is an area that preachers don’t talk on, and that includes pastors — that is UFOs. My question to them is, “Is there UFOs (people from other planets) or isn’t there?” My answer to this is, “NO, there are no Extra-Terrestrials (E.T.s).” Now, I know that there are millions of Christians that believe in visitations from people who live on other planets, so I don’t expect to change their mind in one video or one article.

As for me, I had believed in UFOs  visiting us but I found out that such is not the case. It will be much too long to go into detail here. Just let me say this, God said that He sent His ONLY begotten Son to us to die for our sins. Now, we all accept this, yet if we are to believe that there is intelligent life out in the Universe – whether they visited us or not, how can they be saved?

You would have to believe in one of the following:

1 – Life on all the other planets are without sin

2 – They do have sin but they can’t be saved (since there is only one son, Yeshua the Christ)

Or, that God lied

Since we know that God can not lie, and that He had sent His ONLY son, that would mean – by implication – that there is no life outside of Heaven and Earth. We know that God is not an unjust God, where others will not have a chance to be saved from their sin.

Why would God create all that other “real estate” if it was not to be inhabited? IF there were other planets out there, in the numbers were are told, then there must be one billion other planets with life on it even if only one in a billion planets have life.

Another indication we “are alone” is that we are told in the Bible that Heaven is above the Earth. How do you get Heaven “above” if there are billions of galaxies? Where would “above” be? How far is “above”? It would be ridiculous to say that Heaven is “over” Australia and it’s the third solar system in from Galaxy Ebu2B (I just made that up). Where is the base line to establish “above”? If we live on a globe, what is “above” for one section of the globe would be “below” for another part. Do you get my point? Everything becomes ridiculous.

So, why is this UFO agenda being pushed?”

Good question.  In short, it’s to get us away from the belief in God, and from looking to the Bible that has the answers to our economic, political, health problems as well as to all other problems. This allows those in control to have obedient servants so they can continue to rule over us, take our freedom away and to to exploit us. You see, Christ has the answers — NOT some world government and NOT some E.T. race out in space.

Whatever your problems are, turn to the Bible, pray on it, and God will lead you to.

Posted in Mysteries Explained | Tagged , | 1 Comment

Pictures From NASA

Pictures From NASA




Posted in Fake images of earth, NASA Space Programs | Tagged | Leave a comment

Following Startling Discrepancies

The True Facts and the Modern Theories

balloon-edge-space  MODERN ASTRONOMY and its crafty or, most deluded sycophants teach that “ the sun is stationary and the centre of the planetary or celestial bodies, and that it is over One Million miles larger than the earth ! ”

Whereas, it is not one thousandth part of its size,—is constantly moving in spiral orbits, round and over the face of the motionless earth increasing the latitude of those orbits about ten or eleven miles every day from June to December, and decreasing them in the same proportion from December to June.

The astronomers now teach that the Sun’s distance from the Earth is from 92 to 93 Million miles; whereas, it is proved to be under 2,400 miles, and the stars and planets even less than that.

So far from the Earth being a planet and “very much inferior in size to all the other planets but Mars,” it is no part at all of the celestial system; but is wholly distinct and far superior in size and character to all the planets put together, which exhibit very little variety in size among themselves, and no parallax whatever, when viewed under any possible conditions!

The astronomers again assert the Earth to be a revolving and rotating Globe, with an axial speed of over one thousand miles an hour, and an orbital speed of over one thousand miles per minute! whereas, it is an absolutely motionless plane, surrounded by a barrier of impassable icebergs, extending into unknown regions, where “day and night come to an end,” or, in other words, cease to be distinguished, and will only be removed when “there shall be no more sea;” and a “ new firmament and a new earth ” shall replace this sin-stained and misused world.

The astronomers teach an atmospheric pressure of fifteen pounds on the square inch; whereas, it does not amount to half as many grains. Gravitation (central), is the wildest fiction ever invented.

All Attraction,—Solar, lunar, central, and magnetic, is purely conjectural and physically impossible.

The astronomers further declare that this globe has no material support. but is sustained and controlled in its terrific orbits by solar attraction only, at a distance of nearly one hundred million miles; although Sir Isaac Newton himself declares the idea was “grossly preposterous and

discreditable to any rational mind;” meaning, of course, that the “centripetal and centrifugal forces” were hypothetical conditions only, and like all the other data on which the Copernican theory was founded, were purely geometrical devices, which no one in their sober senses ever thought could be illustrated by an appeal to facts. But such was the ignorance or bigotry of his professional friends, that they would not allow even Sir Isaac Newton himself to publish his repeated disclaimers of being anything more than a mathematical inventor or formulator of a system which was in no degree dependent on the truth of his premises. The rank absurdity and downright impossibility of any one, of its most elementary conditions, and the fact that no man of honor or scientific reputation would venture openly to defend it, ought to secure the instant rejection of it by every lover of truth in the world. The whole thing lies in a nutshell. All that is insisted upon is, that results or conclusions drawn from conjectural theories of philosophy, however plausible and apparently simple they may be, are wholly worthless and unworthy of any claim to rank as true science, till they have been proved correct by actual experimental demonstration, and can be thus confirmed and illustrated as often as their truth is challenged or denied. Even if a theory be true in the abstract, yet, if incapable of practical demonstration, it is not science, merely to suppose or assert it to be true. Newton himself was too sound a philosopher to attempt to illustrate the truth of the globular theory; he repeatedly discouraged all discussion, and, if left to himself, would never have attached his name-or sanction to such a bungling absurdity.

This is the ground on which the ZETETICS take their stand, and all the professors in the kingdom will strive in vain to dislodge them; and, what is more, they are too cowardly to attempt it. The above is so startling an exposure that the public press is ashamed to announce it; although the globular theory has been shown to be a Pagan superstition, unscriptural, irrational, unscientific, and physically impossible!

The true cosmogony of the Universe should be the primary subject, and one which ought to take precedence of every other on which the mind of a child can possibly be engaged. Ignorance of its true nature is a gross scandal on all connected with any phase of education, either religious or secular; and the imposition of a fraud which the intelligent child soon learns to detect, exerts a positive injury on the mind all through life. At the present moment there is not a teacher in the kingdom who would venture _to prove himself familiar with the most elementary principles of

natural science; and yet the writer is abused for declaring the world is full of knaves or dunces. Even savages never boast of being wiser than they are, or teach their children what they know to be untrue.

Never before was there such a fuss made about education. Do we really know or only think we know? Or is it learn, learn, learn – leave off no wiser than before? If bricks and mortar could make brain’s—fine buildings could ensure great thoughts—if learned professors nearly all that they profess, Thomas Carlyle would have belied his countrymen when he said we were a nation of “mostly fools.”

What is our standard of true knowledge? an imperfect standard is as misleading as defective weights If we deal with false analogies, we are only comparing true metal with an ingenious counterfeit! What are we aiming at these remarks? We mean to say and are able to prove that at this moment, we are living in an age of shams and false pretences, and that we are totally unfamiliar with the most elementary conditions of some of the most important subjects that can possibly occupy the attention of a professedly intelligent and commercial nation;—that even our Clergy and Theological professors do not yet understand the teaching of the Mosaic records;—that our Schoolmasters, on some subjects, do not understand oi know more than their pupils; that even our nautical charts and tables would discredit a nation of savages; and that our geography and astronomy are just where they were left by our university authorities of two hundred years ago; and that the most eminent of our educational professors would not now venture to defend what our poor children are compelled to carry with them through life.

What shall we say to those “Scientific” Journalists and Reviewers who persistently discourage any desire for discussion or ventilation of this important subject? Is it to hide their own ignorance or to display a mock contempt for any suggestion that runs counter to popular prejudice or opinion; or do they go so far as to imply that they cannot find among their numerous literary connexion, one individual writer who has intelligence enough to maintain his ground in a discussion with an honest

opponent ? It is a gross fraud on the credulity of the public as well as on the helplessness of childhood to enforce the acceptance of certain teaching which they are too ignorant to explain or too cowardly to defend.

If modem astronomical science could be shown to be demonstrably true, how’ glorious would be the victory, and how, dire our confusion ! But till they cease their insolent taunts and courteously show us our error and the futility of our opposition, we shall certainly not cease to regard them as vanquished foes, who lack the moral courage to acknowledge their defeat. And we can but trust that when Prof. This or Prof. That ventures to pose as a Scientist or as an oracle on scientific subjects, he will learn to exhibit a little more modesty and confess that for once in his life, he had to bow to the superior influence of common sense, and, above all, to the omnipotent authority of the inspired records.

As it is. Science is irredeemably prejudiced in the eyes of all honest men and can never again assume those insolent airs which have so frequently disfigured its encounters with the less dogmatic searchers after truth.


The following Extract was taken from the “Birmingham Weekly Mercury” of February 15th, 1890, and must have been first published very soon after the experiment on the Bedford Canal, when that Professor fraudulently appropriated the sum of £1,000 on the grossly false plea that he had proved a curvature on six miles of the surface water of that Canal.

An Engineer of Thirty Years


“ An Engineer of Thirty Years Standing” writes to a magazine in 1874 quoting the following sentences as the result of his experience in the construction of railways, more especially :—“ I am thoroughly acquainted both 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 positively stated that all the platforms are on the same relative level. The distance between the eastern and western coast of England may be set down as three hundred miles. If the prescribed curvature was indeed, as represented, the central stations say at Rugby or Warwick, ought to be close upon three miles higher than a cord 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.

As long as they know the pretended curve to be mere theory, they do not trouble themselves about what may be stated in the tables of the geographers. But we can only laugh at those of your readers and others who seriously give us credit for such venturesome exploits, as running trains round spherical surfaces. Horizontal curves on levels are dangerous enough; vertical ones would be a thousand times worse, and, with our rolling stock constructed as at present, physically impossible.

There are several other reasons why such locomotion on iron rails would be as impracticable as carrying the trains through the air.”—Surveyor.

Posted in General Flat Earth Topics, Mysteries Explained | Tagged

Masons In Space

Masons In Space

Click Here



Posted in moon landing hoax | Tagged , | Leave a comment