Kent Hovind and the Flat Earth, part 1
Here are the quotes that was said on the video and the approximate location. I did not write verbatim what was said, but close enough. You can listen and hear for yourself the comments made. It would be best to go a few seconds before the times given below so you don’t miss anything.
00:23 He was made aware of the flat earth in the last couple of years. This is not what he said in his video back last year, I think it was in July, when he was exposed to it.
00:56 This is like Romans 10.1, the seal of God but not according to knowledge. This, Kent mentions about 5-6 times in his video and is making this accusation to flat earth believers, when, in fact, it should be made to him – as we’ll see later on. It’s easy to throw these verse and apply to your opposition BUT do they fit the facts? The answer is no – it does not apply to the flat earthers but to the globe theorists.
By the way, do you know that the people who are against God’s laws support the New World Order also refer to themselves as “Globalist?” Interesting.
4:20 This is where life is, this is where his (God’s) attention is, as God is the mother of all living.
This is strange that Kent Hovind uses a “politically correct” word of referring to God as a mother. This is also what the New Age/David Ike type and other such people use.
4:55 Edrique put forth two main arguments:
1 – No good evidence to think that the earth is flat
2 – Is good evidence to think that the earth is a Sphere.
Then he goes into four reasons why he thinks the earth is not flat and puts forth what us flat earthers believe.
In fact, there is overwhelming evidence that the earth IS flat and stationary. But the two of them never fully explain it.
1 The earth always rise to eye level.
2 Surveyors, engineers and architects never required to factor the curvature of the earth into their projects.
3 Airplane pilots have to constantly correct their altitudes.
4 If earth spinning 1000mph.
10:38 talking about surveyors.
Let me dissect Edrique discussion:
1 The earth always rise to eye level.
Edrique shows on the computer screen a view from an airplane and said that there is an app that you can buy that shows true eye level. What is shown on the screen is that the line on the lens is above the horizon. In other words, according to him, the land is not at eye level as flat earthers claim, thus the earth is a globe.
As you can see in the above picture that you still see the horizon, this, Edrique doesn’t point out. The fact is, from this altitude, which must have been at 35,000 feet, as the clouds are far below, that you do see AT EYE LEVEL the land. It’s not in the middle of your view – according to the app – but it’s still there. Another thing that neither Kent or Edrique pointed out is that the HORIZON IS FLAT. Do they think that the viewers are stupid? I guess so.
This is the important thing – that the horizon is still flat and and should not be at this altitude. Here is another thing to consider. You can be standing on a beach with the sea view at your eye level. You can take a picture of this. However, you can TILT your camera up and the horizon would be lower than mid-frame on the camera. This proves nothing except that the camera was tilted! What you have to look at is how much of the horizon you can see and how flat it is.
IF you could go as high as you want over the flat earth, it will eventually drop down. But that is not because the earth is a globe but because you are so far above that you have to look down – NO MATTER WHAT SHAPE THE OBJECT IS. Then, you’d see the top view of the earth – which would be round but not a globe.
On to Edrique next argument:
2 Surveyors, engineers and architects never required to factor the curvature of the earth into their projects. (Flat earth argument.)
The surveyors and engineers NEVER factor in the curvature. They might be told this in the university training but it is only theory. When in the field they never do this – everything is based on the earth being flat. In fact, this was pointed out many years ago by and an engineer who believed in the flat earth. So, IF Edrique talked to some engineer they lied to him; he was just told theory in class. THEN, there is the real world!
Then he goes into how large projects are build and used a runway for example. Edrique did mention about the 8 inches of drop per mile but he was stumbling over the formula (11:25 into video). This is funny, as this is a very important issue to prove that the earth is not a sphere. What he should have said was, “8 inches times the distance squared.” Edrique fumbled around and made the wording different. So, anyone WITH math skills might miss that, thus, missing the opportunity to see the flat earthers are correct.
Edrique said that when surveyors take measurements, they move their instruments every mile, so they don’t get the drop – the difference is not noticeable. Well, this is a lie, they might have to move their instruments, but IF the earth was a globe, the runway will not be level.
3 Airplane pilots have to constantly correct their altitudes.
Edrique says that gravity is attracting the plane down. He tries to use some BS argument about gravity and pilots not having to do adjusting. We all know about the lies of gravity. There never was an experiment showing that mass attracts other mass.
4 If earth spinning 1000mph.
There will be more talked about this in a future article where Kent and Edrique go into more detail but it really it’s hilarious when you hear them!
17:40 Edrique showed a video (just a still from a video) that he took of buoys in the bay. The first one was when he was on the “beach line,” as he put it, and the buoys were two miles away.
See the picture at the top of this Post.
He went on to say that in the first picture he didn’t see the rust on the bottom of the buoy but in the second video he did.
The second picture he admits he raised the camera 16 inches. He is the picture:
first picture was taken literally at water level
the second picture was taken 16 inches high
the bay also looks like it’s choppy water
Now, here is the deception Edrique did, or is it just sloppy work? First, a picture taken literally at ground level, you will see less. Secondly, he then raised the camera 16 inches higher. When you do this, your line of sight if further. He mentions this in another part of the video but ignores it here. Thirdly, he ignores the maths involved IF the earth was a globe. He knows about the 8 inches times the distance squared, as mentioned a few minutes earlier in this video but I guess he hopes that you forget this.
It strange why he took a picture at ground level. Then the other picture at only 16 inches. This sounds like deception. Because the normal way to take a picture is, you stand and bring the camera to your eyes – not taking a picture at ground level. You really need a valid explanation to take a picture, for example, at ground level. Maybe Edrique wanted to get a picture of a sand crab and hope that the crab blocks the view of the buoy and use that to prove the globe earth theory!
By taking the globe earth mathematician’s figures, and calculating the distance that Edrique said the buoys are – which were two miles away – we should NOT be able to see the baseline of the buoys. Yet, what Edrique showed us was PROOF that the earth is flat and not round! Here is how he inadvertently did it:
He showed the waterline of the buoy, which would be impossible to see at 2 miles. The formula is: 2 x 2 = 4 x 8 inches = 32. Thus, we should NOT see the bottom 32 inches of the buoy. Or, put it another way, 2 feet 10 inches you would not see it. Yet WE SAW down to the waterline. I bet there are some people who were undecided about the shape of the earth or did believe in the globe earth and are now believers in a flat earth! Ha, ha, ha.
Thank you Edrique for proving the earth is flat!
20:00 Edrique took a video of a water tower that was 9 miles away across the bay. It was the Pensacola Water Tower, in Pensacola Bay, Florida. He said the tower is 110 feet tall and the took the picture 8 inches above the water, “I was literally laying in the water,” are his words. In the video he shows a picture on the screen where you can see down to ground level not only the tower but the other buildings, too.
( In case you wonder what the “/” means, it means the divide sign. I’m from the old school and I’m sure there are many readers that are, too.)
Now, let’s do the math to see IF the earth is a globe or not. 9 x 9 = 81 x 8 inches = 648 inches / 12 = 54 feet.
54 FEET! That means that HALF the water tower we should NOT be able to see if the earth was round, yet we do see down to the base. That is only possible because the earth is flat!
This is an example of what globe earth believers do: They ignore some facts, and twist experiments to get a result that is satisfactory to them.Therefore, I think it’s good to analysis what they say. When presented to them, they can realise their mistake. If they can’t see it, it means they are out to deceive you. I do hope that Hovind and Visser realise their mistake and make a public apology (on video).
Visser stated that he was, “literally laying in the water.” Even if that was an exaggeration, we get the idea that he was very close and literally at water level. Then, later in this video segment he goes on to say that there are houses in front of the water tower that are not seen. He said this is because it’s behind the curve, whereas the tower rises above it. Now, this would seem to make sense – BUT the fact that he said the picture was taken at water level explains it all. There are waves and with enough choppy water the water blocks out some of the view, naturally – just enough to mislead, I might add. But the waves are not enough to block the tall buildings in the back.
What do normal people do if they are to take a picture of an object that is far away? They would go to a location, point their camera at the subject and take a picture AT EYE LEVEL! Why didn’t he do this? You can still do the calculation if you take the picture at 5 feet or 6 feet high. All you do is MINUS the 5 feet from your calculations.
There is another factor that results in some of the view being blocked at ground level and that is: mist or pollution. It is heaviest at ground level. As far as seeing something at a great distance, usually what prevents this is not only mist and pollution but also air density. That’s why you can’t see to China from California.
Now, IF Edrique were to take a picture the normal way, but instead of a field scope, which he said he used (in another video), he took a telescope, he would be able to see the homes in the font. So, what is his explanation to that? A telescope cannot see behind a curved earth, so the earth must be flat.
When you are at water level, the waves – no matter what the size – will block our more because of the closeness to the lens. That is why the homes could not be seen. You can take a picture of a mouse and it will block out a car in the background. We know that a mouse is much smaller than a car but the mouse blocks it out because of the Law of Perspective; one object is much closer to the lens than the other.
IF Edrique is not deliberately deceiving the people, he is taking his suggested experiments from someone who is out to deceive. Edrique, not thinking of what he is doing; he is copying it and getting the same results – which can be misconstrued.
As a side note, at 20:54 he said that the distance was 9.5 miles away, when it is 9.05 miles. Now, this is a little mistake and it doesn’t matter in our calculations. However, throughout these videos he makes these mistakes.
Two other things that this guy didn’t mention and that is:
1 Why aren’t the building slanting back? They would have to lean back IF there was curvature but they are not, they are standing straight up – as it would on a flat earth.
2 Has anyone on a boat, going from one end of this island to another reported going over a hill of water? Of course, there is no “hill of water” but that’s what it would have to be IF what Edrique said is true; hill that is 54 feet high, that’s pretty big!
Then Edrique moved the camera up 20 feet on a pylon, as he stated and took another picture of the same water tower and adjoining buildings. This gave him a different angel, which we all agree it would. There, you can see the buildings in the font that the other picture did not capture. But that is not because we are “seeing over the curvature,” but that there were no waves smack up to the lens – that makes a big difference!
If this guy really wanted to get to the truth, he would watch a pleasure boat in the bay or ocean until it goes out of sight. Take a picture or video as it sails to the horizon. Then, with a proper telescope, zoom in and he’ll see the boat again. That’s because the boat simply went out of view of sight – not because it dropped behind a curve. As we all know a telescope cannot see through a mass of water or solid objects. IF Kent or Edrique did this, they will prove to themselves that the earth is not a globe. But you have some people who cannot see and others who WILL NOT see.
24:10 “The only explanation of why these homes can’t be seen is perspective,” Edrique said. Kent added, while Edrique was searching for the right word said, “A cop out, a way to not answer.” Now, what kind of scientist is Kent? Perspective is a REAL thing, or the Law of Perspective. This IS a legediment answer. How can it be a “cop out” when the reality of life is: that things get smaller the further away it is. Also, a person’s sight is limited – some people have better sight than others but everyone has a limit to their eye sight. So, who is doing the “cop out”? They are! In short, how can you get the message to people like them when they ignore the laws of physics and reality itself?
There are several factors that make an object get smaller or disappear. They are:
the person’s sight
the law of perspective
fog, mist, pollution, air density
light at the time
level of land in the foreground
Any of these factors are at play and effects how far we can see. But NONE of them have to do with something behind a curve of the earth.
A minute later Visser said that if it was a flat earth that the object should rise up to eye level, it would just get smaller and smaller. Again, let me teach him something about reality. When an object, house, person or car gets smaller and smaller in the distance, they “blend in” to the ground. Take a look at ice skaters – at a distance it looks like they are skating without feet, but as you get closer you see their feet. If you are even further away it looks like part of their legs are gone. Now, you know that their whole body is there but it BECAUSE of the Law of Perspective. I would not be surprised if this guy was told this or that he watched a flat earth video and it was explained but he would not admit this.
In short with all the things that Edrique questions about the flat earth, he would have nearly all the answers if he saw a couple of flat earth videos that are about 2 hours long. In fact, he would be a flat earth believer; at the very least, he would seriously question the globe earth model. But maybe he would lose his job with Kent if he really told him how he believes. I don’t know.
25:50 Polaris and the Southern Cross. This section Edrique goes into the Northern Star, known as Polaris, that it can only be seen in the northern hemisphere and the Southern Cross that can only be seen in the southern hemisphere. The fact is, that you can see Polaris in the southern hemisphere but he doesnt mention that. But a major thing that he ignores is, the question: “How does a star that is many trillion miles away always be over the North Pole? How can it mirror the speed, gyrations and the gymnastics that we are told earth does? It’s physically impossible. The explanation is, that Polaris is in the dome, along with the other stars. And it’s the dome that is going around and Polaris is the center of this dome – or, the “firmament” as the Bible call is.
Edrique said he called Polar Cruises to see if there is a trip from the tip of South America to New Zealand and they said that there was. By them giving the length (in days) of how long the trip would be and the average speed that the ship travels, he calculated that it would be impossible if the earth is flat. Now, I don’t know about this cruise line, but I have heard about these Antarctic trips and that there are shorter trips. IF Polar Cruise Lines said a trip like this exists, they could use this to lead the people astray, then call up later and tell them that the trip is cancelled but offer another one where passengers can go on. For example, the tip from Argentina to the Antarctic and back. So, this could be part of the big cover up. One thing we know for sure is that Edrique did NOT book this trip; he did not go on it, so he really doesn’t know. Therefore, this cannot be offered as proof. But we do have proof for the flat earth, and that is: WATER DOES NOT STAY ON A BALL! This automatically disproves ANYTHING someone would say in support of the globe earth model.
Thus ends the first of three videos by Kent Hovind and arguing against the flat earth.