A flat earther explains how a globe earth believer is wrong!
A flat earther explains how a globe earth believer is wrong!
RULES OF LOGIC
Discussing the flat earth with anyone it would help to know what rules of logic the critic has broken. When you know this and say what they are doing, it helps in your discussion. For example, you might say that they are using the straw man argument and give an explanation of it.
Below you’ll see the rules of logic, its definition and an example.
I hope that you find this of interest and find it useful in not only discussing the flat earth but also anything else that the public is usually wrong about.
Your support for this ministry is kindly appreciated. God Bless you and yours.
You misrepresented someone’s argument to make it easier to attack.
By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone’s argument, it’s much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate.
Example: After Will said that we should put more money into health and education, Warren responded by saying that he was surprised that Will hates our country so much that he wants to leave it defenceless by cutting military spending.
You presumed that a real or perceived relationship between things means that one is the cause of the other.
Many people confuse correlation (things happening together or in sequence) for causation (that one thing actually causes the other to happen). Sometimes correlation is coincidental, or it may be attributable to a common cause.
Example: Pointing to a fancy chart, Roger shows how temperatures have been rising over the past few centuries, whilst at the same time the numbers of pirates have been decreasing; thus pirates cool the world and global warming is a hoax.
Note: This is a bad example (by the person who wrote this article) as we know that global warming is a hoax.
appeal to emotion
You attempted to manipulate an emotional response in place of a valid or compelling argument.
Appeals to emotion include appeals to fear, envy, hatred, pity, pride, and more. It’s important to note that sometimes a logically coherent argument may inspire emotion or have an emotional aspect, but the problem and fallacy occurs when emotion is used instead of a logical argument, or to obscure the fact that no compelling rational reason exists for one’s position. Everyone, bar sociopaths, is affected by emotion, and so appeals to emotion are a very common and effective argument tactic, but they’re ultimately flawed, dishonest, and tend to make one’s opponents justifiably emotional.
Example: Luke didn’t want to eat his sheep’s brains with chopped liver and brussel sprouts, but his father told him to think about the poor, starving children in a third world country who weren’t fortunate enough to have any food at all.
the fallacy fallacy
You presumed that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong.
It is entirely possible to make a claim that is false yet argue with logical coherency for that claim, just as it is possible to make a claim that is true and justify it with various fallacies and poor arguments.
Example: Recognising that Amanda had committed a fallacy in arguing that we should eat healthy food because a nutritionist said it was popular, Alyse said we should therefore eat bacon double cheeseburgers every day.
You said that if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen.
The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture.
Example: Colin Closet asserts that if we allow same-sex couples to marry, then the next thing we know we’ll be allowing people to marry their parents, their cars and even monkeys.
You attacked your opponent’s character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument.
Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone’s case without actually having to engage with it.
Example: After Sally presents an eloquent and compelling case for a more equitable taxation system, Sam asks the audience whether we should believe anything from a woman who isn’t married, was once arrested, and smells a bit weird.
You avoided having to engage with criticism by turning it back on the accuser – you answered criticism with criticism.
Pronounced too-kwo-kwee. Literally translating as ‘you too’ this fallacy is also known as the appeal to hypocrisy. It is commonly employed as an effective red herring because it takes the heat off someone having to defend their argument, and instead shifts the focus back on to the person making the criticism.
Example: Nicole identified that Hannah had committed a logical fallacy, but instead of addressing the substance of her claim, Hannah accused Nicole of committing a fallacy earlier on in the conversation.
Because you found something difficult to understand, or are unaware of how it works, you made out like it’s probably not true.
Complex subjects like biological evolution through natural selection require some amount of understanding before one is able to make an informed judgement about the subject at hand; this fallacy is usually used in place of that understanding.
Example: Kirk drew a picture of a fish and a human and with effusive disdain asked Richard if he really thought we were stupid enough to believe that a fish somehow turned into a human through just, like, random things happening over time.
Note: This is a bad example, as we know that there is no such thing as evolution of the species.
You moved the goalposts or made up an exception when your claim was shown to be false.
Humans are funny creatures and have a foolish aversion to being wrong. Rather than appreciate the benefits of being able to change one’s mind through better understanding, many will invent ways to cling to old beliefs. One of the most common ways that people do this is to post-rationalize a reason why what they thought to be true must remain to be true. It’s usually very easy to find a reason to believe something that suits us, and it requires integrity and genuine honesty with oneself to examine one’s own beliefs and motivations without falling into the trap of justifying our existing ways of seeing ourselves and the world around us.
Example: Edward Johns claimed to be psychic, but when his ‘abilities’ were tested under proper scientific conditions, they magically disappeared. Edward explained this saying that one had to have faith in his abilities for them to work.
You asked a question that had a presumption built into it so that it couldn’t be answered without appearing guilty.
Loaded question fallacies are particularly effective at derailing rational debates because of their inflammatory nature – the recipient of the loaded question is compelled to defend themselves and may appear flustered or on the back foot.
Example: Grace and Helen were both romantically interested in Brad. One day, with Brad sitting within earshot, Grace asked in an inquisitive tone whether Helen was still having problems with her drug habit.
burden of proof
You said that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove.
The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever. However it is important to note that we can never be certain of anything, and so we must assign value to any claim based on the available evidence, and to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn’t been proven beyond all doubt is also fallacious reasoning.
Example: Bertrand declares that a teapot is, at this very moment, in orbit around the Sun between the Earth and Mars, and that because no one can prove him wrong, his claim is therefore a valid one.
You used a double meaning or ambiguity of language to mislead or misrepresent the truth.
Politicians are often guilty of using ambiguity to mislead and will later point to how they were technically not outright lying if they come under scrutiny. The reason that it qualifies as a fallacy is that it is intrinsically misleading.
Example: When the judge asked the defendant why he hadn’t paid his parking fines, he said that he shouldn’t have to pay them because the sign said ‘Fine for parking here’ and so he naturally presumed that it would be fine to park there.
the gambler’s fallacy
You said that ‘runs’ occur to statistically independent phenomena such as roulette wheel spins.
This commonly believed fallacy can be said to have helped create an entire city in the desert of Nevada USA. Though the overall odds of a ‘big run’ happening may be low, each spin of the wheel is itself entirely independent from the last. So whilst there may be a very small chance that heads will come up 20 times in a row if you flip a coin, the chances of heads coming up on each individual flip remain 50/50, and aren’t influenced by what happened before.
Example: Red had come up six times in a row on the roulette wheel, so Greg knew that it was close to certain that black would be next up. Suffering an economic form of natural selection with this thinking, he soon lost all of his savings.
You appealed to popularity or the fact that many people do something as an attempted form of validation.
The flaw in this argument is that the popularity of an idea has absolutely no bearing on its validity.
If it did, then the Earth would have made itself a globe for most of history to accommodate this popular belief.
Example: Shamus pointed a drunken finger at Sean and asked him to explain how so many people could believe in leprechauns if they’re only a silly old superstition. Sean, however, had had a few too many Guinness himself and fell off his chair.
appeal to authority
You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.
It’s important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence. However, it is entirely possible that the opinion of a person or institution of authority is wrong; therefore the authority that such a person or institution holds does not have any intrinsic bearing upon whether their claims are true or not.
Example: Not able to defend his position that geocentrism ‘isn’t true’ Bob says that he knows a scientist who also questions evolution (and presumably isn’t a primate).
You assumed that one part of something has to be applied to all, or other, parts of it; or that the whole must apply to its parts.
Often when something is true for the part it does also apply to the whole, or vice versa, but the crucial difference is whether there exists good evidence to show that this is the case. Because we observe consistencies in things, our thinking can become biased so that we presume consistency to exist where it does not.
Example: Daniel was a precocious child and had a liking for logic. He reasoned that atoms are invisible, and that he was made of atoms and therefore invisible too. Unfortunately, despite his thinky skills, he lost the game of hide and go seek.
no true scotsman
You made what could be called an appeal to purity as a way to dismiss relevant criticisms or flaws of your argument.
In this form of faulty reasoning one’s belief is rendered unfalsifiable because no matter how compelling the evidence is, one simply shifts the goalposts so that it wouldn’t apply to a supposedly ‘true’ example. This kind of post-rationalization is a way of avoiding valid criticisms of one’s argument.
Example: Angus declares that Scotsmen do not put sugar on their porridge, to which Lachlan points out that he is a Scotsman and puts sugar on his porridge. Furious, like a true Scot, Angus yells that no true Scotsman sugars his porridge.
You judged something as either good or bad on the basis of where it comes from, or from whom it came.
This fallacy avoids the argument by shifting focus onto something’s or someone’s origins. It’s similar to an ad hominem fallacy in that it leverages existing negative perceptions to make someone’s argument look bad, without actually presenting a case for why the argument itself lacks merit.
Example: Accused on the 6 o’clock news of corruption and taking bribes, the senator said that we should all be very wary of the things we hear in the media, because we all know how very unreliable the media can be.
You presented two alternative states as the only possibilities, when in fact more possibilities exist.
Also known as the false dilemma, this insidious tactic has the appearance of forming a logical argument, but under closer scrutiny it becomes evident that there are more possibilities than the either/or choice that is presented. Binary, black-or-white thinking doesn’t allow for the many different variables, conditions, and contexts in which there would exist more than just the two possibilities put forth. It frames the argument misleadingly and obscures rational, honest debate.
Example: Whilst rallying support for his plan to fundamentally undermine citizens’ rights, the Supreme Leader told the people they were either on his side, or they were on the side of the enemy.
begging the question
You presented a circular argument in which the conclusion was included in the premise.
This logically incoherent argument often arises in situations where people have an assumption that is very ingrained, and therefore taken in their minds as a given. Circular reasoning is bad mostly because it’s not very good.
Example: The word of Zorbo the Great is flawless and perfect. We know this because it says so in The Great and Infallible Book of Zorbo’s Best and Most Truest Things that are Definitely True and Should Not Ever Be Questioned.
appeal to nature
You argued that because something is ‘natural’ it is therefore valid, justified, inevitable, good or ideal.
Many ‘natural’ things are also considered ‘good’, and this can bias our thinking; but naturalness itself doesn’t make something good or bad. For instance murder could be seen as very natural, but that doesn’t mean it’s good or justifiable.
Example: The medicine man rolled into town on his bandwagon offering various natural remedies, such as very special plain water. He said that it was only natural that people should be wary of ‘artificial’ medicines such as antibiotics.
Note: This is a bad example, as all medicines has contraindicative effects.
You used a personal experience or an isolated example instead of a sound argument or compelling evidence.
It’s often much easier for people to believe someone’s testimony as opposed to understanding complex data and variation across a continuum. Quantitative scientific measures are almost always more accurate than personal perceptions and experiences, but our inclination is to believe that which is tangible to us, and/or the word of someone we trust over a more ‘abstract’ statistical reality.
Example: Jason said that that was all cool and everything, but his grandfather smoked, like, 30 cigarettes a day and lived until 97 – so don’t believe everything you read about meta analyses of methodologically sound studies showing proven causal relationships.
the texas sharpshooter
You cherry-picked a data cluster to suit your argument, or found a pattern to fit a presumption.
This ‘false cause’ fallacy is coined after a marksman shooting randomly at barns and then painting bullseye targets around the spot where the most bullet holes appear, making it appear as if he’s a really good shot. Clusters naturally appear by chance, but don’t necessarily indicate that there is a causal relationship.
Example: The makers of Sugarette Candy Drinks point to research showing that of the five countries where Sugarette drinks sell the most units, three of them are in the top ten healthiest countries on Earth, therefore Sugarette drinks are healthy.
You claimed that a compromise, or middle point, between two extremes must be the truth.
Much of the time the truth does indeed lie between two extreme points, but this can bias our thinking: sometimes a thing is simply untrue and a compromise of it is also untrue. Half way between truth and a lie, is still a lie.
Example: Holly said that vaccinations caused autism in children (which it does, ed.), but her scientifically well-read friend Caleb said that this claim had been debunked and proven false (because a person repeats what he is told, he says it out of fear, or he is in the pay of a pharmaceutical company, ed.). Their friend Alice offered a compromise that vaccinations must cause some autism, just not all autism.
Note: This is a bad another example by the person who wrote the article.
Does the ‘bottomless pit’ as talked about in the Bible fit with a globe earth or a flat earth?
If a good theodolite is placed on the summit of Shooter’s Hill, in Kent, and levelled, the line of sight, on being directed to Hampstead Hill, will cut the cross on St. Paul’s Cathedral, and fall upon a part of Hampstead Hill, the altitude of which is the same as that of Shooter’s Hill. The altitude of each of these points is 412 feet above the Trinity high water mark, at London Bridge. The distance from Shooter’s Hill to St. Paul’s Cathedral is 7 statute miles, and from St. Paul’s to Hampstead Hill, 5 miles. If the earth is a globe, the line of sight from the “levelled” theodolite would be a tangent, below which St. Paul’s cross would be 32 feet, and Hampstead Hill 96 feet. The highest point of Hampstead Hill is 430 feet, which we find, on making the proper calculation, would be 78 feet below the summit of Shooter’s Hill; whereas, according to the Ordnance Survey, and as may be proved by experiment, the three points are in the same direct line; again demonstrating that the earth is a plane.
The diagrams, figs. 42 and 43, will show the difference
between the theory of rotundity and the results of actual survey. A, represents Hampstead Hill; C, St. Paul’s cross; B, Shooter’s Hill; and D, D, the datum line–the Trinity high water mark. In fig. 43, A, B, C, and D, D, represent the same points respectively as in fig. 42.
In the account of the trigonometrical operations in France, by M. M. Biot and Arago, it is stated that the light of a powerful lamp, with good reflectors, was placed on a rocky summit, in Spain, called Desierto las Palmas, and was distinctly seen from Camprey, on the Island of Iviza. The elevation of the two points was nearly the same, and the distance between them nearly 100 miles. If the earth is a globe, the light on the rock in Spain would have been more than 6600 feet, or nearly one mile and a quarter, below the line of sight.
“The length of some of the sides of the great triangles (in the English survey) is upwards of 100 miles; and many means were employed to render the stations visible from each other at such great distances. The oxy-hydrogen, or Drummond’s Light, was employed in some instances; but a heliostat, for reflecting the sun’s rays in the direction of the distant observer, was more generally and successfully employed. Lieutenant-Colonel Portlock, R.E., who observed the station on Precelly, a mountain in South Wales, from the station on Kippure, a mountain about 10 miles south-west of Dublin–the distance between the stations being 108 miles–says: ‘For five weeks I watched in vain; when, to my joy, the heliostat blazed out in the early beams of the rising sun, and continued visible as a bright star the whole day.’” 1
Many other very long “sights” have been taken by surveyors of different countries, which upon a globe of 25,000 miles in circumference, would have been quite impossible; but with the demonstrated fact that the earth is a plane, are practical and consistent.
59:1 Handbook to the Official Catalogue of the Great Exhibition of 1851.
This is what I had been saying since the fires started but what I pointed out was more than what this article says, meaning, that trees are still standing when brick walls are not. The brick walls did not just collapse but looked like most of them disintegrate. Also, the glass in calls are gone – not smashed but melted! This is not caused by a forest fires as forest fires don’t reach that high of temperature.
I just came across a sermon by a Christian Identity pastor by the name of Jeromy John Visser who attacks flat earth believers. His attack is pretty poor and much like those who are not Christian. The flat earth topic is mixed in with several other topics that are not even related, which I don”t understand.
Below is the link to the video if you want to hear it. However, I would like to make some comments on this malicious attack of Christians who also believe in the flat earth.
Visser paraphrases the Bible and says that: ‘that God sits on the sphere or circle of the earth.’ His first mistake is that the Bible does not use the word ‘sphere’, unless he is using one of those modern-day Bibles created by non-Christians in order to prove their interpretation, and not the KJV.
He also paraphrases the Bible and says that the world hangs on nothing. Now, this is true but he can’t get in his mind that you can have a flat earth and it hangs on nothing. This is what Yahweh, God said and I believe it; all flat earthers believe it. Otherwise you’d have to believe that it sits on some other land. But if that is the case, where does that sit on? – the back of a huge turtle? Lol.
The next claim is that some Rabbi Sodie invented the flat earth. Now, the flat earth might be mentioned in the Talmud but does that make it false? It might be mentioned in other health religions but because it has, does this alone make it false? The fact is, that these other people got the flat earth from Christians and if they put it in their writings is simply that they are copying what they heard. In regardless to the flat earth, they at least got that right.
Visser says ‘the truth movement is being inundated by idiots and deceivers’ – implying flat earthers. There is a lot of implications to flat earthers here and he gets quite mean. If he read other articles on this website – if he had been here – he would not use those words.
He also said ‘we must use sound doctrine’ and he quotes a verse – again implying that flat earthers doesn’t use sound doctrine. He should look to himself!
Another quote, ‘Anything that the Bible says trumps what man said and if the Bible says the earth is round it would trump what others say that is contrary.’ This is a typical critic’s argument – they imply what they say is the truth, so anything that is contrary is wrong. Sure, this is what the Bible says BUT when it’s used to support something that is not true, he hopes that the listener follows along.
All of the above is the first four minutes of the video. Now, it gets ludicrous – it’s funny. Jeromy Visser said, ‘I’ve been on planes flying to the Vatican and you can look out the window and see the earth is round.’ If this isn’t absurd, I don’t know what is! Lol. It’s also revealing and I’ll talk about that in a minute.
When you look out a window when you are flying, do you see a round earth? Do you see any curvature? I don’t. I see a flat horizon that goes up the the level of my eyes – which is one proof (of many) that the earth is flat. If we are on a globe that would not happen. Or, are they making windows with fish-eye lens! We know that they aren’t, at least at the writing.
I thought about what he said, and I’m glad that he said it as it reveals a previously unknown condition that the world is being subject to. I never read or heard anyone talking on this subject before, so I’ll do so.
If pastor Vissor is honest in what he said, and I’ve heard others say the same thing by critics of the flat earth, it reveals something very interesting. I had to create a new phrase for this and that is digital overlay If you fly once a year, for example, but during that year you see 1,000 images or CGI of a globe earth. Then when you fly, you look out the window. Then later, when you recall your trip and asked how it looked out the window, you would say the earth has a curve to it. Now, this is just a theory but it explains how some people can honestly think they saw something that they really didn’t. Because, back in their recollection is also the 1,000 images they had seen something that was created digitally and is overlaid on the real memory they had. Because, what they had seen on the evening news, for example, is much more often than their flight that happened a year ago. So, I call this, for a lack of any other word, digital overlay; I’ll trade mark that, too: digital overlay TM
I dare say that this digital overlay TM can and does happen with anything else that we are constantly shown on the computer or TV and changes our real memory experience, but I’ll leave that for now.
The other interesting thing I want to point out that Visser said, and I think he slipped up, was that when he fly to the Vatican many times. So, what is a person who knows the falsehoods about the Catholic Church and knows about the dark deeds theJesuits do, visiting the Vatican? He knows about the Pope and how he deceives the people. So, when Visser said that deceivers have came into the church, who is he talking about?
About half way through this video Visser said the year was 2015. Now, this is when the flat earth information really took off and it was when I first learned about it and started to write about it. I’m wondering if he had seen some of my posts. If so, he didn’t mention it.
Finally, at the 37 minute mark that he said if you look out your window you can see that the Moon is round. Well, I could hold up a dinner plate and it’s round, too, but that does not make it a globe, nor does it tell me (by looking at the Moon) that it’s 242,000 miles away (or whatever the distance is now).
About this other sermon that he said he would make just on the globe earth, I haven’t seen it. If you have seen it, kindly let me know and send me the link. I would be interested in listening to it. Maybe Visser found our more about what we actually say but was too embarrassed to say he was wrong, I don’t know.
I highly recommend that he, and other critics, actually read what is on this website before making a conclusion; before looking foolish and shooting off your mouth.
Side note: Visser talks about we are not to use four letter words and said that the Bible uses the word ‘profanity.’ yet, at the very end of the video, he talked about meeting someone (which includes flat earthers, though it’s implied) that, and I quote, ‘I would hit him ____ in the mouth!’ You actually heard a bleep but you know he would have said the ‘F word.’ So, he just did what he condemned!
To sum up this, Jeromy Visser has not taken the time to read and watch what us flat earthers really believe and talk on that – to either prove we are wrong or to agree. He does not mention another 50 verses where God talks about the earth, Sun and Moon. He does not talk about the other word of God, and that is nature, specifically the laws of physics. God created that, too, but Visser never once commented on that.
The attack on flat earthers seem to follow the same pattern – whether they come from other Christians or from non-Christians. Hopefully, you are aware of what to expect and how to answer them.
Just like a jury that listens to a criminal case, they have to listen to both sides before they make a decision; the same goes for a judge. King Solomon said, he who judges a matter before he hears it is a fool.
Written and sung by Carl Klang
Truth as never heard before set to Country Music. Sit back, and listen to an hour of songs that tells it like it is. You might want to take notes and do a little research on what is contained herein. Enjoy.
The following sketch, fig. 34, represents a contracted section of the London and North-Western Railway, from London to
Liverpool, through Birmingham. The line A, B, is the surface, with its various inclines and altitudes, and C, D, is the datum line from which all the elevations are measured; H, is the station at Birmingham, the elevation of which is 240 feet above the datum line C, D, which line is a continuation of the level of the River Thames at D, to the level of the River Mersey, at C. The direct length of this line is 180 miles; and it is a right or absolutely straight line, in a vertical sense, from London to Liverpool. Therefore, the station at Birmingham is 240 feet above the level of the Thames, continued as a right line throughout the whole length of the railway. But if the earth is a globe, the datum line will be the chord of the arc D, D, D, fig. 35, and the summit of the arc at D, will be 5400 feet above
the chord at C; added to the altitude of the station H, 240 feet, the Birmingham station, H, would be, if the earth is a globe, 5640 feet above the horizontal datum D, D, or vertically above the Trinity high water mark, at London Bridge. It is found, practically, and in fact, not to be more than 240 feet; hence the theory of rotundity must be a fallacy. Sections of all other railways will give similar proofs that the earth is in. reality a plane.
The tunnel just completed under Mont Fréjus, affords a very striking illustration of the truth. that the earth is a plane, and not globular. The elevation above the sea-level of the entrance at Fourneaux, on the French side of the Alps, is 3946 feet, and of the entrance on the Italian side, 4381 feet. The length of the tunnel is 40,000 feet, or nearly eight English statute miles. The gradient or rise, from the entrance on the French side to the summit of the tunnel, is 445 feet; and on the opposite side, 10 feet. It will be seen from the following account, given by M. Kossuth, 1 that the geodetic operations were carried on in connection with a right line, as the axis of the tunnel, and therefore with a horizontal datum which is quite incompatible with the doctrine of rotundity. That the earth is a plane is involved in all the details of the survey, as the following quotation will show:–
“The observatories placed at the two entrances to the tunnel were used for the necessary observations, and each observatory contained an instrument constructed for the purpose. This instrument was placed on a pedestal of masonry, the top of which was covered with a horizontal slab of marble, having
engraved upon its surface two intersecting lines, marking a point which was exactly in the vertical plane containing the axis of the tunnel. The instrument was formed of two supports fixed on a tripod, having a delicate screw adjustment. The telescope was similar to that of a theodolite provided with cross-webs, and strongly illuminated by the light from a lantern, concentrated by a lens and projected upon the cross-webs. In using this instrument in checking the axis of the gallery at the northern entrance, for example; after having proved precisely that the vertical plane, corresponding with the point of intersection of the lines upon the slab, also passed through the centre of the instrument, a visual line was then conveyed to the station at Lochalle (on the mountain), and on the instrument being lowered, the required number of points could be fixed in the axis of the tunnel. In executing such an operation, it was necessary that the tunnel should be free from smoke or vapour. The point of collimation was a plummet, suspended from the roof of the tunnel by means of an iron rectangular frame, in one side of which a number of notches were cut, and the plummet shifted from notch to notch, in accordance with the signals of the operator at the observatory. These signals were given to the man whose business it was to adjust the plummet, by means of a telegraph or a horn. The former was found invaluable throughout all these operations.
“At the Bardonnecchia (Italian) entrance, the instrument employed in setting out the axis of the tunnel was similar to the one already described, with the exception that it was mounted on a little carriage, resting on vertical columns that were erected at distances 500 metres apart in the axis of the tunnel. By the help of the carriage, the theodolite was first placed on the centre line approximately. It was then brought exactly into line by a fine adjustment screw, which moved the eye-piece without shifting the carriage. In order to understand more clearly the method of operating the instrument, the mode of proceeding may be described. In setting out a prolongation of the centre line of the tunnel, the instrument was placed upon the last column but one; a light was stationed upon the last column, and exactly in its centre; and 500 metres ahead a trestle frame was placed across the tunnel. Upon the horizontal bar of this trestle several notches were cut, against which a light was placed, and fixed with proper adjusting screws. The observer standing at the instrument, caused the light to move upon the trestle frame, until it was brought into an exact line with the instrument and the first line; and then the centre of the light was projected with a plummet. In this way the exact centre was found. By a repetition of similar operations the vertical plane containing the axis of the tunnel was laid out by a series of plummet lines. During the intervals that elapsed between consecutive operations with the instrument, the plummets were found to be sufficient for maintaining the direction in making the excavation. To maintain the proper gradients in the tunnel, it was necessary, at intervals, to establish fixed levels, deducing them by direct levelling from standard bench marks, placed at short distances from the entrance. The fixed level marks, in the inside of the tunnel, are made upon stone pillars, placed at intervals of 25 metres, and to these were referred the various points in setting out the gradients.”
The theodolite “was placed on a pedestal of masonry, the top of which was covered with a horizontal slab of marble, having engraved upon its surface two intersecting lines, marking a point which was exactly in the vertical plane containing the axis of the tunnel.” This slab was the starting point–the datum which determined the gradients. Its horizontal surface, prolonged through the mountain, passed 445 feet below the summit of the tunnel, and 435 feet below the entrance on the Italian side. This entrance was 4381 feet above the sea, and 435 feet above the horizontal marble slab on the French side. But, if the earth is a globe, the datum line from this horizontal slab would be a tangent, from which the sea-level would curvate downwards to the extent of 42 feet; and the summit of the tunnel, instead of being 10 feet above the Italian entrance, would, of necessity, be 52 feet above it. It is not so, and therefore the datum line is not a tangent, but runs parallel to the sea; the sea-level not convex, and the earth not a globe. This will be rendered plain by the following diagram, fig. 36.
Let A represent the summit of the tunnel, and A, T, the axis or centre determined by the theodolite T; S, the marble slab; and D, S, the datum line, running parallel with the sea-level H, H. B, the Italian entrance, at an elevation of 435 feet above D, S, and 4381 feet above the surface of the sea, H, H; A, the summit of the tunnel, 445 feet above the French entrance at T, the same above the datum line D, S; and 4391 feet above the sea-line, H, H. If the earth is a globe, the line, D, S, would be a tangent to the sea at H, S, from which point the sea surface would curvate 52 feet downwards, as shown in diagram, fig. 37. Hence, the elevation of the tunnel at B,
would be 52 feet higher above the sea at H, than it is known to be; because taking D, S, as a tangent, and the length of the tunnel being 8 miles–82 miles x 8 inches = 52 feet.
Thus, in a length of 8 statute miles of the most skilful engineering operations, carried on by the most accomplished scientific men, there is a difference between theory and practice of 52 feet! Rather than such a reproach should attach to some of the most eminent practical engineers of the day–those especially who have, with such consummate skill and perseverance, completed one of the most gigantic undertakings of modern times–let the false idea of rotundity in the earth be entirely discarded, and the simple truth acknowledged, that the earth is a plane. It is adopted in practice, why should it be denied in the abstract? Why should the education given in our schools and universities include a forced recognition of a theory which, when practically applied, must ever be ignored and contradicted?
The completion of the great ship canal, which connects the Mediterranean Sea with the Gulf of Suez, on the Red Sea, furnishes another instance of entire discrepancy between the theory of the earth’s rotundity and the results of practical engineering. The canal is 100 English statute miles in length, and is entirely without locks; so that the water within it is really a continuation of the Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea. “The average level of the Mediterranean is 6 inches above the Red Sea; but the flood tides in the Red Sea rise 4 feet above the highest, and its ebbs fall nearly 3 feet below the lowest in the Mediterranean.” The datum line is 26 feet below the level of the Mediterranean, and is continued horizontally from one sea to the other; and throughout the whole length of the work, the surface of the water runs parallel with this datum, as shown in the following section, fig. 38, published by the authorities. A, A, A, A, is the
surface of the canal, passing through several lakes, from one sea to the other; D, D, the bed of the canal, or horizontal datum line to which the various elevations of land, &c., are referred, but parallel to which stands the surface of the water throughout the entire length of the canal; thus proving that the half-tide level of the Red Sea, the 100 miles of water in the canal, and the surface of the Mediterranean Sea, are a continuation of one and the same horizontal line. If the earth is globular, the water in the centre of the canal, being 50 miles from each end, would be the summit of an arc of a circle, and would stand at more than 1600 feet above the Mediterranean and Red Seas (502 x 8 inches = 1666 feet 8 inches), as shown in diagram, fig. 39. A, the Mediterranean Sea; B, the Red
Sea; and A, C, B, the arc of water connecting them; D, D, the horizontal datum, which, if the earth is globular, would really be the chord of the arc, A, C, B.
The bed of the Atlantic Ocean, from Valencia (western coast of Ireland) to Trinity Bay, Newfoundland, as surveyed for the laying of the cable, is another illustration or proof that the surface of the great waters of the earth is horizontal, and not convex, as will be seen by the following diagram, contracted from the section, published October 8,
[paragraph continues] 1869, by the Admiralty. C, D, is the horizontal datum line, and A, B, the surface of the water, for a distance of 1665 nautical, or 1942 statute miles. At about one-third the distance from A, Newfoundland, the greatest depth is found–2424 fathoms; the next deepest part is 2400 fathoms; at about two-thirds the distance from A, towards B, Ireland, while in the centre, the depth is less than 1600 fathoms; whereas, if the water of the Atlantic is convex, the centre would stand 628,560 feet, or nearly 120 miles, higher than the two stations, Trinity Bay and Valencia; and the greatest depth would be in the centre of the Atlantic Ocean, where it would be 106,310 fathoms, instead of 1550 fathoms, which it is proved to be by actual soundings. Fig. 41 shows the arc of water which would exist,
in relation to the horizontal datum line, between Ireland and Newfoundland, if the earth is a globe. Again, if the water in the Atlantic Ocean is convex–a part of a great sphere of 25,000 miles circumference–the horizontal datum line would be a chord to the great arc of water above it; and the distance across the bed of the Atlantic would therefore be considerably less than the distance over the surface. The length of the cable which was laid in 1866, notwithstanding the known irregularities of the bed of the Ocean, would be less than the distance sailed by the paying-out vessel, the “Great Eastern;” whereas, according to the published report, the distance run by the steamer was 1665 miles, while the length of cable payed out was 1852 miles.
It is important to bear in mind that all the foregoing remarks and calculations are made in connection with the fact that the datum line, to which all elevations and depressions are referred, is horizontal, and not an arc of a circle. For many years past, all the great surveys have been made on this principle; but that no doubt may exist in the mind of the reader, the following extract is given from the Standing Orders of the Houses of Lords and Commons on Railway Operations, for the Session of 1862: 1–
“The section shall be drawn to the same horizontal scale as the plan, and to a vertical scale of not less than one inch to every one hundred feet; and shall show the surface of the ground marked on the plan, the intended level of the proposed work, the height of every embankment, and the depth of every cutting, and a datum horizontal line, which shall be the same throughout the whole length of the work; or any branch thereof respectively; and shall be referred to some fixed point . . . . near either of the termini. (See line D, D; fig. 2.)”
On the page opposite that of the above Standing Order, a section is given to illustrate the meaning of the words of the order–special reference being made to the line D, D, as showing what is intended by the words “datum horizontal line.” The drawing of the section there given, and which is insisted upon by Government, is precisely the same as the sections recently published of all the great railways, of the Suez Canal, of the bed of the Atlantic Ocean, taken for the purposes of laying the Electric Cable, and of many other works connected with railways deep-sea ordnance, and other surveying operations. In all these extensive surveys the doctrine of rotundity is, of necessity, entirely ignored; and the principle that the earth is a plane is practically adopted, and found to be the only one consistent with the results, and agreeing with the plans of the great surveyors and engineers of the day.
48:1 Daily News, September 18, 1871.
56:1 Publishers, Vacher & Sons, 29, Parliament Street, Westminster.
On the eastern pier at Brighton (Sussex) a large wooden quadrant was fixed on a stand, the upper surface placed square to a plumb line, and directed towards the east, then to the south, and afterwards to the west., On looking over this upper surface the line of sight in each case seemed to meet the horizon, H, H, as shown in fig. 27. The altitude of the quadrant was
[paragraph continues] 34 feet; hence, if the earth is a globe, the water would have curvated downwards from the pier, the horizon would have been more than seven miles away, and 34 feet below the surface immediately beneath the observer; which depression, added to the elevation of the quadrant on the pier, would give 68 feet as the amount the horizon H, H, would have been below the line of sight A, B, as shown in the following diagram, fig. 28.
To touch the horizon on a convex surface the line of sight, A C, C B, would have to “dip” in the direction C, H; as no such “dip” of the eye line is required, convexity cannot exist.
In the case of the balloon at an altitude of two miles, the horizon would have been 127 miles away, and more than 10,000. feet below the summit of the arc of water underneath the balloon, and over 20,000 feet below the line of sight A, B, as shown in fig. 29; and the “dip” C, H, from C, B, to the horizon
H, would be so great that the aëronaut could not fail to observe it; instead of which he always sees it “on a level with his eye,” “rising as he rises,” and “at the highest elevation, seeming to close with the sky.”
The author has seen and tested this apparent rising of the water and the sea horizon to the level of the eye, and to an eye-line at right angles to a plumb-line, from many different places–the high ground near the race-course, at Brighton, in Sussex, from several hills in the Isle of Wight; various places near Plymouth, looking towards the Eddystone Lighthouse; the “Steep Holm,” in the Bristol Channel; the Hill of Howth, and “Ireland’s Eye,” near Dublin; various parts of the Isle of Man, “Arthur’s Seat,” near Edinburgh; the cliffs at Tynemouth; the rocks at Cromer, in Norfolk; from the top of Nelson’s Monument, at Great Yarmouth; and from many other elevated positions. But in Ireland, in Scotland, and in several parts of England, he has been challenged by surveyors to make use of the theodolite, or ordinary “spirit level,” to test this appearance of the horizon. It was affirmed that, through this instrument, when “levelled,” the horizon always appeared below the cross-hair, as shown in fig. 30–C, C, the cross-hair, and H, H, the horizon.
In every instance when the experiment was tried, this appearance was found to exist; but it was noticed that different instruments gave different degrees of horizontal depression below the cross-hair. The author saw at once that this peculiarity depended upon the construction of the instruments. He ascertained that in those of the very best construction, and of the most perfect adjustment, there existed a certain degree of refraction, or, as it is called technically, “collimation,” or a slight divergence of the rays of light from the axis of the eye, on passing through the several glasses of the theodolite. He therefore obtained an iron tube, about 18 inches in length; one end was closed, except a very small aperture in the centre; and at the other end cross-hairs were fixed. A spirit level was then attached, and the whole carefully adjusted. On directing it, from a considerable elevation, towards the sea, and looking through the small aperture at one end, the cross-hair at the opposite end was seen to cut or to fall close to the horizon, as shown at fig. 31. This has been tried in various places, and at different altitudes, and always with the same result; showing clearly that the horizon visible below the cross-hair of an ordinary levelling instrument is the result of refraction, from looking through the various glasses of the telescope; for on looking through an instrument in every respect the same in construction, except being free from lenses, a different result is observed, and one precisely the same as that seen from a balloon, from any promontory, and in the experiment at Brighton, shown in fig. 27, p. 39.
These comparative experiments cannot fail to satisfy any unbiassed observer that in every levelling instrument where lenses are employed, there is, of necessity, more or less divergence of the line of sight from the true or normal axis; and that however small the amount–perhaps inappreciable in short lengths of observation–it is considerable in distances of several miles. Every scientific surveyor of experience is fully aware of this and other peculiarities in all such instruments, and is always ready to make allowances for them in important surveys. As a, still further proof of this behaviour of the telescopic levelling instruments, the following simple experiment may be tried. Select a piece of ground–a terrace, promenade, line of railway, or embankment, which shall be perfectly horizontal for, say, five hundred yards. Let a signal staff, 5 feet high, be erected at one end, and a theodolite or spirit level fixed and carefully adjusted to exactly the same altitude at the other end. The top of the signal will then be seen a little below the cross-hair, although it has the same actual altitude, and stands upon the same horizontal foundation. If the positions of the signal staff and the spirit level be then reversed, the same result will follow.
Another proof will be found in the following experiment. Select any promontory, pier, lighthouse gallery, or small island, and, at a considerable altitude, place a smooth block of wood or stone of any magnitude; let this be “levelled.” If, then, the observer will place his eye close to the block, and look along its surface towards the sea, he will find that the line of sight will touch the distant horizon. Now let any number of spirit levels or theodolites be properly placed, and accurately adjusted; and it will be found that, in every one of them, the same sea horizon will appear in the field of view considerably below the cross-hair; thus, proving that telescopic instrumental readings are not the same as those of the naked eye.
In a work entitled “A Treatise on Mathematical Instruments,” by J. F. Heather, M.A., of the Royal Military College, Woolwich, published by Weale, High Holborn, London, elaborate directions are given for examining, correcting, and adjusting the collimation, &c.; and at page 103, these directions are concluded by the following words: “The instrument will now be in complete practical adjustment for any distance not exceeding ten chains (220 yards), the maximum error being only 1/1000 of a foot.
At this stage of the enquiry two distinct questions naturally arise: First, if the earth is a plane, why does the sea at all times appear to rise to the axis of the eye? and secondly, would not the same appearance exist if the earth were a globe? It is a simple fact, that two lines running parallel for a considerable distance will, to an observer placed between them at one end, appear to converge or come together at the other end. The top and bottom and sides of a long room, or an equally bored tunnel, will afford a good example of this appearance; but perhaps a still better illustration is given by the two metallic lines of a long portion of any railway. In fig. 32, let
[paragraph continues] A, B, and C, D, represent the two lines of a straight portion of horizontal railway. If an observer be placed at G, he will see the two lines apparently meeting each other towards H, from the following cause:–Let G represent the eye looking, first, as far only as figs. 1 and 2, the space between 1 and 2 will then be seen by the eye at G, under the angle 1, G, 2. On looking as far as figs. 3 and 4, the space between 3 and 4 will be seen under the diminished angle 3, G, 4. Again on looking forward to the points 5 and 6, the space between the rails would be represented by the angle 5, G, 6; and, as will at once be seen, the greater the distance observed, the more acute the angle at the eye, and therefore the nearer together will the rails appear. Now if one of these rails should be an arc of a circle and diverge from the other, as in the diagram fig. 33, it is evident that the
effect upon the eye at G, would be different to that shown by the diagram fig. 32. The line G, 4, would become a tangent to the arc C, D, and could never approach the line G, H, nearer than the point T. The same may be said of lines drawn to 6, opposite 5, and to all greater distances–none could rise higher than the tangent point T. Hence allowing A, B, to represent the sky, and C, D, the surface of the water of a globe, it is evident that A, B, could appear to decline or come down to the point H, practically to a level with the eye at G; but that C, D, could never, by the operation of any known law of optics, rise to the line G, H, and therefore any observation made upon a globular surface, could not possibly produce the effect observed from a balloon, or in any experiment like that represented in .
From the foregoing details the following arguments may be constructed:–
Right lines, running parallel with each other, appear to approach in the distance.
The eye-line, and the surface of the earth and sky, run parallel with each other;
Ergo, the earth and sky appear to approach in the distance.
Lines which appear to approach in the distance are parallel lines.
The surface of the earth appears to approach the eye-line;
Ergo, the surface of the earth is parallel with the eye-line.
The eye-line is a right line.
The surface of the earth is parallel or equi-distant;
Ergo, the surface of the earth is a right line–a plane.
Answer: None of the above.
In this montage of pictures, you see earth at various altitudes. Now, look at the curves. If this is true and the earth is curved like this – earth is stranger than just being a globe. Look at the degree of arch on the 100’ altitude; IF the earth looked like that, do you realize how small the earth would be?! It would be, say, a mile or two in diameter. (There are some mathematicians out there that can compute this exactly.) Other pictures show that the earth is, 100 miles or 1,000 miles in diameter (I’m just guessing here but you get the point). In short, when you are at a low altitude, the curve should be very little – not the degree of arch you see here!
IF these pictures are true, why haven’t pictures taken since day one – with the very first cameras – show a curved earth? Why hasn’t this shown up? You DO NOT need a fisheye lens to show this IF the earth was truly a globe. In fact, the naked eye would see this – so why hasn’t something like this been shown with the first view by the first human high on a mountain? Why hasn’t that been detected during the time of Genesis? Why hasn’t the first cameras taken from an altitude of 100 feet or more show this curve before?
We know the educational system lies; we know that the media lies; now, we have technology lying for us. (More accurately, what the media is telling us that the camera is telling us.)
Finally, if the curve is real, then why, when you take a picture – using the same camera lens that these people used – don’t you see the same curve as the camera? Why don’t you see the curve WITHOUT the aide of the fisheye lens? The answer is simple – that we live on a flat earth!