On a Small Island Watching a Ship at Sea

In the picture here,  we have shown an illustration used to support the false perspective, and false teachings, of the schools; but while some of the higher-class astronomical books do not disgrace their pages with such a palpable monstrosity, their teachings are in agreement therewith, and some of their diagrams equally faulty.

Let an observer be placed on some small island in mid-ocean, as represented in figure 12. where he can watch ships sail away from him in opposite directions; now if figure 11 be a true picture of the surface shape of the sea, and the observer on turning round sees a similar rise of the water on opposite sides, then the surface of the ocean would consist of a series of bulges, continued ad infinitum, as indicated by figure 12!

Still Mounting Upwards

Figure 13

Now let there be a series of observers, as implied in figure 13; the first observer on the right sees the vessel mount hill number one. At this point let there be another observer watching the same ship going in the same direction; he should see It mount hill number two. And a third observer, similarly placed, should see the vessel still mounting uphill number three; and so on, up towards the moon! This would agree with the theory that the moon temporarily attracts the waters of the ocean — but who would trust himself to that theory to make the voyage!

We may well leave the theory of a globular sea to the reprobation of all honest thinkers. Yet Sir Robert Ball in common with some other astronomers, maintains that an observer on the seashore. in watching a receding vessel. actually sees it mounting a hill, or a “protuberant” part of the ocean, until it reaches the horizon, when it begins to descend! If the sea-earth were a globe, the observer should always be placed on the top, near the sea-level; and the receding object should at once begin to descend, But as perspective requires objects below the eye-line to appear to rise in the distance, the globularist is thus unconsciously constrained to yield this testimony as a concession to truth!

The Flat Earth Society says “science” itself, based on spinning, whirling, gyrating balls, is not only “untrue” but insane.

Perspective Disappearance of Ships at Sea

In the 1800’s, the Horse and Buggy Days, Darwin, as mental exercise, wrote a “science fiction” story about how things came about. Like all science fiction, absurd in the extreme, Darwin so stated. But a low caste opportunist, Huxley, saw his chance, spent his life “touting” this science fiction as “pure gospel.” Much as did Galileo the opium dream science fiction of Copernicus. All who now believe in evolution owe it to Huxley. From his name comes the word “Huckster.- Steps into insanity: 1. The Spinning Ball World; 2. Evolution, that is to “believe it” NOT tell it. Huxley was not insane himself, only a Carrie Huckster, peddling “jibberish” to the “Marks.” Hux the Hustling Huckster also gets 90 per cent of the credit for converting England to the Spinning Grease Ball concept of the universe. This Great Learned Honored Giant among Glorious Scientists, this Science God, Professor Huxley had to resort to assumption to account for the disappearance of ships at sea, although had he known the truth of the matter, or taken the trouble to enquire, his unwarranted assumptions would have been totally unnecessary.

He says:

“We assume the convexity of the water, because we know of no other way to explain the appearance and disappearance of ships at sea. –

What learning! What profound wisdom! If we ‘know of no other way” it is better to admit the fact and wait until we “have found out some other way” to explain the difficulty, if there is any.

Knowledge is gained by practical investigation and experience, and has no need of the assistance of assumption to provide an excuse for ignorance. If water could be proved to be convex, there would be no need to assume it to be so. We should have many proofs and abundant evidence of the fact. But the fact that water has been proved to be level, hundreds of times, makes it necessary for those who refuse to believe proved facts which tell against their theory, to resort to assumption to maintain their unreasoning position. And yet this same Professor, in his book “Science and Culture” says:

“the assertion which outstrips evidence is not only a blunder, but a crime,’

The assertion, therefore, that water is convex against proof furnished many times over that it is level, is not only a blunder, but a crime.

Perspective True or False

Some of the Laws of Perspective are given in the last Flat Earth News, so that we need not here enlarge thereon; but as they are important, we briefly recapitulate them.

1 All parallel lines, like those of a railway, seem to approach, and finally to meet in the distance.

2 Straight lines above the eye of the spectator appear to descend to the eye-line.

3 The horizontal, or eye-line, is a straight line on a level with the eye, at whatever elevation the spectator may be.

4 Lines, or objects. below the eye-line, remaining at the same level, seem to rise as they recede, until they vanish in the eye-line.

5 Similarly, lines or objects above the height of spectator, and maintaining a constant altitude, appear to descend until they are lost in the eye-line.

6 Objects, or lines, do not all vanish at the same point in the horizontal line, but the nearer they are to that line, the sooner they vanish in it, because of the smaller angle they make with it.

7 The distant horizon being always on a level with the eye, whatever be the altitude of the observer, it seems to rise, or to fall, with the observer; but h4 never has to depress his vision to look downwards towards it, nor raise his line of sight upwards to it.

Now let us apply these rules, which are the Laws of true Perspective. to the disappearance of ships at sea, as illustrated in zetetic diagrams, and violated in those of the globularist. Fig. 10 on the title page. The intelligent reader will soon see that this diagram harmonizes with and illustrates, the first six rules above given. The hull of the vessel, being nearer the eye-line, vanishes according to rule six, before the flags and upper sail which are farther from it, because the lower angle is the lesser. Further, the hull rides on a dark background of water, while the upper masts and sails are often against a bright sky! But the ship never goes over, and then down on the further side of a bulge, or a hill of water; for in clear weather a good telescope, which magnifies the distant angle of vision, brings again the ship’s hull in sight. Had the ship gone over and beyond the supposed dip, or curvature, no telescope could fetch it back again; and when on the crest of the supposed hill of water the hull itself should become visible against the background of clear sky! But in harmony with rule 4, ships never so disappear, because there is no real rise or protuberance in a calm sea, which can be abundantly shown is everywhere level or horizontal.

Let us now turn to the false perspective sometimes given in globite diagrams, and geographical works.

Our figure (below) is taken from a school book; and in Scott’s Astronomy there is another on the same principal, or rather, on the same lack of principal. This diagram violates every law of true perspective. The observer at A is made to look down to his distant horizon, and so is the one at B, though in the diagram he appears to look up. This is a double violation of rule 7 as given above. And, further, the reader will notice how the line of the observer is not pointing towards the centre, as It should be if the earth be globular. The diagram is inaccurate and false.

Suppose the observer at A were to turn round and to look downwards in the opposite direction towards C, what would he see? An awful chasm at which the stoutest heart would quail! The thing, and ideas it represents. are a disgrace to modern education! Is it any wonder, therefore, that a famous writer like Goethe should say, “I curse this modern theory of Cosmogony, and hope that perchance there may appear some strong scientists of genius who will take up courage to upset this universally disseminated delirium of lunatics.” — (The Scientific American, April 27th, 1878.)