Ok. Quick test.  People in South Africa, South America, Australia or New Zealand that are more than 1.23 degrees south of the equator, please go take pictures of Polaris (north star), and the big dipper and the little dipper. If they can't find Polaris, then please FE tell me why? 

viewed from a ball-Earth, Polaris, situated almost straight over the North Pole, should not be visible anywhere in the Southern Hemisphere.  For Polaris to be seen from the Southern Hemisphere of a globular Earth, the observer would have to be somehow looking “through the globe,” and miles of land and sea would have to be transparent.  Polaris can be seen, however, up to approximately 23.5 degrees South latitude.

“If the Earth is a sphere and the pole star hangs over the northern axis, it would be impossible to see it for a single degree beyond the equator, or 90 degrees from the pole.  The line-of-sight would become a tangent to the sphere, and consequently several thousand miles out of and divergent from the direction of the pole star.  Many cases, however, are on record of the north polar star being visible far beyond the equator, as far even as the tropic of Capricorn.”  -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Earth Not a Globe, 2nd Edition” (41)

“The astronomers' theory of a globular Earth necessitates the conclusion that, if we travel south of the equator, to see the North Star is an impossibility. Yet it is well known this star has been seen by navigators when they have been more than 20 degrees south of the equator. This fact, like hundreds of other facts, puts the theory to shame, and gives us a proof that the Earth is not a globe.”  -William Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe” (71)

To account for this glaring problem in their model, desperate heliocentrists since the late 19th century have claimed the ball-Earth actually tilts a convenient 23.5 degrees back on its vertical axis.  Even this brilliant revision to their theory cannot account for the visibility of many other constellations though.  For instance, Ursa Major, very close to Polaris, can be seen from 90 degrees North latitude (the North Pole) all the way down to 30 degrees South latitude.  The constellation Vulpecula can be seen from 90 degrees North latitude, all the way to 55 degrees South latitude.  Taurus, Pisces and Leo can be seen from 90 degrees North all the way to 65 degrees South.  Aquarius and Libra can be seen from 65 degrees North to 90 degrees South!  The constellation Virgo is visible from 80 degrees North down to 80 degrees South, and Orion can be seen from 85 degrees North all the way to 75 degrees South latitude!  An observer on a ball-Earth, regardless of any tilt or inclination, should not logically be able to see this far.


“Another thing is certain, that from within the equator the north pole star, and the constellations Ursa Major, Ursa Minor, and many others, can be seen from every meridian simultaneously; whereas in the south, from the equator, neither the so-called south pole star, nor the remarkable constellation of the Southern Cross, can be seen simultaneously from every meridian, showing that all the constellations of the south - pole star included - sweep over a great southern arc and across the meridian, from their rise in the evening to their setting in the morning.  But if the earth is a globe, Sigma Octantis, a south pole star, and the Southern Cross, a southern circuмpolar constellation, they would all be visible at the same time from every longitude on the same latitude, as is the case with the northern pole star and the northern circuмpolar constellations.  Such, however, is not the case.”  -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!” (286)


Some heliocentrists have even tried to suggest that the Pole Star’s gradual declination overhead as an observer travels southwards is proof of a globular Earth.  Far from it, the declination of the Pole Star or any other object is simply a result of the Law of Perspective.  The Law of Perspective dictates that the angle and height at which an object is seen diminishes the farther one recedes from the object, until at a certain point the line of sight and the seemingly uprising surface of the Earth converges to a vanishing point (i.e. the horizon line) beyond which the object is invisible.

“If we select a flat street a mile long, containing a row of lamps, it will be noticed that from where we stand the lamps gradually decline to the ground, the last one being apparently quite on the ground.  Take the lamp at the end of the street and walk away from it a hundred yards, and it will appear to be much nearer the ground than when we were close to it; keep on walking away from it and it will appear to be gradually depressed until it is last seen on the ground and then disappears.  Now, according to the astronomers, the whole mile was only depressed about eight inches from one end to the other, so that this 8 in. could not account for the enormous depression of the light as we recede from it.  This proves that the depression of the Pole Star can and does take place in relation to a flat surface, simply because we increase our distance from it, the same as from the street lamp.  In other words, the further away we get from any object above us, as a star for example, the more it is depressed, and if we go far enough it will sink (or appear to sink) to the horizon and then disappear.  The writer has tried the street lamp many times with the same result.”  -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (34)


“It has often been urged that the earth must be a globe, because the stars in the southern ‘hemisphere’ move round a south polar star; in the same way that those of the north revolve round the northern pole star. This is another instance of the sacrifice of truth, and denial of the evidence of our senses for the purpose of supporting a theory which is in every sense false and unnatural. It is known to every observer that the north pole star is the centre of a number of constellations which move over the earth in a circular direction. Those nearest to it, as the ‘Great Bear,’ etc. are always visible in England during their whole twenty-four hours' revolution. Those further away southwards rise north-north-east, and set south-south-west; still further south they rise east by north, and set west by north. The farthest south visible from England, the rising is more to the east and south-east, and the setting to the west and south-west. But all the stars visible from London rise and set in a way which is not compatible with the doctrine of rotundity. For instance, if we stand with our backs to the north, on the high land known as ‘Arthur's Seat,’ near Edinburgh, and note the stars in the zenith of our position, and watch for several hours, the zenith stars will gradually recede to the north-west. If we do the same on Woodhouse Moor, near Leeds, or on any of the mountain tops in Yorkshire or Derbyshire, the same phenomenon is observed. The same thing may be seen from the top of Primrose Hill, near Regent's Park, London; from Hampstead Heath; or Shooter's Hill, near Woolwich. If we remain all night, we shall observe the same stars rising towards our position from the north-east, showing that the path of all the stars between ourselves and the northern centre move round the north pole-star as a common centre of rotation; just as they must do over a plane such as the earth is proved to be. It is undeniable that upon a globe zenith stars would rise, pass over head, and set in the plane of the observer's position. If now we carefully watch in the same way the zenith stars from the Rock of Gibraltar, the very same phenomenon is observed. The same is also the case from Cape of Good Hope, Sydney and Melbourne in Australia, in New Zealand, in Rio Janeiro, Monte Video, Valparaiso, and other places in the south. If then the zenith stars of all the places on the earth, where special observations have been made, rise from the morning horizon to the zenith of an observer, and descend to the evening horizon, not in a plane of the position of such observer, but in an arc of a circle concentric with the northern centre, the earth is thereby proved to be a plane, and rotundity altogether disproved - shown, indeed, to be impossible.”  -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!” (284-6)

It’s my opinion that this explosion in FE belief was promoted, by the conspirators, to belittle the geocentric system.

One way to test this idea is to use both CIA/Google and Yandex and put Flat Earth and Eric Dubay into the search box. (Entering just Flat Earth will result in the numerous controlled opposition FE websites designed to subtly mock FE Theory.)

Google results, in my experience, have been websites to debunk FE and/or Eric Dubay.

With Yandex, although there are increasing numbers of the controlled oppositon websites, at least FE and Eric Dubay are not censored/ cancelled.

Hmmm. One has to wonder why.

Since 99.9% of the population believe in Globe Theory, and those who approach the topic with prayer and an open mind often reluctantly come to realize GT is a ancient occult/Freemasonic/ NASA scam. Those of us who take the 0.01 position face being mocked, name-called and marginalized.

Those of us who take the 0.01 position face being mocked, name-called and marginalized.

This statement bugs me.  "Why would I do something if I am going to be mocked, name-called and marginalized," said almost every marginalized minority group, please do not make me name such groups.  Just because it is a marginalized group doesn't mean the group is right.  Why do you use this as an argument?

None of them are willing to do any research on their own, it’s too easy and too convenient for them to cite a Youtube video as “proof”. It’s my opinion that this explosion in FE belief was promoted, by the conspirators, to belittle the geocentric system.

I find it interesting that Google hasn't tried try to debunk and censure geocentrism, as it does FE. Though maybe Google has done so, and I've not seen it.

Why is that? Do they not see geocentrism as a threat? It seems not. Of course Geocentrism is rather tame in comparison to FE.

Are you able to provide an example of what you mean?

No, I am not. Because I don't think that you are really interested in an example.

I've studied this subject for about 6-7 years. How long have you studied it? A week or two? This subject has been debated for quite awhile here. Many of us are not new to the subject.

Undersea cables laid in the Southern hemisphere would act like a huge measuring tape stretched between continents. If you under estimate the distance, you will have to produce and lay far more cable. This would make the companies incur great costs if they get 2/3rds through a run and have to buy and add more cable. We never hear of this happening even though they have been laying cable since the mid 1800's (tends to predate global efforts to obfuscate since you need telecom to succeed).
The engineers who maintain the cables use instruments that can tell exactly how long they are. They have to use the same instruments to tell when the cable breaks and know where to look for the loose ends or they could not find and repair them.

Once again, it might as well be "extreme altitudes over the surface of the earth" as far as how inaccessible these places (and tests) are for the average person. Do you know anyone involved with laying undersea cables? You'd have to be pretty high up the chain, too too. Not every 80-IQ roughneck (think: down to earth, blue collar, oil rig worker) needs to know how long the total cable is, how long it SHOULD be in Globe vs Flat paradigm, etc.

As for the few people who ARE in-the-know re: total length of cables, I'm sure there are NDAs they have to sign to make sure they don't spill any trade secrets -- or any other kind of secrets.

Keep in mind that many pilots, sailors, even a couple astronauts HAVE come out to admit the earth is Flat -- but let's just say it doesn't help their career, fame, nor does Youtube slack in trying their level best to keep a lid on the disclosure of these "whistleblowers". Not only are they denied a platform, but they are denied RESPECT as well. They are instantly and loudly called crazy, from many quarters. Unless you're head-over-heels in love with the truth, whistleblowing is not something AT ALL tempting to do.

There is a very enlightening quote by Hubble (of Hubble Telescope fame) where he says that the Earth in the center of the universe is "unwelcome" and represents a "horror". These guys should just go to confession, so they can be objective scientists (again?) and give up their religion of Scientism.