For those who might ask me what my evidence is for a flat earth, here are three main arguments, just to name a few: 1.) Gyroscopes 2.) The Spin and 3.) Perspective.
All of this comes from Dave Murphy, who you can find on archive(.)org’s videos section (since JewTube kiked his interviews). What you’re about to hear are some groundbreaking truths which absolutely CAN-NOT be refuted.
Flat earth argument 1: Gyroscopes
>In a plane there is an artificial horizon. If you spin a gyroscope on a surface, it will want to stay upright. You can twist and tilt the surface as much as you’d like, the gyroscope will stay upright. So if a plane has a gyroscope and it starts following the curve of the Earth, the gyroscope would stay upright. Which means that the artificial horizon will start to roll backwards. But it doesn’t. That’s absolute proof that a plane flies over a flat surface rather than a curved one. I asked a pilot on my last flight “do you ever notice the artificial horizon rolling backwards?” And he said “no, no but the artificial horizon has complex electronics in it to make sure it knows where it is on the Earth and it compensates.”
>When I went to the manufacturer of the artificial horizon, they confirmed to me that it was completely mechanical, nothing electronic in it whatsoever. It’s literally just a gyroscope that can freely move. So that right there is proof to me that a plane flies over a plane.
Flat earth argument 2: The Spin
This next argument addresses the rotation of the earth.
>None of it makes sense. The problem is, we were taught as children this ball earth lie and you might ask as a child “what about the people in Australia? If they’re standing on the bottom of the globe why don’t they fall off?” And your teacher says “no, no gravity” and you go “oh, okay” and you never go back to that question. But when you go back to it as an adult and start looking at it from a critical eye, the whole thing falls apart.
>As you say, the globe is spinning at 1,000 miles an hour. Neil DeGrasse Tyson, who’s a leading astronomer in America tells us that the earth is not a perfect circle, it is actually an oblate spheroid, it’s squashed and wider at the equator. So my question to him would be why is there land at the equator? Because water will move more readily than rock. So if the earth is spinning, the water will be collected at the equator.
>If you spin a wet tennis ball, the water shoots off at the equator essentially. So all the water would be gathered around at the equator. So why is there land at the equator? Doesn’t make any sense. Another thing about the spinning earth is looking at the stars. Now, directly above the axis of spin is the pole star Polaris directly over the north pole. And we’re told the reason that all the stars spin around the north star is because the earth is spinning at 1,000 miles an hour. Seems to make sense because if you put a long exposure camera pointing at the north star, you’ll see that the stars will make perfect circles around us. Perfect star trails. The only problem is the earth is also orbiting the sun at 67,000 miles an hour. The sun is moving, dragging the earth and all the planets up that way or that way at 600,000 miles an hour. So why do we see perfect circles? Because that’s the slowest motion in that mix. And yet, the earth is moving 67x faster that way and 600x faster that way. So you should be able to see the stars make all sorts of strange motions. But you don’t. You only see them make these perfect circles. That tells me that it’s the stars that are moving, not the earth.
Flat earth argument 3: Perspective
Note that this one is a bit tl;dr and took me 5 pages to write this down on, but it is worth reading and full of information. This part deals with what we can observe to prove the flat earth.
>The thing is what the scientists will give you is calculations and theories why that happens, but we experience, we see things that either make sense or they don’t make sense and what the scientists do is substitute our common sense and intuition for calculations and theory when we’re supposed to believe the calculations rather than what we experience ourselves.
>There was a famous experiment back in the 1800s in England called the Bedford levels experiment. Now, the Bedford levels is a canal that is perfectly straight for 6 miles. So what a chap called Samuel Rowbotham did was he took a telescope, put it in the water about 8 inches above the water and had a friend in a rowboat with a flag on the back, row all the way to the other end. And he was able to see the flag on the back of the rowboat the whole distance. Now, according to spherical trigonometry, the curve of the earth is 8 inches per mile squared. So, over 5 miles (that’s 5x5x8, which is 200, that’s 200 inches which works and at 16 feet) that means that the boat should’ve been 16 feet below the horizon. You shouldn’t have been able to see the boat. Now, the scientists will say, “oh, refraction and this and light bending over the earth” and stuff. But the fact is, it’s perfectly flat and in his book, he puts forth many arguments/experiments that show that the earth is ALWAYS perfectly flat.
>They say that you see the mass can’t go down last is literally just the way your vision works. It’s perspectives and atmospherics, basically. The limit of your vision is supposedly 3 miles. And then after 3 miles you’re supposed to see the boat start to go over the horizon. It’s funny that Neil DeGrasse Tyson, again, explains that you can’t see the curvature of the earth from a plane, he says this, you can’t see the curvature of the earth from a plane because you’re not high enough, the earth is so big that you can’t get high enough to see the curvature, yet you can apparently see a boat go over the curvature over the distance of three miles, which doesn’t make sense. The thing is, when you look out and see a boat start to go over the horizon, if you suddenly get a pair of binoculars and look, it comes back again. And once it goes out of sight of binoculars, if you get a telescope, it comes back again. It doesn’t go over any curve of the horizon. What we found, many people have done experiments with very high-powered zoom cameras, and they’ve watched a boat go sail out to sea and have just kept trained on this boat. And what they see is, after a very long distance, you see an atmospheric effect where the bottom of the boat disappears and the top of the boat inverts so you can see a sort of mirror image. And with your eyesight, basically the bottom of the boat just melts into the horizon.
>One of the best examples of that is the Antwerp-Notredam spire which can be seen something like 240 kilometres away from the spire. So, that should be over a mile below the horizon and you can still see it. There’s been a few famous examples just recently of a man who took a picture across the Great Lakes from Michigan and was able to see Chicago, which he shouldn’t have been able to see. And the television station basically said it was a mirage. They always say it’s a mirage, but for a mirage to happen you have to have very specific atmospheric conditions. And there have been so many people who have seen exactly the same thing on different days, different seasons, always the same. It’s not a mirage, it’s simply that you’re looking across a plane.
>You see in a kind of pyramid shape, you have a horizon at your eye level, and everything above the horizon will go down into the horizon, everything below the horizon will seem to go up. Just like if you’re in a long hallway, you’ll see that the walls will start to move in and the roof and the floor will start to move into the center. So, literally between you and the object you’re looking at is all sorts of things sort of like waves going up and down. And while you can’t see them, if they’re beyond the limit of your sight, they can still sometimes obscure what you’re looking at. This is because they’re between you and it, and it’s literally perspective and specify if I can draw a diagram and it’s a very difficult subject to get your head around if you’re not used to it. But it is perspective.
>And one sort of other proof is there’s a place in Bolivia called Salar de Uyuni, which is a salt flat. It’s literally a hundred miles wide one way, and 80 miles across. And it’s perfectly flat. When it rains, literally you get an inch of water and it looks like a perfect mirror. Now how does that happen on a sphere? It shows you that if you’re on one end of this salt flat you can see perfectly clearly the other end a hundred miles away. It’s just showing you that the earth is flat and without the effect of the waves in the sea, you’ll be able to see a whole lot further.
All of this comes from Dave Murphy, who you can find on archive(.)org’s videos section (since JewTube kiked his interviews). What you’re about to hear are some groundbreaking truths which absolutely CAN-NOT be refuted.
Flat earth argument 1: Gyroscopes
>In a plane there is an artificial horizon. If you spin a gyroscope on a surface, it will want to stay upright. You can twist and tilt the surface as much as you’d like, the gyroscope will stay upright. So if a plane has a gyroscope and it starts following the curve of the Earth, the gyroscope would stay upright. Which means that the artificial horizon will start to roll backwards. But it doesn’t. That’s absolute proof that a plane flies over a flat surface rather than a curved one. I asked a pilot on my last flight “do you ever notice the artificial horizon rolling backwards?” And he said “no, no but the artificial horizon has complex electronics in it to make sure it knows where it is on the Earth and it compensates.”
>When I went to the manufacturer of the artificial horizon, they confirmed to me that it was completely mechanical, nothing electronic in it whatsoever. It’s literally just a gyroscope that can freely move. So that right there is proof to me that a plane flies over a plane.
Flat earth argument 2: The Spin
This next argument addresses the rotation of the earth.
>None of it makes sense. The problem is, we were taught as children this ball earth lie and you might ask as a child “what about the people in Australia? If they’re standing on the bottom of the globe why don’t they fall off?” And your teacher says “no, no gravity” and you go “oh, okay” and you never go back to that question. But when you go back to it as an adult and start looking at it from a critical eye, the whole thing falls apart.
>As you say, the globe is spinning at 1,000 miles an hour. Neil DeGrasse Tyson, who’s a leading astronomer in America tells us that the earth is not a perfect circle, it is actually an oblate spheroid, it’s squashed and wider at the equator. So my question to him would be why is there land at the equator? Because water will move more readily than rock. So if the earth is spinning, the water will be collected at the equator.
>If you spin a wet tennis ball, the water shoots off at the equator essentially. So all the water would be gathered around at the equator. So why is there land at the equator? Doesn’t make any sense. Another thing about the spinning earth is looking at the stars. Now, directly above the axis of spin is the pole star Polaris directly over the north pole. And we’re told the reason that all the stars spin around the north star is because the earth is spinning at 1,000 miles an hour. Seems to make sense because if you put a long exposure camera pointing at the north star, you’ll see that the stars will make perfect circles around us. Perfect star trails. The only problem is the earth is also orbiting the sun at 67,000 miles an hour. The sun is moving, dragging the earth and all the planets up that way or that way at 600,000 miles an hour. So why do we see perfect circles? Because that’s the slowest motion in that mix. And yet, the earth is moving 67x faster that way and 600x faster that way. So you should be able to see the stars make all sorts of strange motions. But you don’t. You only see them make these perfect circles. That tells me that it’s the stars that are moving, not the earth.
Flat earth argument 3: Perspective
Note that this one is a bit tl;dr and took me 5 pages to write this down on, but it is worth reading and full of information. This part deals with what we can observe to prove the flat earth.
>The thing is what the scientists will give you is calculations and theories why that happens, but we experience, we see things that either make sense or they don’t make sense and what the scientists do is substitute our common sense and intuition for calculations and theory when we’re supposed to believe the calculations rather than what we experience ourselves.
>There was a famous experiment back in the 1800s in England called the Bedford levels experiment. Now, the Bedford levels is a canal that is perfectly straight for 6 miles. So what a chap called Samuel Rowbotham did was he took a telescope, put it in the water about 8 inches above the water and had a friend in a rowboat with a flag on the back, row all the way to the other end. And he was able to see the flag on the back of the rowboat the whole distance. Now, according to spherical trigonometry, the curve of the earth is 8 inches per mile squared. So, over 5 miles (that’s 5x5x8, which is 200, that’s 200 inches which works and at 16 feet) that means that the boat should’ve been 16 feet below the horizon. You shouldn’t have been able to see the boat. Now, the scientists will say, “oh, refraction and this and light bending over the earth” and stuff. But the fact is, it’s perfectly flat and in his book, he puts forth many arguments/experiments that show that the earth is ALWAYS perfectly flat.
>They say that you see the mass can’t go down last is literally just the way your vision works. It’s perspectives and atmospherics, basically. The limit of your vision is supposedly 3 miles. And then after 3 miles you’re supposed to see the boat start to go over the horizon. It’s funny that Neil DeGrasse Tyson, again, explains that you can’t see the curvature of the earth from a plane, he says this, you can’t see the curvature of the earth from a plane because you’re not high enough, the earth is so big that you can’t get high enough to see the curvature, yet you can apparently see a boat go over the curvature over the distance of three miles, which doesn’t make sense. The thing is, when you look out and see a boat start to go over the horizon, if you suddenly get a pair of binoculars and look, it comes back again. And once it goes out of sight of binoculars, if you get a telescope, it comes back again. It doesn’t go over any curve of the horizon. What we found, many people have done experiments with very high-powered zoom cameras, and they’ve watched a boat go sail out to sea and have just kept trained on this boat. And what they see is, after a very long distance, you see an atmospheric effect where the bottom of the boat disappears and the top of the boat inverts so you can see a sort of mirror image. And with your eyesight, basically the bottom of the boat just melts into the horizon.
>One of the best examples of that is the Antwerp-Notredam spire which can be seen something like 240 kilometres away from the spire. So, that should be over a mile below the horizon and you can still see it. There’s been a few famous examples just recently of a man who took a picture across the Great Lakes from Michigan and was able to see Chicago, which he shouldn’t have been able to see. And the television station basically said it was a mirage. They always say it’s a mirage, but for a mirage to happen you have to have very specific atmospheric conditions. And there have been so many people who have seen exactly the same thing on different days, different seasons, always the same. It’s not a mirage, it’s simply that you’re looking across a plane.
>You see in a kind of pyramid shape, you have a horizon at your eye level, and everything above the horizon will go down into the horizon, everything below the horizon will seem to go up. Just like if you’re in a long hallway, you’ll see that the walls will start to move in and the roof and the floor will start to move into the center. So, literally between you and the object you’re looking at is all sorts of things sort of like waves going up and down. And while you can’t see them, if they’re beyond the limit of your sight, they can still sometimes obscure what you’re looking at. This is because they’re between you and it, and it’s literally perspective and specify if I can draw a diagram and it’s a very difficult subject to get your head around if you’re not used to it. But it is perspective.
>And one sort of other proof is there’s a place in Bolivia called Salar de Uyuni, which is a salt flat. It’s literally a hundred miles wide one way, and 80 miles across. And it’s perfectly flat. When it rains, literally you get an inch of water and it looks like a perfect mirror. Now how does that happen on a sphere? It shows you that if you’re on one end of this salt flat you can see perfectly clearly the other end a hundred miles away. It’s just showing you that the earth is flat and without the effect of the waves in the sea, you’ll be able to see a whole lot further.
