The Globe Earth Model: Probably the First Lie You were Told
Last Update: 20 February, 2024
PART 1: ORIENTATION:
What is the main question we explore in this issue?
What the basic shape and orientation of the world we live in is.
Why is the answer to that question important?
If the Earth is a very different shape that we are repeatedly taught by Government and the Establishment, it means that:
They are lying to us about even this most basic concept of our reality.
They are probably lying to us about many other things: even things of major importance.
They would rather spend humanity's (public) money to harm us (keep humanity deceived) than help us. For example, by some estimates, the money given to NASA could actually instead be used to feed all hungry people in the world.
Life was created and did not create itself.
There is a Creator.
Your Government is not the highest authority.
The South Pole might not be the end of our world but the perimeter of our prison.
There may be and probably are more lands beyond the limitts of the imagination our Government permits us.
If the correct shape is highly ordered, such as a gigantic and precise clockwork, it indicates that we are not random accidents of coalescing dust but specifically created with a specific purpose and responsibility to our Creator.
If we were Created, we should give glory and service to our Creator; at the very least public acknowledgement. To cooperate with narraties which deny His Creation would be a betrayal of Him.
Is there an Unfair Resistance to Accepting the Truth in this Issue?
The globe Earth model is taught to humans by Government and Establishment at the earliest age, before critical thinking is developed, when it is usually accepted without challenge. It is taught to us even before the lie of Santa Claus (because where Santa Claus is said to come the North Pole, which requires a model of the shape of the Earth, and the model provided to children has been the globe model).
To present a completely different model later, you face the hurdle of overcoming longstanding and originally unquestioned trust in the prior model, as well as all of the relatives, teachers, community, and other autohrities who have supported this narrative all their lives. You are calling nearly everyone they ever knew as supporting the deception against them.
It can be a tough audience. Generally only those who will follow whereever evidence leads can find their way to the truth on this issue especially.
What supports this issue?
So much support from virtually every direction of society; a true paradigm deception: parents, teachers, churches, entertainment, just about everything. The shape of the Earth is a fundamental concept of our reality and comes up in conversations on many topics frequently.
What other topics are Related to this Issue?
Paradigm deception (article in development). Essentially, the more a lie is repeated by many different sectors of soceity, the more it is taken as truth.
Common Prejudices on this Issue:
That they wouldn't lie to us like that. It's certainly a lot easier to call an isolated critic of the globe Earth model a liar than almost everyone else.
Level of Threat of Censorship of Evidence Is on this Topic:
Quality evidence and documentaries on flat earth are under attack of censorship. If you find quality material that you may keep a copy of, it is suggested that you do so, because it might not be available later.
PART 2: UNDERSTANDING:
We need to be using mutually understood language in discussing this topic. In particular:
PART 4: OFFICIAL NARRATIVE on this Issue: the Globe Earth Model
The official model of Earth is that it is a ball (globe) spinning around a central sun along with many other globes called 'planets'. In this model, some of these globes have their own satellites, the Earth's being the moon. Here is probably the most official webpage on this model from NASA: Our Solar System
Earth's axis of rotation is 23.4 degrees from the plane of its orbit around the sun (the plane being called the 'ecliptic'). By this model, this tilt is the basis of the seasons, with the closest point on Earth to the Sun moving between the tropics of Capricorn and Cancer as the Earth progresses around the Sun.
The Equatorial radius being approximately 3,958.8 miles, the equatorial circumference is approximately 2 * 3.14 * 3,958.8 = 24,861 miles
The Earth's distance from the Sun: approximately 93 million miles
The Earth's orbit velocity around the sun: 66,622 miles per hour.
The official narrative is that objects which go out into space leave the Earth's atmosphere, and objects coming in (or coming back from) Outer Space must enter (as though a discrete boundary) Earth's atmosphere in the process, which event causes serious stresses of heat and drag on the aircraft and which it must be designed to withstand: usually by a heat shield. Wikipedia: Atmospheric entry
The official narrative is that we've sent numerous probes into Space, which have reported back, and we've sent successful manned missions to the moon since 1969 (the Apollo program), which program was abruptly stopped and no manned missions since.
The official narrative for Antartica is that it's a land mass at the south pole of a globe we live on, extremely inhospitable (coldest, dryest, and windiest place on earth, withh dangerous terrain also), with nothing there but ice. Despite that it is extremely restricted, internationally devoted to scientific study exclusively under the Antarctic Treaty System (signed by 56 countries), so strictly that even mineral exploration is prohibited. As of 2023, 55 countries operate research stations in Antarctica, with between 1,200 (winter) and 4,800 (summer) people there performing and supporting research.
REINFFORCEMENT of the official narrative by Society:
The globe Earth model is reinforced by virtually all sectors of society from education to entertainment and from the earliest ages.
Public navigation models and software are based on a globe earth model, the most prominent, sophistiated, and detailed of which seems to be Google Earth.
DEFENSE of the official narrative by Society:
The globe Earth model enjoys an enthusiastic defense from many sectors of society, starting with those whose careers are based on it. It is thought to be one of if not the most staunchly defended secrets of secret societies: if they have to rise to level 33 to learn this, presumably they don't want you knowing it for free.
PLAUSABILITY of the official narrative: Is there anything about the Official Narrative (based on Globe Earth Model) which makes it unreasonable?
In our opinion, yes; here's why:
It is very suspicious that Antarctica is shroulded in secrecy of international cooperation. Antartica is a of special importance in comparing the globe earth and flat earth models, because in the globe Earth model it is a clumped continent, whereas in the flat Earth model it is a vast perimeter. A simple trip there would immediately reveal whether the Earth is round or flat, and numerous flat earthers have sought permission to see just that. However it's been put off-limits for private exploration.
The Antartic Treaty's Unprecedented International Cooperation By the official narrative, 56 countries are cooperating to share Antartica between them for peaceful scientific study. The cooperation is real: we never hear about international land disputes there. It's wonderful to see this kind of cooperation, but is it realistic and typical for countries to share land like this? Even though some of the land claims overlap (such as UK, Argentina, and Chile: all three overlapping the same place), they don't fight over it. Strange?
It's unreasonable to believe that nations who fight bitterly over land in thee rest of the world are so peacefully cooperating in Antarctica, with earlier arriving nations welcoming later arriving nations to literally move in. It suggests that there is something special about Antarctica which make it impractical for any one nation to control effectively, or some danger there which is so bit that world leaders don't mind bringing many nations on board for mutual defense.
It's unreasonable to believe that data on ice melting in Antarctica is so precious that it's worth sending thousands of scientists a year presumably to measure every snowflake.
It's unreasonable to believe that data on ice melting in Antarctica is so sensitive that so many countries need to build their own base and send their own team as though another nation can't be trusted with ice measurements.
It's particularly nonsense that India has at least three stations there under the pretense of fundamental climate research. India is notorius for not caring about the environment in their own country, to the point that you can't expect to see the sun come up due to the pollution smog. As for money, they have plenty of starving people to spend it on. Especially when there are already many other scientists collecting data, why does India need to insist so strongly on its Antarctica presene that it has three bases there?
It's strange to see so much enthusiasm on the part of scientists arriving in Antarctica for research, as though a trip to the most hostile climate on Earth, being a immediate life threat to every cell in your body, just to watch ice, is the trip of a lifetime. They are risking their lives. Would they do that, and eagerly, just to watch ice?
It's strange that an international treaty would make any continent off-limits for private exploration such as the Antarctic treaty did. what's there so important that no one lese is peritted to go? Maybe it's because a simple trip around Antarctica would reveal whether it's a continent or a perimeter, and whether the Earth is a ball or a disc, and whether we've been told the truth or lies about the basic shape of the world we live in.
It's beyond strange that mineral exploration is prohibited there. Mining is often permitted even under someone else's house; the fears of distubring the precious ice is a nonsense excuse.
Antarctic Treaty and its Enforcement: What's so important about the Antarctica as to prevent civilians from going there, under pain of arrest or death? Cities of millions of people aren't protected with such vigilance. By preventing private exploration of Antartica, the Governments of the world have prevented Flat Earthers from proving or disproving the theory by direct observation of whether the South is a convergent point on a sphere or whether it is actually a perimeter of a great circle.
Bizarre-shaped land claims by different nations in Antarctica. Have you ever seen land clais which looked like that? some are tiny long sectors.
Many research stations in Antarctica. Too many for what is supposedly there: water, its ice, and inhospitable conditions. Who would even want to go there? Or is there something else being researched? One report has come in (original video: Flat Earth - The Dome, or more exciting review Sky Ice from The Firmament!) that at least one research station there only pretends to research water ice, especially when film crews are around, but spends most of its time researching what they call 'Sky Ice', presumably taken from the foundations of the Firmament reachable beyond the Antartica ice wall. This ice is blue, and may be the reason wesee a blue sky: becuse the background is actually blue (rather than being some illusion).
Frederick Cook claimed to reach it on land in 1908 and took photos. Unfortunately his navigational records were lost so it is disupted whether he reached the North Pole or not.
Robert Peary claimed reaching it with dogsleds in 1909 and taking photos. He was recognized as haveing reached the (geographic) north pole by he National Geographic Society and Naval Affairs Subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives
A Soviet party under Alexander Kuznetsov is recognized as undoubtedly having walked the North Pole in 1948, after landing their plane nearby.
Ralph Plaisted reached the North Pole by snowmobile in 1968 undisputedly.
Wally Herbert reached the North Pole by dogsled in 1969 undisputedly
Richard Weber (Canada) and Misha Malakhov (Russia) reached the North Pole on skis in in 1995.
U.S. Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Joseph O. Fletcher and Lieutenant William Pershing Benedict walked the North Pole after landing their plane close by in 1952
Vassily Elagin, Afanassi Makovnev, Vladimir Obikhod, Sergey Larin, Alexey Ushakov, Alexey Shkrabkin and Nikolay Nikulshin drove Russian-built cars to the North Pole in 2009 over 2000km from Sredniy Island, Severnaya Zemlya. Note that this requires a strong flat surface between there and the North Pole.
There is hosts an annual marathon held on a track of hard ice at the geographic north pole. They fly a cargo plane to a base between 89 and 90 degrees latitude, complete with runway for this large plane.
There are many images of a continent-sized ice cap at the North Pole. For example, this timelapse video put out by NASA shows the icecap bigger than Greenland in September growing to roughlly as big as Russia in March.
There is no reason to believe that the Earth has or can have a discrete layer of atmosphere facing Outer Space. Since Outer Space, as defined by the Official Narrative, is a vaccuum, a gas touching it without a barrier would be quickly dissipated through it. As for gravity possibly keeping the air molecules close to Earth, in such a model there's no reason to believe that would cause the formation of a discrete barrier, but rather a gradient. Furthermore the Sun's gravity is greater and would likely siphon off the atmoshere, and/or the Moon's gravity would influence the atmosphere in ways we don't hear about but should have if this model was true.
There is something more than suspicious about NASA and their space program:
Try doing these searches in Google and see what comes up:
'htrae talf': this is 'flat earth' backwards:
'nasa in hebrew': we find the search showing that it means to 'lead astray':
Specifically Regarding NASA's manned missions to the Moon, the Apollo flights:
The Shadows in the 'Lunar' Photographs prove more than one light source, suggesting a camera stage rather than the moon. Please see the following video:
Polaris shouldn't always be perfectly above the rotational axis if the Globe Earth model is true, ie. if Earth is rotating around the Sun and the Sun hurtling through the galaxy. Similarly the constellations should be in different places, and with parallax between stars, not all the same predictable pattern for thousands of years. Video: Polaris Proves the Flat Earth
It's beyond strange that the environmental protective systems especially space suit materials presented to the Public could be adequate for the extremely harsh physical realities of orbiting the Earth: in terms of heat, in terms of pressure, and in terms of radiation.
Regarding Temperature: On Earth, we see that we need to rethink our clothing for each 10 degree Celsius change in temperature assuming long exposure (10 minutes or more), not yet being adapted, and not engaging in strenuous activity:
-40°C: don't even think about it without extensive preparation and exposure minimization
-30°C: the heavy winter clothing must be further reinforced and exposure minimized
-20°C: only heavy (high-warmth) winter clothing will do
-10°C: winter clothing required; biting cold which tends to penetrate clothing begins here and a danger with it
0°C: all possible areas should be covered with some type of clothing
10°C: warmth-retaining clothing is required but not all areas must be covered
20°C: comfortable for any light clothing; indoor comfortable temperature
30°C: clothing must be absolutely minimized and ventilation maximized
40°C: life-threatening heat and clothing alone is no cure.
According to NASA, the temperature on the Moon can range from -133°C at night to 121°C in daylight. It is difficult to think of a suit or even just a glove which, without changing, can withstand either extreme so well that astronaughts never seem stressed due to temperature nor have to cut their excursions short due to temperature, nor express any need for preparing for an abrupt change in temperature. It is strange that they don't report materials or electronics failing due to these temperature stresses, such as the film in their cameras for example. Buzz Aldrin's gloves, for example, were rubber/neoprene gloves with an outer layer of beta cloth covering most areas except the fingertips. If you have experienced cold winter, you know that one layer of rubber is not adequate to protect your fingertips at -20°C nevermind -133°C, and if you have experienced hot summer, you know that fabric-coated rubber gloves would be torturously hot to wear at 30°C nevermind 121°C. Neither is there more than a thin and unsatisfying discussion about sheilding, heating, cooling systems during the lunar space flight: not in the cold of Space, and not in the up to 2000°C of the thermosphere and exosphere of Earth (in the globe Earth model; please see the end of this video for metion of the heat problem). Yet there's very little show of concern about temperture as a hazard in the Space narrative: not in planning and not in execution. It's briefly mentioned in the design of the ships and suits, but you don't hear astronaughts complain of hot or cold.
Regarding Pressure: It's difficult to understand how the soft materials at joints and gloves on space suits perform without ANY noticeable ballooning or stiffness in the vaccuum of space, neither are there any failures of materials in this regard. Moreover it's puzzling at why some space shuttle missions launched and reentered in only flight suits, which also seems the attire for the International Space Station, considering the constant risk of explosive depressurization due to a combination of thin walls and meteors.
Regarding Radiation:According to NASA, the radiation in space is supposed to be extremely dangerous, and there are many different kinds of it. It's difficult to imagine how the space suits and ships used in the Apollo missions adequately shielded astronaughts from the hazards we are told is there.
There is particularly confusing information in the Space narrative regarding the radiation just above low Earth orbit, including between Earth and the Moon (assuming a globe Earth model), called the magnetosphere or Van Allen belts. The Space narrative teaches that these belts have trapped radioactive particles so such a degree that it's a challenge to put equipment, nevermind people, throguh them safely. Yet by careful mental footwork they try to say that the Apollo missions were meticulously planned trajectory to get astronaughts through a narrow window of relative safety to the moon and back. Well, either there are safe ways through it or there aren't. If there are, then we should have gone back to the Moon a long time ago. If there aren, then we could not have put men through it who came back alive and lived to an old age. Moreover, the fact that at least one Apollo 12 astronaught, Alan Bean, seemed to know nothing about the Van Allen belts in a recent (long after the Apollo missions) interview, shows that this wasn't carefully planned at all. More likely, the Van Allen belt narrative is simply a globe-model attempt to explain the hard limit of aeronautic exploration imposed by the Firmament barrier.
It is suspicious that there is no independent verification of the moon landings, but rather we must depend on people who can be sworn to secrecy to protect a lie whether through military, NSA, or secret society oaths. Notably, astronaughts tend to be freemasons. It is also suspicious that many astronaughts died in suspicious accidents early in the Apollo program. Were these the ones who couldn't keep a secret?
The first men on the moon were strangely downcast at their first post-lunar official press conference celebrating it. Please see here. If the narrative was true, it should have been a moment of uncontainable jubilation. If it was false, it's understandable that they wouldn't be excited about perpetrating the lie any futher.
It's unreasonable to believe that after the greatest engineering achievement in history, of getting humans to the moon and back, NASA would lose, reuse, or destroy the original video, the telemetry data, and technology involved. This is so ridiculous that it's difficult to think of an analogy.
It's much more plausible that, since the moon landings are fake, NASA won't release high-quality versions of the footage because it would only more clearly expose the lie.
The narrative that they deliberately (not accidentally) TAPED OVER the moon landing original footage to save money from buying new tapes, despite that only being worth a few dollars, and this being the greatest engineering and exploration achievement in human history (if it was true).
The narrative that they DESTROYED the technology to go to the moon, althought his would have been the greatest engineering achievement of humanity ever.
If we did send Astronauts to the mon, it's sad that humanity would launch people into space in missions of great danger yet no vital necessity with no hope of rescue if something went wrong. Rather we should have waited to gradually build infrastructure out there which could support at least a chance of rescue. If the space narrative is true, it is an example of valuing scientific achievement above human life, and therefore no true achievement of the betterment of humanity at all.
The American government has always found the money for what it wants to do no matter how useless or even destructive. Even at a time when pretending to run out of funds for domestic spending, no limit of war is always considered affordable, and so is military aid of other nations' wars it wants to support. During the COVID-19 crisis, they outright ordered most people to stop working and sent them cheques, and they had no trouble finding money for grants to pharmaceutical companies for vaccine development as well as purchasing the resulting vaccines. They don't seem to mind any costs when it comes to weapons: you don't hear of weapons programs being cancelled for lack of funds no matter how expensive, so long as the weapons are effective.
The American government consistently shows that it is not financially responsible. For example, the Pentagon consistently fails financial audits, unable to account for trillions of dollars, and no one seems to mind enough to do anything about it.
The American govenrment, like most governments, is not limited in spending. Governments which use a fiat currency by definition don't have a financial limitation, such that presenting this as a limit is deceptive. They have power to create literally as much money as they want.
The decision is cost-only not cost-benefit ratio. There are some things which we don't mind paying a lot of money for because we understand they are worth a lot of money: for the average person, a common example is a house. If the moon is a large rock obriting a globe Earth, the advantages to the nation and to industry of controlling it are enormous: even just from a military and communications standpoint, to have a base which orbits all the way around the Earth facing it at all times would be an ideal observation and communications if not weapons station. It's also an obvious place for a station to support deeper exploration into Space.
The only way the decision would make sense, and it must make sense somehow, is if there was no benefit: if the whole thing was a lie.
International competition alone would demand that this position (a solid Moon) not be left available and unguarded for other nations to explore, claim, or otherwise get established there. There hasn't even been an American rover. And not only has America left it open for international exploration, but actively welcomes other nations' space exploration of the moon. This only makes sense if it is not a resource but a lie: the more nations that announce landing a proble on the moon, the more nations support the lie started by America.
That NASA's Mars Climate Orbiter was destroyed in September 1999, in the Martian atmosphere, due to a mistake of using the wrong unit system in calculations, which a first-year engineering student would not do.
It is suspicious that supposed moon rock given from the astronaughts themselves in an official visit has been shown to be nothing more than petrified wood. If this was an honest mistake, how could it happen?
Many anomalous video clips from the International Space Station are reported which suggest 'green screen' video manipulation. These clips are scattered throughout many of the other videos we've linked, but for example as seen in:
Strange that NASA astronaughts would read from the Bible a verse about the firmanment during their televised mission (hoax), contrary to their story, as if they are trying to offer you breadcrumbs to reduce their spiritual responsibilty of their deception.
Occult Symbolism concerning NASA and the Globe Earth Model: 666 is a well-known occult reference, and there's an awful lot of 666s in the data presented in the heliocentric model, including:
The alleged angle of the Earth's rotation on its axis (23.4 degrees) implies a third triangular internal angle of 66.6 degrees when using a second angle of 90 degrees (perpendicular to the Earth's alleged orbit around the sun). This is because all internal angles of a triangle must add up to 180 degrees: 180 degrees - 23.4 degrees - 90 degrees = 66.6 degrees
Supposed Speed of Earth around the sun: 66,622 mph (emphasis ours)
Wernher von Braun, who was the pioneer of rocket technology in Nazi Germany and then the United States, and the first director of NASA, would certainly have been in the know about the shape of the Earth, has inscribed on his grave marker (and legible from the Wikipedia page photo) a reference to Holy Bible Psalm 19:1: "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. [KJV]"
He would be in the know if the Firmanent is real or not. If it was real, it would have been his main obstacle in high altitude rocketry: to always be mindful of and respect. If it was not real, and the Earth was a globe, the concept of a Firmament should have repulsed him as a fake countertheory to the space exploration he's promoting for humanity.
It's suspicious to try to remote control a rover a million miles away. The time delay alone would make it torturously difficult.
It is strange that, by the globe Earth model, the moon orbits the Earth in such a perfectly timed rotation that it only ever shows us one side even though the Earth also moves around the sun. In the globe earth model, it the moon's orbit doesn't even change speed depending on whether it's moving towards or away from the sun. Maybe it's not a ball, and maybe there is only one side.
If the Earth was a globe spinning fast (at approximately 1,000 mph at the equator), then anything which is launched straight up into the air would have the Earth quickly rotate away under it. If it is somehow compensated by the air moving with the Earth, then there would be no wind.
Earth's Composition: It is absurd that officials would pretend to understand the Earth down to its core when humans haven't sent any kind of probe or instrument deeper than almost 8 miles of drilling.
Eart's Hot Core: We do know that there is great heat within the Earth, at least in the temperature rising as one goes deeper, and of tremendous amounts of lava (liquid rock) which shows no signs of cooling. The idea that Earth would remain extremely hot for billions of years in the extreme cold of space is absurd. There is something very special going on within the Earth for that kind of heat to persist; perhaps it is generated.
Santa Claus narrative stats that He comes from the North Pole. Even though a children's story, it's odd that anyone would claim someone comes from somewhere if there was never any land in that place. It would be like saying Santa Claus came from the Pacific Ocean. It so happens that Flat Earth model was still in some public use at the time the Santa Claus story was invented.
How can marine radar work to detect contacts tens of miles away if ships are well below the horizon at that distance?
How can radio waves travel between continents if the Earth is curved? Is it reasonable that the thin upper atmosphere can reflect radio signals? Does the much denser air reflect radio waves in your home? Did Marconi know about this in transmitting the first intercontinental signal?
The Body which apparently eclipses sun during solar eclipse doesn't show any featurees of Moon except that it's round. Shouldn't we get at least a side view of the moon as the dark body moves away and the sun's beams glance off the side of it to us? Maybe it's not the moon at all. Maybe what's happening is an occlusion of the energy which makes the sun: The Missing Sun Solar Eclipse.
Why is the sky blue? The official narrative says it's an optical illusion created by blue light scattering more than other light and saying that although violet light is visible and scatters more then blue, we see blue becuase our eyes are more sensitive to blue. Does that make sense to you? Or is the sky blue because it's an actual blue background you're seeing?
Attraction or Repulsion? How does the same force of gravity, operating on matter of similar fundamental response to it, cause some matter to coalesce into planets and other matter to start rotating in a perpetual orbit, rather than that orbit collapse?
Stability of Orbits It is unreasonable to think that a random explosion could propel masses of matter, which attract each other, into perfectly and perpetually stable orbits around each other, rather than collide and collapse due to the force of attraction with no force of repulsion. How could circular motion arise to counteract gravity? Moreover, it's one thing to achieve a stable orbit in computer models between two gravity balls, but add even a third ball and the pattern becomes chaotic. Since every body in space is theoretically exerting gravity on every other body, we should expect an extremely chaotic pattern of motions of bodies in the universe and certainly not the highly ordered perpetual rotations we see.
Planetary rotations are far too stable to be influenced by gravity and kinetics alone. They generally account for forces betweent he planet and the sun, or whatever they are referencing, but when you start adding more planets you need to add more factors but these are generally ingored. For example, if the Moon rotates around a globe earth, then when it is approaching towards the sun or away from the sun it should do that at different speeds, due to the gravity of the sun, but the model ignores that: insisting on a constant motion. If planets moved on gravity alone, depending on an extremely delicate balance between pull to the sun and pull away because of centripetal force, it would be disastrous for any little change of our momentum to be allowed, such as recieving an asteroid or sending up a space ship: eventually this minute change would destabilize Earth's orbit and either send us craching to the sun or hurtling off into space. Put another way, if we fire even one rocket on the side of Earth away from the sun, the force of that would nudge the Earth closer to the sun and eventually collapse our orbit.
Miracle of the Sun: this miracle of Fatima is much easier to explain in a flat earth model, where literally only the sun need move, than in a heliocentric model, where for the sun to spin and dance it would disrupt if not destroy the entire solar system.
Miraculous Sun movementsin Bible: In two places of the Bible, God caused the sun to delay going down, or even a sundial to go backwards. Although nothhing is too difficult for God, and although in the flat earth model this only requires moving the sun not the earth, in a heliocentric model it requires stopping or even reversing and then restarting Earth's axis rotation. Since the Earth, in a heliocentric model, rotates at approximately 1,000 miles per hour, that would create catastrophic deceleration and acceleration forces for the planet and its inhabitants which the Bible story doesn't mention.
Someting is strange about our continuing heavy use of radio towers if we have so many communications satellites:
It's strange that we still use extremely high radio towers if geostationary communications satellites are commonplace. It's not uncommon for these towers to reach 2000 feet high.
Satellite Dishes: They are virtually never pointed straight up or nearly so, but usually at a much lower angle, such as 45 degrees, towards the nearest tower. For example, satellite TV installations in Toronto are done to point towards the (famous, huge) CN Tower. Maybe the signal actually comes from the CN tower, rather than the sky?
Above the hard dome, as well as below the Earth, are waters.
There is no outer space.
The stars are lights in a fixed rotation around the North pole. They may be in the fluid thought to be above the Firmament dome.
The planets, or 'wandering stars', appear to some amateurs also as pulsating lights (not rocks) as though in fluid , but, unlike the starks, they are not fixed relative to the other stars in rotation around the North Pole, although they move in a predictable pattern.
On the plane of Earth, North is towards the center, South is towards the perimeter, and East and West are paths like smaller circles around the center. Notably, although Christopher Columbus and other explorers proved that the Earth was round (a disc) by circumnavigating in East-West directions, no one proved the Earth is a sphere by also circumnavigating in the North-South direction.
The sun and moon rotate high within the dome, while the stars rotate high or even outside the dome. They are vastly closer to us than what the globe Earth model portrays, and their motion relative to the Earth is very fixed.
The axis of their rotation is the Geopgraphic North Pole under the star Polaris.
Neither the sun, moon, or stars are solid objects. In the case of the sun and moon, they may be plasma; in the case of the stars maybe pulsating energy nodes (as they are reported to appear in amateur astronomy).
It is possible that there are lands beyond the Antartica 'ice wall' perimeter which the Public is not informed about. These, of course, are mentally hidden to anyone who accepts the globe Earth model. They might have their own sun or suns to keep them lit and warm.
Is there any testimony or evidence to support this theory? How about:
This video in which someone finds(?) a portal in the forest, goes through it, reports no serious difference in atmosphere, gravity, temperature, or momentum (suggesting an unknown part of a larger stationary Earth), and captures video of a sky with two suns (indicating not our part of the greater Earth or Panterra).
Panaterra: Some see on the moon what could be a reflection of a much bigger Earth which includes the lands known to us but many more. This larger Earth has been called Panaterra. In fact, our Earth, flat, would be only a circle on the edge of and inside a much larger circle, forming a kind of crescent shape. It is thought that knowledge of this was the origin of the ancient crescent symbol.
How the counter-model generally compares with the official one:
The arrangement of continents around the North Pole on the flat earth model is similar to that around the globe model's north pole, however the southern extreme is completely different. In the globe model, the southern extreme is a pole. In the flat earth model, the southern extreme is a perimeter, all the way around, which is the real Antartica in this model.
How the Counter-Model Handles Specific Phenomena:
Why do things disappear into the horizon as they move away from us, if we live on a flat Earth? This is entirely due to persective, becuase our eyes have a vanishing point at a certain distance. Experimenters show video using high-powered cameras of ships which have vanished into the horizon from view actually come fully back into view if you soom far enough out with the lens.
Why does the sun set? This is mostly because of the vanishing point of the sun into the horizon due to our perspective. High powered cameras show that it is still there. It seems also due to the sun casting it's rays more downward than laterally, and for this phenomenon, it is important to note that heliocentric concept of the sun as a sphere radiating in all directions equally may also be wrong.
Why are there seasons? The sun rotates around the flat earth at varying radius from the center (north pole). This variance of radius, between the two tropics, creates the seasons.
Foundations of Heaven or Firmament: In the flat earth model, Antartical comes very close to the vertical foundations of the Firmament dome, which are a bit ruther out or at the edge of the Antartica perimeter of what we know as Earth.
Tides: In the Flat Earth model, the tides are due to movements of the waters of the Great Deep, ie. the water that lies under the Earth but which is, in most Flat Earth models, connected to our oceans through at least some channels, such that it would affects our oceans also (this would explain why tides affect oceans but not lakes, which the moon-gravity explanation of the globe Earth model does not explain). The prevailing theory is one of legend, being many reports from hundreds of years ago of the oceans being sucked in at the Geographic North Pole, through four massive whirlpools, and spewed out again, regularly, every 6 hours. Private exploration to the true North Pole (despite the public stories of explorers with sled dogs) is said to be restricted by the military, it seems very difficult for civilians to confirm this today. However, as fantastic as it sounds, these movements are actually mirrored quite well by certain publicly known oceanic maelstroms (Saltstraumen, of Norway, and the naruto whirlpools of Japan), which cycle every 6 hours. Video: How do Tides Work on Flat Earth?
Antarctica Interest: If Antarctica is a huge perimeter all around the publicly known Earth, this would explain the tremendous international interest and government cooperation there because:
It would be way to big for any one country to effectively control.
It would be a first line of defense against who or what might lie beyond that rim.
It might be the seat of the vault of heaven, ie. the Firmament, where its walls are accessible for study. This is rumoured to be one of the foremost true roles of scientists in Antarctica.
If it was a secret, nations would need to let other nations in on it or threaten being exposed.
What's Below: The Flat Earth model tends to be more honest about what's int he depths of the Earth: we don't know for sure because no human has even drilled deeper than 8 miles. It may actually be the place of the dead, even Hell itself, as the Bible indicates, which would explain the tremendous undying heat that's down there (as shown by lava and an increase in temperature the deeper miners go). In the deepest holes, it's said and a recording has surfaced of people screaming as though in torment.
Did humans land on the moon? By the Flat Earth model, no, because there is no Outer Space, and the moon may not even be a solid thing. By the presentation of the moon landings no, because there are too many features of these narratives which either disprove them outright or at least cast great suspicion on them.
Challenge of the USA Apollo moon landing narrative includes:
Some questions to ask about the original (Apollo 11) Moon Landing:
Who filmed Neil Armstrong get out and take the first steps on the Moon?
Why is there not a single star in the original moon landing footage?
Why was there no crater under the spacecraft?
Why was there no flame in the blastoff of the lunar module from the moon?
Why do astronaught voices sound clear and calm during takeoff or landing, ie. without vibrational stress, despite supposedly sitting on top of a running large rocket engine?
What about other nations' attempts on a moon landing?
They do not send people and generally their probes have a convenient habit of suffering technical breakdowns, which cuts short the mission and spares the Space Agency from having to keep up the pretense for more than a minimum time. For landing video, they seem to present either obvious computer graphics or nothing: no true live feed, which is strange, considering that the original moon landing offered live camera feed over 50 years ago.
As for India: The Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) has released obviously computer-animated video for their 23 August 2023 supposed India mooon landing. Admittedly, this is subjective, but to some people the images are such obvious low-quality CGI as to be proof enough that something is wrong with the international 'Space' narrative. It's shocking that such poor quality computer graphics would be put out by a government agency on an extremely public announcement, and that so few would point out the nonsense. Modern video games nevermind cinema graphics are far superior now to what India just put out for their moon landing.Obvious problems include: the craft is far too too bright (like a christmas tree: as if they have unlimited energy), craft and moon surface lacking for realistic texture, and there are no stars in the background. It's like an 80s video game. Notice how rockets fire in different directions at different times without the craft showing any movement in response.
Pathetically, although NASA puts out far more realistic artwork, they didn't have any criticism for this poor footage but rather joined in the praise of this supposed space feat. Presumably they are under threat to support or else be exposed India. Apparently India has joined the club of deception, perhaps in exchange for some falsely obtained bragging rights.
World leaders who should know better joined in the praise, starting with the Indian prime minister.
For those who have an eye for graphics, seeing this touted by the India space agency and NASA a supposedly real, this should be proof enough that something is very deceptive with our space agencies and our governments. It's a chain: once you know that the Indian story is fake, and you see so many world authorities who absoultely should know better publicly supporting the fakery, then you know that there is a socially huge conspiracy of deception at work conceringin this issue.
As for Japan: They report landing a probe, and of course they report they're having problems with it. The flight and landing video movements are too smooth for real life. There are no stars in the black background. If you look at the photographs of the lander, everything about it looks like a model assembled by highschool students rather than an actually flight-worthy deep-cold-resistant craft.
Why does the director of the Space Exploration Innovation Hub Center of the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA), Ikkoh Funaki, show himself, on the front page of the official website, standing on a moon-mimicking stage of grey sand and black background, if such a stage doesn't exist? Maybe they need some sand to run their toys around, but why do they need a pitch-black background to do it?
Quality 1: Investigations which you can do yourself and which do not depend on trusting someone else to describe reality to you:
Watch for optical hotspots (extra bright areas) in the water when the Sun appears near it as you face the horizon. If the Sun was millions of miles away, it would be too far away to create such a hotspot as all of the water would be virtually the same distance from the Sun. When such hotspots are visible, it proves that the Sun is significnatly closer to the water which appears just under it than the water to either side. It means the Sun isn't very high up relative to the breadth of the horizon.
You might notice a similar hotspot on the coulds if looking at the sun while flying above the clouds. The implication is the same.
Flight Routes: Go online to your favourite website selling flights. Put in an origin and destination for two points in two different southern continents towards their southern ends (such as Johannesberg to Sydney). Search for flights with one stop. See where that stop is on a map relative to your origin and destination. Determine the overall flight route which must include that stop. See if that flat route makes more sense on a flat or globe earth. You will find that those flights go a long way out of their way to get to that intermediate stop, on a globe Earth model, which makes no business sense, especially in the extremely competitive airline industry. On prevailing flat earth maps (see lower down in this article), you will find that the flight on a flat earth map is a straight line or close to it: perfect sense.
If you raise a question to other people, they will usually tell you it's because the Earth is round. So take your measurements on a globe Earth model such as Google Earth: you will find a similar result.
Solar Corpuscular Rays: Take your own photograph, particularly in the early morning or evening, some partly couldy day, of sun rays filtering down through the clouds. Find the light rays slanting furthers to the left and furthest to the right. Extrapolate the lines up to where they meet, and down to a line of your choice parallel to the horizon. You will be left with a triangle, where: the apex is the light source, the two descending lines are the light rays, and the bottom line is the line parallel to the horizon. Measure or estimate all line lengths and angles of the triangle, as well as distance of the triangle above ground. Based on this triangle, measure or estimate the distance from tehe light source to ground. You're going to find that it's a lot less than the 93 million miles the sun is supposed to be fron the Earth. In fact, if the sun was that distance away, the light rays should be parallel (or so close to parallel that you can't tell the difference with the naked eye).
Northerly Angle of Sunrise and Sunset at Certain Times in Many Subtropical Northern locations. The sun does not simply rise in the East and set in the West, but rises and sets at a specific angle which changes over the year. Noteowrthy, by the globe model, locations on Earth which are north of the Tropic of Cancer are NEVER below the ecliptic (the plane of Earth's rotation with the Sun) and therefore, from them, the sun should NEVER appear even one degree to the north. Yet the sun often does rise and set significantly to the north from many of these locations, such as Montreal, at least in the summer. This is better explalined by the Flat Earth model, where the sun curves around from the North-East in rising, and curves back around to the North-West in setting.
The glow of light outside before sunrise and after sunset. In the globe model, how can there be any light before the light source has come above the horizon, or after it has fallen below the horizon? It can't: light can't wrap around the back of the globe. The Flat Earth model offers a more satisfying explanation for this pre/after-glow: that because the sun doesn't rise 'over' or go 'under' the horizon, but vanishes into it as an optical vanishing point, there still are traces of light from the sun at almost any distance. Just before sunrise and and just after sunset, these traces of light are noticable enough to support a visible glow in the environment.
Get a strong telescope or super-strong zoom lens camera, enough to do at least around 125x zoom. Compare what you see to the images NASA feeds you. Do the 'planets' appear as flickering lights or solod balls? This investigation requires an expensive camera, but it's within reach of many people.
In contrast to the artist-produced graphics of planets and starts which NASA has programmed humanity to see, the stars are evidenced to appear, to some amateurs with high-powered telescopes, as beautiful, often multi-coloured, and pulsating lights, rather than balls of constant fire. They seem to pulsate in fluid: presumably the waters above the Firmament. The Flat Earth community usually refers to them as 'luminaries'.
Solar Hot Spot: Take a photograph of the sun behind some thin coulds, where the portion of the coulds around the sun is a bright gold. Obviously, this is due to those clouds being closest to the sun, forming what's called a 'hot spot'. The problem is, if the sun if 93 million miles away (as it is in the heliocentric model), the coulds are all approximately the same distance from the sun, meaning none should be brighter than the others due to being much more close, and so that no 'hot spot' should form.
Moon-Free Solar Eclipse Please take note of when the next solar eclipse is coming by your area, and observe it for yourself (albeit protect your eyes if necessary). You will observe the sun lose light as though obstructed by a dark object in front of it. But do you see anything at all to indicate that this dark object is the actual moon?
Seasons: The sun being very far from Earth (at 93 million miles), the difference in distance to the sun between polar and equatorial regions is such a tiny proportion of the overall distance to the sun that it's unreasonable to believe it could be responsible for the obvious temperature differernce. It's also worth nothing that since the sun is supposed to be far bigger than the Earth, rays at the poles don't need to hit at a sharp angle.
Mirror reflections of still bodies of water. If the water is curved, it cannot reflect in this way.
Test the list of whole-Earth images presented to the Public for photographic reality. Try to stick with whole-Earth images, so that you exclude both images which could be taken with a high-altitude balloon and images which show a partial curve to the Earth which could be achieved with a fisheye lens. Look at the details of the official presentation, to see if they are anywhere admitted to be 'composites', or other hints that they involved artistry.
Following are some of the most official image collections ostensibly from Space. Please notice that, despite the title of the webpage, the official sources eventually tend to use the word 'image' (which definition allows for artwork), rather than 'photograph' (which definition excludes it) to present these collections.
Notice that the whole-Earth images typically have a pitch-black background without a single star, and never any other objects between the Earth and the camera (except very rarely the moon).
Once you have some official photos you like involving a long-off view of Earth, which you found and selected yourself from official sources, import them into your favourite image manipulation software. Then go crazy playing with factors such as lightness and saturation. You may find that the borders around the Earth start to get weird, suggesting a pasted-in image. Need an example? If you turn up the lightness and hue on these official images, you should see a faint rectangle around the Earth: 1 and 2.
You should also compare factors between whole-Earth images such as: overall colour of the Earth, and geographic accuracy especially the size of land masses.
Here are resources discussing how at least some of the images of the Earth from space presented to the Public, even official ones, are fake or at least deliberately altered, not unaltered photographs (some sources admit the alteration but insist it's justified). This shows a danger in accepting any space image as evidence of reality.
Robert Simmon "Mr. Blue Marble". So the Blue Marble is a composite. And why take clouds out, to then put them back in? What replaces the clouds when you take them out? Why put in entirely fake clouds back in? Why was the atmosphere 'simulated'?
We furthermore recommend that you look around the various whole-Earth and planetary images presented to the Public as photographs and consider if they all look equally real. Our point is that, if they are all real, they they should all look real effortlessly. If they are all fake, then they would be made by different artists and different times with different software to different quality standards, and some of them would look less real than others. For example, this 'photo' of Saturn looks cartoonish, and has a strange and abrupt cuttoff of the rings around the left side. Interestingly, although the article starts off describing the image as a 'photo', near the bottom, in the details, it says it's a 'composite'. Why not just say from the start that it's a composite image? The Devil, as they say, is in the details.
Compare flight routes yourself, especially from the southern end of one continent to the southern end of any other continent. See if the flight path makes sense to you, using Google Earth compared to a Flat Earth map.
Look at a Submarine Cable Map and see if there's many cables which go from the southern end of one continent to the southern end of the other one, or if the information must go the long way around.
High Noon is still High Noon when Earth is on the Other Side of the Sun: The fact that 12pm is high noon (zenith of sun in the sky) today and 12pm is still high noon 6 months from how, when the same spot of the Earth is facing away from the sun because it's on the other side of it's orbit around the sun, is impossible. This video explains it well: Daylight Debunks the Globe
Tides: The official narrative teaches that the moon attracts the water to it, causing tides. However tides do not affect inland lakes, but only the ocean, even though lakes are just as exposed to the moon as the oceans.
Quality 3: Video, Photographic, Audio, or other Hard Evidence:
By publicly displaying the truth, even if not pointing it out, they reduce their spiritual responsibiltiy for deceiving the Public. Perhaps it also gives them a sense of superiority to watch us fail to recognize the truth even though they plainly display it.
Sun's Angled Corpuscular Rays through the Clouds Take a photo on some partly cloudy morning and you will notice that the rays come through the clouds at an angle, as if the Sun as if it wasn't very far away (just extrapolate the line of the rays up until they meet). If the sun was 93 million miles away, the rays would be parallel.
Celestial Navigation angle calculations assume and require a flat Earth. Otherwise there is no clear right angle with the surface of the Earth.
Inconsistent Pictures of Earth from NASA In particular, the The 1972 Blue Marble image: this is declared to be a true photograph of Earth taken December 7, 1972 at 05:39 a.m. EST by Astronaughts of the Apollo 17 mission, on the way to the Moon, with the sun behind them. Africa would have been lit at that time and that's shown in the image, however the peripheral lit portions of the Earth don't match well with the expected peripheral lit land masses for that time and date: South America and Europe should be almost entirely lit up and showing in the image.
NASA seems to be confusing the issue, deliberately or not, by creating multiple series' of photographs with the identical name 'blue marble'. In addition to the 1972 original, there is a 2002 series, 2004 series, a 2015 series, and a 2022 series, for example, with the same name. These are generally admitted to be composite images.
This is presented as lower priority only because which religious text you follow, and which version or parts, if any, are an individual choice.
Listed below are select verses of the Holy Bible, which seem to relate to the topic of Flat Earth, with our emphasis in bold:
 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters [waters above and waters below].
 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. (Holy Bible, King James Version (KJV), Genesis 1:6-10)
“In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.” (Holy Bible, King James Version (KJV), Genesis 7:11)
“The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;” (Holy Bible, King James Version (KJV), Genesis 8:2)
“The LORD shall bring a nation against thee from far, from the end of the earth, as swift as the eagle flieth; a nation whose tongue thou shalt not understand;” (Holy Bible, King James Version (KJV), Deuteronomy 28:49)
“And the LORD shall scatter thee among all people, from the one end of the earth even unto the other; and there thou shalt serve other gods, which neither thou nor thy fathers have known, even wood and stone.” (Holy Bible, King James Version (KJV), Deuteronomy 28:64)
“He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD'S, and he hath set the world upon them.” (Holy Bible, King James Version (KJV), 1 Samuel 2:8)
“The adversaries of the LORD shall be broken to pieces; out of heaven shall he thunder upon them: the LORD shall judge the ends of the earth; and he shall give strength unto his king, and exalt the horn of his anointed.” (Holy Bible, King James Version (KJV), 1 Samuel 2:10)
“Then the earth shook and trembled; the foundations of heaven moved and shook, because he was wroth.” (Holy Bible, King James Version (KJV), 2 Samuel 22:8)
“And the channels of the sea appeared, the foundations of the world were discovered, at the rebuking of the LORD, at the blast of the breath of his nostrils.” (Holy Bible, King James Version (KJV), 2 Samuel 22:16)
“Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.” (Holy Bible, King James Version (KJV), 1 Chronicles 16:30)
“Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble.” (Holy Bible, King James Version (KJV), Job 9:6)
“Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea.” (Holy Bible, King James Version (KJV), Job 9:8)
“Thick clouds are a covering to him, that he seeth not; and he walketh in the circuit [some translations say 'vault'] of heaven.” (Holy Bible, King James Version (KJV), Job 22:14)
“Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.” (Holy Bible, King James Version (KJV), Job 38:4)
“He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end.” (Holy Bible, King James Version (KJV), Job 26:10)
“For he looketh to the ends of the earth, and seeth under the whole heaven;” (Holy Bible, King James Version (KJV), Job 28:24)
“He directeth it under the whole heaven, and his lightning unto the ends of the earth.” (Holy Bible, King James Version (KJV), Job 37:3)
“Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass?” (Holy Bible, King James Version (KJV), Job 37:18)
“Then the channels of waters were seen, and the foundations of the world were discovered at thy rebuke, O LORD, at the blast of the breath of thy nostrils.” (Holy Bible, King James Version (KJV), Psalms 18:15)
"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork." (Holy Bible, KJV, Psalm 19:1)
“Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,” (Holy Bible, King James Version (KJV), Psalms 19:4)
“From the end of the earth will I cry unto thee, when my heart is overwhelmed: lead me to the rock that is higher than I.” (Holy Bible, King James Version (KJV), Psalms 61:2)
“By terrible things in righteousness wilt thou answer us, O God of our salvation; who art the confidence of all the ends of the earth, and of them that are afar off upon the sea:” (Holy Bible, King James Version (KJV), Psalms 65:5)
“God shall bless us; and all the ends of the earth shall fear him.” (Holy Bible, King James Version (KJV), Psalms 67:7)
“The earth and all the inhabitants thereof are dissolved: I bear up the pillars of it. Selah.” (Holy Bible, King James Version (KJV), Psalms 75:3)
“The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.” (Holy Bible, King James Version (KJV), Psalms 93:1)
“Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously.” (Holy Bible, King James Version (KJV), Psalms 96:10)
“He hath remembered his mercy and his truth toward the house of Israel: all the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God.” (Holy Bible, King James Version (KJV), Psalms 98:3)
“Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands.” (Holy Bible, King James Version (KJV), Psalms 102:25)
“Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:” (Holy Bible, King James Version (KJV), Psalms 104:2)
“Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.” (Holy Bible, King James Version (KJV), Psalms 104:5)
“To him that stretched out the earth above the waters: for his mercy endureth for ever.” (Holy Bible, King James Version (KJV), Psalms 136:6)
“Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens.” (Holy Bible, King James Version (KJV), Psalms 148:4)
“When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:” (Holy Bible, King James Version (KJV), Proverbs 8:27)
“When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:” (Holy Bible, King James Version (KJV), Proverbs 8:29)
“Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?” (Holy Bible, King James Version (KJV), Proverbs 30:4)
“And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.” (Holy Bible, King James Version (KJV), Isaiah 11:12)
“And it shall come to pass, that he who fleeth from the noise of the fear shall fall into the pit; and he that cometh up out of the midst of the pit shall be taken in the snare: for the windows from on high are open, and the foundations of the earth do shake.” (Holy Bible, King James Version (KJV), Isaiah 24:18)
“I will say to the north, Give up; and to the south, Keep not back: bring my sons from far, and my daughters from the ends of the earth;” (Holy Bible, King James Version (KJV), Isaiah 43:6)
“Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;” (Holy Bible, King James Version (KJV), Isaiah 44:24)
“I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.” (Holy Bible, King James Version (KJV), Isaiah 45:12)
“Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.” (Holy Bible, King James Version (KJV), Isaiah 45:22)
“Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together.” (Holy Bible, King James Version (KJV), Isaiah 48:13)
“It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:” (Holy Bible, King James Version (KJV), Isaiah 40:22)
“Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:” (Holy Bible, King James Version (KJV), Isaiah 42:5)
“O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ends of the earth, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit.” (Holy Bible, King James Version (KJV), Jeremiah 16:19)
“A noise shall come even to the ends of the earth; for the LORD hath a controversy with the nations, he will plead with all flesh; he will give them that are wicked to the sword, saith the LORD.” (Holy Bible, King James Version (KJV), Jeremiah 25:31)
“And the slain of the LORD shall be at that day from one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth: they shall not be lamented, neither gathered, nor buried; they shall be dung upon the ground.” (Holy Bible, King James Version (KJV), Jeremiah 25:33)
“When he uttereth his voice, there is a multitude of waters in the heavens; and he causeth the vapours to ascend from the ends of the earth: he maketh lightnings with rain, and bringeth forth the wind out of his treasures.” (Holy Bible, King James Version (KJV), Jeremiah 51:16)
“The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth:” (Holy Bible, King James Version (KJV), Daniel 4:11)
“It is he that buildeth his stories in the heaven, and hath founded his troop [some translations say 'vault'] in the earth; he that calleth for the waters of the sea, and poureth them out upon the face of the earth: The LORD is his name.” (Holy Bible, King James Version (KJV), Amos 9:6)
“And they answered the angel of the LORD that stood among the myrtle trees, and said, We have walked to and fro through the earth, and, behold, all the earth sitteth still, and is at rest.” (Holy Bible, King James Version (KJV), Zechariah 1:11)
“Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;” (Holy Bible, King James Version (KJV), Matthew 4:8)
“Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the , and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:” (Holy Bible, King James Version (KJV), Matthew 24:29)
“And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.” (Holy Bible, King James Version (KJV), Matthew 24:31)
“And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.” (Holy Bible, King James Version (KJV), Luke 4:5)
“Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.” (Holy Bible, King James Version (KJV), John 17:24)
“And before the throne there was a sea of glass [the firmament?] like unto crystal: and in the midst of the throne, and round about the throne, were four beasts full of eyes before and behind.” (Holy Bible, King James Version (KJV), Revelation 4:6)
“And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.” (Holy Bible, King James Version (KJV), Revelation 6:13)
“And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.” (Holy Bible, King James Version (KJV), Revelation 7:1)
“And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters [some translations say 'corners'] of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.” (Holy Bible, King James Version (KJV), Revelation 20:8)
Our interpretation of the above Bible verses:
If the Earth is a circle, it's not a ball.
If the Earth is immovable then it's not rotating on its axis, nor rotating around the sun, nor following the Sun in a rotation around the galaxy or outer space.
If a high enough mountain existed, or was made to exist temporarily, it is possible to see all kingdoms of the world from it on a flat earth, but not on a globe Earth.
If the Earth rets on pillars it's not a ball floating in space.
Even the Earth having any foundation is not consistent with the model of the Earth floating.
If the Earth has corners it is not a ball: balls don't have corners.
If the Earth has an end or ends, it is not a ball.
If the Earth is above the waters, that doesn't fit with the globe-Earth model, where the seas are a relatiely thin layer of moisture on a ball of solid and molten rock and iron.
If the Earth is spread out, that's an awkward way to describe it on a sphere, but appropriate if the Earth is flat.
If waters are bounded, that's an awkward way to describe waters on a sphere, but appropriate if the waters have limits on a flat surface.
If the sky is a firmament that means it's a solid thing.
Stretching the heavens is not consistent with the model that they are infinite space. It's consistent with the model that they are a plane of their own above the Earth.
If the sky is a vault or has windows in it, then it is a solid structure.
If Heaven has foundations, that is not consistent with the globe model, where Heaven is infinite space. However it does fit with a flat earth model, where the sky is a firm dome above it, and which touches to Earth at its edges, as foundations.
If the sky has water above it, that doesn't fit with the outer space model of heliocentrism. However it is possible for a firm structure to have water above it.
If Heaven also has an end, this is not consistent with the globe Earth model, where Heaven is infinit space, but is consistent with a flat Earth model, where heaven is a vaulted dome with specific limits (where the vault meets the Earth).
If the stars of heaven fall to Earth, that doesn't fit with the globe-Earth model, where the stars are vastly more numerous and generally larger than Earth, and all mutually floating in space. It does fit, howeer, where the Earth is flat, is much bigger than any star, and they float above it.
Some believe the theory of gravity is also a lie, others see how gravity might still be a real force even with the Flat Earth model.
Anomalies for Further Research:
Why is moon light COLDER than in its shade? Our model of light doesn't allow for light which removes energy.
Is there a 'Black Sun'? What is the dark body which obscures the sun during a solar eclipse? It's never shown as the moom, and sometimes the moon is seen a long ways off in the same sky as a solar eclipse.
What lands are beyond the ice wall, if any? Or is it the foundations of the Firmanment that's there?
Does the moon give us a view of an Earth even larger than the perimeter of the ice wall? This is the Panterra model.
PART 7: The surest (not easiest) way to tell which model is correct:
Simply go to the southern extreme and discern if it's a pole or a perimeter. Easy.
The reason this isn't done by civilians is that international Governments have prophibited private exploration of Antartica under the Antartic Treaty so that no one but the Government is permitted to see the real Antartica (except for one point which welcomes limited tours to see penguins). It is reported to be heavily militarized, meaning military warn explorers to turn back, or arrest them, and they are willing to shoot down vehicles which don't stop on command.
What's in Antarctica to protect that's so precious?
PART 8: Establishment INCENTIVE to mislead society on this issue:
Incentive for the Evil Rulers: It seems that we're taught that the Earth is a globe to mislead us from realizing we are created and under the watch of our Creator, which would follow realizing we are living in a giant highly ordered terrarium. Believing no one is watching encourages us to act irresponsibly, and immorally, which spiritually supports our rule by evil people.
Incentive for Space Agencies: They receive tremendous funding from Government annually without needing to produce much useful for humanity in return (except for maybe their balloon program). It's enough money that it's not too hard to imagine how they could find someone to lie and find the technology and expertise to make the lie convincing to the casual observer, on the TV shows and images they produce. For example, NASA received approximately $24 Billion USD in 2022: that's over $65 million USD per day.