There were a few ways for me to go about this post. One, which I started to do, was to write a lengthy preface defending the claims I was about to make, and reminding readers why they aren’t beyond the pale (given the shocking deceptions that have already been thoroughly exposed), gather a huge number of citations, and over a period of weeks or longer, piece together the different segments of the argument, as I did in some of the past ‘full’ posts. Another was to just put out the information in one long sitting and fill in gaps and add citations as time allows; I went with the latter. A third option would have been to ignore it and focus on other, less controversial subjects. Surely I’ll lose a few readers with this post, and that’s OK. All I’m doing here is to introduce what I believe to be valid lines of inquiry, and attack what I think are potentially invalid presumptions; people can respond to that however they want, hopefully by at least reading it through and fairly considering it. Any disagreement or commentary on one or more points is welcome in the section below.

I’m going to expound here the reasons why in recent months I’ve become a skeptic heliocentrism (update: I now fully reject heliocentrism since there is no non-theoretical, real evidence to support the Copernican principle; see daily-blog post ‘Why I’m a Geocentrist’), and though I believe in God, would firmly, emphatically term myself an agnostic with respect to the position, shape, and age of the Earth, as well as that of ‘space’ and any other realms that exist, along with the particulars of their origins. With respect to what we’ve been taught about those things, I simply don’t believe it, meaning I decline to accept it or to make any sweeping judgments on the matter at all. No, I’m not a ‘flat Earther,’ at least not by my own definition (meaning I do not believe Earth is flat), and don’t feel an absolute conviction that the Earth is a particular shape, or particular scale as a system that includes any surrounding realms; though given my skepticism of sun- or non-centrism, would lean geocentric. One can doubt the establishment’s model, to the point of ‘shelfing’ or tentatively rejecting it, while not being certain of the nature – the shape, limitations, dynamics, etc. – of an alternative model (while the geocentric globe is the most consistent with astronomical and [reported] navigational observations, the case for it is weaker than one might initially suppose). I won’t offer answers, I will only lay out a case for why I tend towards believing that the thing we are taught is ‘The Universe’ may well be nothing more than a mathematical model, one that there is reason to suspect did not derive from modern human intelligence, but ancient, likely non-human knowledge, from which the prevailing universe model was able to be reverse engineered, re-projected, and in large part, merely rendered by artists in paper and digital illustrations. As for the exact nature of the realm we live in – especially the places or aspects beyond human physical reach and perception – that may not be known, now or at any point in our lifetimes.

This is in some ways a significant pivot from past positions. Indeed, there are multiple videos on YouTube and posts on forums (and on this blog) of me attacking flat Earth and non-heliocentric theories more broadly. I’ve spent hours upon hours rooting out false claims made by flat Earthers: where for instance, distances between two objects were grossly misstated, and videos were doctored. I conducted and published a few simple experiments myself, seeming to document the disappearance of objects over the curve, with the aim of handily disproving the theory. For a year or two I thought I had succeeded in all this, but that has recently become unclear. The reason why I devoted the time to the debunking is mainly because an endless parade of co-intel clowns promoting flat Earth, people who were undoubtedly elevated to prominence by millions in establishment funding and ‘search favoritism’ by YouTube, had suddenly taken over the ‘truth movement,’ or in other words, the questioning of ‘official stories’ around major historical events, and I felt the need to defend the gains that have been made in exposing the true nature of those events. There are hundreds or thousands of flat Earth channels, but just a dozen or so had been heavily promoted by YouTube and came to dominate not only flat Earth video recommendations, but any conspiracy-related recommendations at all – where, let’s face it, YouTube is among the primary channels of information or the primary for the time being – and all of that top flat-Earth echelon appeared to consist of shadow-government, co-intel agents or assets; in other words, shills, disinfo agents, etc. We see a similar outcome in the ‘alternative’ podcast world, where Joe Rogan and perhaps a dozen or two others dominate all search results and recommendations, with almost any non-favored content practically invisible to most users.

Disinformation perpetrated by counter-intelligence typically involves three techniques, each of them highly effective and used separately or together. The first is that truth is promoted by oddball personalities and people who appear mentally unwell, in order to discredit it by association. That person is crazy, therefore that [true] idea must also be crazy. In the second, truth is surrounded by or just peppered with absurd ideas that have no basis in evidence: that belief is crazy, therefore the other beliefs in this imagined ideological package are also crazy. A third is to intentionally introduce false evidence in support of an idea, in order to discredit the genuine evidence that supports it: that evidence turned out to be false, therefore all the evidence is likely false. All three of these techniques were used en masse around ideas like the ‘no plane theory’ of 9/11, which I’ve proven to be a reality in the Case for No Planes, as well as with proof of Sandy Hook fakery, among other topics. I assumed flat Earth and the broader questioning of heliocentric globe-ism must consist entirely of the second technique, where a categorically incorrect theoretical endeavor (as general dispute of conventional notions of Earth’s nature) was mixed with correct ‘conspiracy theories’ in order to discredit them, but again, it seems at least in the realm of possibility that I was wrong. This isn’t to say the flat Earthers were right, but that their questioning of the conventional cosmological and Earth models may well be onto something.

My case for skepticism of heliocentrism and the conventional Earth and universe models consists of a few elements. The first will illuminate the lack of evidence that we live in a heliocentric universe and on a necessarily spherical Earth, and show some of the deception that has been employed to promote these notions, which, again, should be a separate question from the Earth’s shape and size: i.e. is what we are told true, or are we being lied to? It’s certainly possible to firmly conclude you are being lied to without knowing what the whole truth is. The second part will provide potential explanations for phenomena that might appear to prove heliocentrism, but do not necessarily do so. The third will be ‘the why,’ and speculate from where the heliocentric model and the mathematical basis for it may have arisen.

The statement or question ‘space is fake’ is not, for me, a nod to computer-simulation theories and does not mean to claim there is no large space above us – no stars, meteors, comets, or planets – it is referring to the falseness or at least lack of evidence only for the specific model promoted by [long-deceitful] NASA, with its cartoon renderings, fake missions, and claims of billions of planets and trillion-mile distances.

 

Part I: ‘The [Heliocentric] Universe:’ A Propaganda Matrix?

Like all kids of my generation, I grew up bombarded with ‘space’ imagery, and was fascinated by it (as well as geography) as much as anyone I knew. Some of my favorite books discussed the planets, their appearance, distance, and temperatures. I entered, or at least worked for a while towards entering a national competition to design the best Lego space station, with a grand prize of a free trip to Space Camp at Cape Canaveral (second prize Moon Shoes?). What I never considered at the time or for much of my adult life was that virtually all, and in most cases all, of the visuals within these educational materials were mere artists’ renditions or computer-generated imagery, not real photos or video.

Those were children’s books, but I’ve recently pondered that space books, news reports, and other media meant for adults invariably contain images of the same nature, third-person perspectives on unmanned spacecraft that are supposedly hundreds of thousands or millions of miles away, of fake Mars roving and atmospheric entry. Who is supposed to be taking these pictures? Clearly, they too are the work of artists. We’ve long been at a point technologically where an image of practically anything can be rendered in a realistic fashion; in the past, it was even more obvious that images of space were artificial.

In a recent post in the Daily Blog section I thoroughly proved that the moon landings were faked, including with evidence showing how the Apollo astronauts crudely faked a video of a globe Earth, apparently using a black piece of paper with a circle cut out of it and placing it in front of the shuttle window (not kidding). Footage from the International Space Station is full of fakery, with no images of the construction of or the full 254-mile ascent to or descent from the craft, suggesting it is in all likelihood an unmanned satellite. Surely, were the ISS manned, a full, sped-up ascent or descent video would have emerged by now. Personally, I believe the highest that NASA and other space agencies have gone with manned craft is probably in the vicinity of 40 miles or 200,000 feet. The NASA images of Earth we’ve been shown in recent decades are clearly and often admittedly ‘composite,’ artificial images. In some, continents are more than double the size they should be. For example, in this blatantly fake image from NASA’s own website, [a portion of] North America alone takes up almost the entire visible half of the sphere (link). Supposed images of Earth from NASA are embedded with numbers and words, akin to the penis on Little Mermaid VHS tapes, or the word ‘sex’ written in the dust in the Lion King, which also appears in clouds in a typical NASA Earth image (link). The most common image of Pluto shows a striking resemblance to the dog (link) (link), where the cartoon character was invented in 1930, decades prior to the photo’s taking. Like having the Sandy Hook ‘victims’ sing at the Super Bowl with Jennifer Hudson six weeks after the event, they enjoy messing with us and shoving the deception in our faces.

To reiterate, we have clear proof of Apollo video footage of Earth being faked, and there continues to be no very long distance video of Earth 49 years and counting afterwards. There are no photos of Earth that could not easily be rendered in CGI, many photos that look identical to allegedly non-CGI photos are admitted by NASA to be CGI or composite, and we have evidence of bald-faced, brazen photo manipulation.

(Returning to the subject of simulation or ‘Matrix’ hypotheses, i.e. that we are living in one, I do not believe in them, in the sense of a computerized, digital simulation. What I do believe is that alienation from the truth and indoctrination of lies can become so profound, and affect so many people in so similar a way, that a ‘mental matrix’ comes to be: on the individual level, but also loosely replicated across most or all of the collective. This is in some ways not necessarily much different from a physically real simulation (i.e. a computer program), since our minds operate our bodies and it could be argued that it’s within our individual minds that most of the conscious parts of human experience take place, and that in many cases our individual minds are working on the same externally imposed propaganda ‘program’ or ‘psycho-cultural operating system,’ where shared premises and assumptions are ubiquitous enough that they become a mental ‘box’ within which we perceive we live, almost blocking out the actual reality that exists independently of human experience. The phenomenon of ‘living in another world’ is readily observable and frequently mocked at the small scale of a cult, but is less often considered to be at work on a larger scale, where we’re all psychologically ‘living in a world’ other than reality or the real world. The potential power of mass psychological suggestion or ‘brainwashing’ should not be underestimated.)

 

Part II: Answering Objections to Non-Heliocentric-Globe-ism

Lacking convincing, direct visual evidence of the universe model we have been told exists, what we’re left with is the theoretical reconciliation of various observations, which is said to arrive at unequivocal deduction to and acceptance of heliocentrism. Below I will go through these observations, and provide non-heliocentric answers to explain them. While there are many geocentric models, flat and non-flat alike, in the interest of simplicity I will answer them from the perspective of an Abrahamic or Biblical flat-Earth model (link), since it is by a long stretch the one most commonly involved in the discourse and is also in terms of its shape and general characteristics the most common universe model historically, seen from the ancient Mayan and Inca cultures to the Hindu to the Egyptian to the Norse. (While the linked model is the prevailing Biblical interpretation, it should be noted that in one verse God ‘suspends/hangs the Earth over nothing.’)

Some of these ‘answers’ might be strained or speculative, but some aren’t. I argue the point from this perspective only to see if doubt or skepticism is justifiable, not prove things one way or the other. This started out as and may end up as a thought exercise, but I think I will have touched on more than enough here to prove one was worthwhile, though I still consider myself strictly agnostic on the issue. There may be a few problems with a non-heliocentric, non-globe model that I can’t currently account for here, but I previously believed that for many of the objections below. In cases of equally functional and plausible explanations, the burden of proof is firmly on the side of heliocentrism in my mind. The vast majority of people and societies who have existed (including highly learned persons of intelligence perhaps unmatched today) have believed in a Creator and believed the Earth was at the universe’s center or among its centers; from a long-range historical view, the globe-heliocentric model is relatively new.

As stated in the introduction, it’s not my belief that the Earth is flat. I am simply ‘playing Devil’s advocate’ and arguing from the position of an alternate model in order to explore weaknesses in the conventional model. It may be difficult for a reader to believe me after reading the content below, but it’s nevertheless true. In spite of all of the following objections to supposed  proofs of a spherical Earth, the globe still appears to be the likeliest model, however, I believe the door should be left open to alternate shapes, and to the possibility of a globe in a geocentric, closed or limited system that is not governed by gravity (or where ‘gravity’ is a magnetic force that operates only on and very close to Earth), where ‘space’ is of a nature other than what we believe.

 

Objection: Ships disappear over the horizon in line with curvature formulas, which proves spherical Earth; additionally: lighthouses are built tall to cast light beyond the curvature. If the Earth were flat, the view over planar regions would be infinite.
Answer: Objects also disappear in line with the angular resolution limit of the eye, which increases with altitude, as does the reach of light, including on a flat plane. What appears to be a disappearing bottom could be the compression to near-flatness of the part of the optical perspective field nearest to the center line, where those portions appear ‘consumed into’ the horizon line by means of compression. The reason that elevation increases viewing distance and thus viewability of an object is that as height increases, the viewed object moves further below the center line or horizon line of the perspective field, putting farther objects closer to the new horizon level into view. The same principle applies whether the viewer is on the ground looking up at a high object – in which case the viewed object is well above, as opposed to well below, the horizon line – or the viewer is up high looking down towards the ground. This video provides in-depth explanation of human perspective (link), which I had previously not well understood, and dismissed as a relatively unimportant consideration in the question of Earth’s shape. I haven’t gotten through the whole thing yet but at an hour-plus in, the information appear to be accurate. If its claim that the angular resolution limit of the human eye (an oblate spheroid like the not-truly-spherical globe projection) i.e. horizon vanishing point is identical to the curvature drop can be fully verified, we’re not in Kansas anymore, not that we ever really were in many ways.

Objection: Stars move or rotate across the night sky; alternatively: stars rotate the opposite direction in the northern and southern hemispheres. That different stars can be seen at different points of the Earth, and that the North Star in certain places cannot be seen are proof of globe Earth.
Answer: Stars do not rotate differently depending on hemisphere. The supposed difference in direction depends only on whether one is facing north or south, like a car is moving to the left from one side of the road and to the right on another (link). Taking the point independently, there is no reason to believe that the Earth must rotate, and that the star field cannot rotate. Instead, the Earth could remain mostly or entirely stationary while stars and planets move. On an azimuthal equidistant projection, or flat Earth map, the North Star, which is above the North Pole, the center point of the Earth on an azimuthal map, is one of the most readily viewable stars, which would make sense, yet certain constellations that are further toward the fringes would be viewable only by people on the fringes as the star field rotated, in the same way they are only visible to people at southern latitudes on a globe projection, and in the same way the North Star is not visible to those people, it being too far from them on both projections, with most constellations being viewable to most of Earth’s people, since the majority of the world population on both globe and azimuthal projections lives within a relatively small latitude range, latitude being the same on both projections. A tangential point is that the sun and ‘solar system’ are said to be moving through the universe at over 500,000 mph, a claim unbeknownst to most, yet the same constellations have been visible in the same places to the same people for at least 4,000 years, which defies explanation, but would be expected in a geocentric model.

Objection: There are long-day summers in the Southern Hemisphere; alternatively: there is midnight sun in the deep-Southern Hemisphere.
Answer: If the sun is either a sphere or near-spherical polygon of some kind, the strength and breadth of light from different portions of it may vary, and it may revolve at different speeds during different times of the year. Changes in season may be able to be explained by changes in sun intensity, as a whole or on different portions of its surface, and on shifts in the sun’s orbit towards and away from the North Pole in concentric-circle or spiral fashion. Positing an azimuthal projection, it is also possible that aether concentrations (see below) and light propagation may be different on outer rings than towards the center. As for the southern midnight sun, so far I’ve seen only one video purporting to show it and there are indications of manipulation (the cities closest to Antarctica have around 15 hours of daylight in January); and given the US government’s history of NASA fakery, it cannot be ruled out that any video purporting to be Antarctic is actually Arctic. While theorizing alternatively about the sun’s form may seem beyond the reasonable, no one has seen the sun up-close or gone even one-millionth of the alleged distance towards it, and non-NASA photos of it only appear to show a disk-like object. That the sun and other celestial bodies, rather than being totally insensate balls of gas or lumps of rock, might have some form of consciousness, and intelligence or purpose – like plant life does, and perhaps the Earth itself – is not really incredible on its face, only in perception to those who have become accustomed to NASA’s tales.

Objection: The celestial bodies we call planets may be spheres and appear to move in an orbit, therefore Earth must naturally also be a planet, i.e. a sphere that is also moving in an orbit.
Answer: Planets move or ‘wander’ across the sky, as the word’s etymology, meaning wandering star, implies. If they are orbiting, it could be due to rotational forces at high altitudes. Geocentric models such as that of Tycho Brahe posit a sun and moon orbiting the Earth, and the planets orbiting the sun, which is almost entirely consistent with observations. Since no one other than NASA and Western space agencies has claimed to know much detail of any celestial system outside of the Earth and the planets, presuming that the Earth and planets are of the same nature doesn’t necessarily make any sense. If there is only one galaxy or ‘cosmic neighborhood’ and Earth is at its center, presuming that Earth is different than the planets would make more sense, given the apparent lack of life, among other distinctions.

Objection: Sunrise and sunset are proof of globe Earth.
Answer: Though it’s unstated, the Biblical model might imply that the sun is around 3,000 miles high, with a total sky height of perhaps 5 or 10,000 miles. Were the sun to be a certain size and sit at a certain altitude, it is conceivable that it could maintain its apparent size while appearing to drop below the horizon due to A) movement away from the viewer and thus center-line perspective compression and B) size distortion occurring from atmospheric interference (dust, clouds, etc.), which for instance dramatically increases moon size when it nears the horizon, to a degree that far exceeds what could be possible. The marked increase in intensity through small sections of the day, e.g. from 2pm to 4pm does make some more intuitive sense were the sun to be proportionally much closer to us at the former hour, than were it to remain at the same 93-million-mile distance through those intensity changes. As always, these answers aren’t necessarily my views, I’m only arguing from the position in order to illuminate both sides of the debate; I could provide a similarly detailed argument for globe-Earth sunsets. On an azimuthal projection, the sun still rises in the east and sets in the west, and the cardinal directions point to the same places as they do on a globe projection. The sun moves in an arc or curve in an azimuthal projection, i.e. in a similar direction as azimuthal latitudes, which is consistent with ground observations.

Objection: A non-heliocentric model requires that satellites aren’t real, or need ongoing propulsion.
Answer: First, even in a Biblical model, satellites could reach a height that would allow them to monitor and communicate with the entire face of the Earth. Some have theorized that atmospheric aether moves in a vortex of some kind, increasing in force with centrality and altitude at levels above human reach. If a force of this nature is causing the movement of stars and celestial bodies, satellites sent to high altitudes could be swept into that vortex and permanently orbit the face of the Earth. However, that being said, we have been shown no real images of satellites in space, which are invariably CGI. Satellites are often launched via balloon and have repeatedly been found to crash to Earth with balloons attached. If satellites are launched to a point over the Earth, whether they are orbiting or not would not be apparent to ordinary employees of companies that build and launch them, since most satellites are said to be fixed to the Earth’s rotation and remain above a fixed portion of Earth. Other non-heliocentric theories, such as ‘Dual Earth Theory,’ posit a double-sided disk with dual aether vortices, a dual-dimensional world where the point of union between them is imperceptible to humans.

Objection: The geo-locational system of latitude and longitude only works on a globe model, circumnavigation is impossible on a flat Earth model, and navigation in general would be different. Time zones would not be the same.
Answer: Latitude and longitude are the same on an azimuthal equidistant projection (link) (the model espoused by most flat Earth proponents, used on UN flag, etc.; which is also consistent with Biblical descriptions) as they are on a globe projection. Circumnavigation would be as possible on a flat disk as it would on a sphere, by traveling along longitudinal and latitudinal lines as ships do. Prior to latitude, longitude, and globe models, mariners navigated accurately using sextants, astrolabes, and other tools, which assumed a flat model. While I haven’t had time to research the subject, azimuthal projections are used at least part of the time in air navigation. In an azimuthal projection, there would be little to no change in the placement and scale of land masses, oceans, or seas. Time zones are the same in an azimuthal or flat projection as they are on a globe projection.

Objection: A flat Earth is too small, or some silly, implausible form, i.e. a shallow, CD-like disk, or without bounds.
Answer: While a host of non-conventional models exist, a Biblical Earth model, the most common among flat Earth proponents, is generally understood to be an azimuthal equidistant projection. On its edge is an ice region known as Antarctica, which might itself be several hundred or even a thousand or more miles in depth, before terminating in a wall of mountains, which seemingly would meet the lower edge of the firmament i.e. a sky-containing enclosure, or per some theories, open to a second world beyond. Its diameter would be about 10,000 miles, a height of between 5,000 and 10,000 miles. Some flat Earth theorists have asserted that the ‘invisible plasma belt’ or ‘plasmaspheric hiss,’ part of the supposed Van Allen belt and estimated by astronomy researchers at 7,200 miles from the surface, may represent the sky’s limits (link) (link), which would be a reasonable height over a circular realm of the azimuthal projection’s diameter. In the linked article the barrier is said to be ‘hard and fast’ and is compared to glass, where the Bible and similar models assert a barrier of glass, crystal, or metal. It’s worth noting that in an azimuthal projection the donut-shaped Van Allen belt essentially becomes a dome, which is the leading sky shape in flat Earth models; NASA has repeatedly admitted humans both cannot go and have never gone beyond ‘low-Earth orbit,’ defined as under 1,200 miles (link). As always, the dimensions referred to aren’t necessarily my belief; I am explaining what the Biblical model might look like. The highest non-military, non-NASA flight has reached about 10 miles up, and none but a few humans will go higher than 7 miles, or about 0.1% of the average of the proposed heights. Biblical models and virtually all world religions also posit one or more very large cavities below in the form of an underworld, which might go to a depth of many hundred or even thousand or more miles below the surface, another vast space. Many traditions also speak of ‘fountains of the deep,’ water channels that lead to an enormous source below ground, which also may have real-world parallels, evidenced by water-pressured diamonds believed to come from about 400 miles below the surface (link), a layer supposedly consisting of magma, yet the diamonds, known as ice-VII, were produced in low temperatures, where the mantle is said to be 7,000 degrees F. Like with ‘outer space,’ conceptions of the Earth’s core are almost entirely theoretical, with almost none of it ever seen or touched. The deepest that man has reached is 7.5 miles (0.18%), via a 9-inch diameter borehole, where the center is theorized in a globe projection at 3,958 miles (edit: of course, this does not invalidate the overwhelming majority of geological knowledge, which is based on firsthand observation and study of Earth and its constituent material). As applies to many ideas here, the absurdity of these beliefs – i.e., in a firmament and/or an underworld – is really in the eye of the beholder, where believing [without any hard evidence] in flying saucers, space aliens, and trillions of galaxies is not objectively any less strange, and maybe far more so.

Objection: Astronomy and telescope viewing proves a spherical Earth model and a vastness of the cosmos impossible in a geocentric model. Only modern astronomers who use telescopes and believe in heliocentrism and a globe Earth have been able to predict cosmic events like eclipses.
Answer: In a Biblical ‘dome’ model, stars/lights and planets/bodies would be several thousand miles high, where the highest documented human reach from a trustworthy source is about ten miles, and the vastness of everything we see would be containable within a geocentric system. Systems of advanced astronomy and astrology predate heliocentrism and the belief in a globe by thousands of years. Ancient Greek gear-based mechanisms that were based on a flat Earth were able to predict moon phases, eclipses, and other events with the same accuracy as they are today. Olmec calendars from 3,000 years ago, as well as Mayan and Aztec calendars – also based on a flat, geocentric model – were able to foretell a variety of phenomenon. To predict eclipses today, NASA uses the Saros Cycle, discovered by Ancient Babylonian astronomers (2,700 years BP) who assumed a flat, motionless Earth (link). The agency relies on one Saros-following, retired employee for all its eclipse predictions, illustrating that big budgets and sophisticated equipment are not needed to do so (link).

Objection: Geocentrism lacks a model that accounts for astronomical observations, while heliocentrism doesn’t. Additionally, observations and experiments on Earth have proven that it is rotating.
Answer: The ‘modified Tychonian’ model, as far as I can tell, accounts for all observations, including parallax, as long as one uses elliptical rather than circular orbits. The model is also described as ‘geoheliocentrism’ and the Egyptian model. Were the theories of special relativity and gravity found to be false or misunderstood, the model would function. There is no physical proof that the Earth is in motion, no experiment that detects a rotational force or illuminates it via observation of phenomenon on the ground; the only proof is the theoretical acceptance of special relativity, which I’ve shown was disputed and disproven after Einstein’s theories were published by eminently qualified scientists such as Tesla and Sagnac, and continues to be disputed. This academic paper documents twelve experiments in which Einstein’s special relativity was disproven (link).

Objection: Video and photos from weather balloons and high-altitude aircraft are proof of Earth’s curvature.
Answer: Such shots are invariably taken from fisheye-lens Go-Pro cameras and other conventional lens cameras. The curve is a result of the lens and is usually wildly exaggerated compared to what one would expect on a globe Earth. I initially discounted this but if you watch any video for a long enough time, and the camera points downwards to upwards, the horizon line will change from convex, to level, to concave. Were Earth to be a globe, the altitudes in question would show almost no curvature as it is due to their insignificance relative to diameter. For a good example of this, see this video of a 200,000-foot amateur rocket launch, the highest ever (link). Since the camera is pointed downwards most of the video, the horizon is convex, but moves to horizontal and concave each time the camera levels or turns upward.

Objection: Beams of light such as lasers gradually disappear over curvature, or at least do not move in a straight line as would be expected in a flat plane and ‘vacuum’ airspace, and aether, which might cause this effect, has been proven not to exist.
Answer: The existence of aether was only supposed to have been disproven by means of two 19th century experiments, and was held to be real well into the 20th century by Einstein opponent Nikola Tesla and many others. However ignored they are by establishment media, there are serious, maximally educated academics today who maintain the experiments were misinterpreted and that aether likely exists. For two decades after the Michelson-Morley experiment, which is claimed to have firmly disproven aether, and prior to Einstein, scientists asserted that the experiments actually proved the existence of aether and a totally stationary Earth, again reflecting the dual functionality of helio- and geocentric models, and possible projection of one from the other. Special relativity, which came later, had to be ‘discovered’ or invented to reconcile the Michelson-Morley results with Earth-rotation and broader heliocentric theory. The subsequent support for a rotating Earth and Einstein’s special relativity theory came in the form of more theory and mathematical reconciliation, e.g. the Lorentz transformation, not by experimental observation. The author of the famous interferometer experiment, Albert Michelson, stated that “The conclusion contradicts the explanation. . .which presupposes that the Earth moves.” Henri Poincaré, from whom Einstein apparently plagiarized a large portion of his work, said “a great deal of research has been carried out concerning the influence of the Earth’s movement. The results were always negative.” In Einstein’s Kyoto address entitled “How I created the theory of relativity,” he stated “I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected in any optical experiment” [he then proclaims belief in heliocentrism, saying that his theory enabled him to believe it.] Steven Hawking said, “to the question whether or not the motion of the Earth in space can be made perceptible in terrestrial experiments. We have already remarked. . .that all attempts of this nature led to a negative result. Before the theory of relativity was put forward, it was difficult to become reconciled to this negative result.”

Objection: Flight paths and Antarctic expeditions prove that Earth is a sphere. Anyone could go to Antarctica (or reach certain altitudes) and instantly prove flat Earth were it to be true.
Answer: There have only been a handful of alleged trans-Antarctic expeditions, a flurry of them recently, all under the auspices or supervision of Western governments and undertaken by military personnel. A person could follow a prescribed path (shaped by government-issued reports on weather and geography) of a few hundred miles along the Antarctic rim and then claim and even believe he has arrived at the center. There are not and have never been any commercial flight paths over the center point of Antarctica on a globe projection, not even a single passenger flight. Flight paths in general are at least as consistent with a flat Earth, enclosed-disk model (i.e. an azimuthal equidistant projection) as with a spherical Earth, many of them moreso, e.g. San Francisco to Tokyo, Buenos Aires to Sydney (granted, demand for direct flights for that is likely too low), or New York to Delhi. As for the notion that anyone could go to Antarctica and disprove a globe Earth, it is highly conceivable, bordering on certain, that no person or not more than a tiny handful of people has attempted to do so. First, flat Earth proponents are a tiny percentage of the population, and it would probably only be a flat Earth proponent who would have a mind to risk going there in a way that would verify a pole exists (not just a place along an ice rim called the pole), dramatically reducing the pool of candidates. Antarctica is claimed or de facto regulated by governments and all research activity there is undertaken by governments, and it is illegal to visit the content without receiving government permission (link). The surrounding sea is also regulated, and a permit is required to even sail beyond 60 degrees southern/outer latitude (link). All nations with claims in Antarctica prohibit motorized vehicles on the miles-deep ice, which obviously complicates exploration. Any unauthorized person who attempted to move towards or cross into or over the region by air or sea could easily be detected and intercepted via radar, infrared surveillance, and supersonic aircraft. One would risk his life merely trying to arrive there, with the surrounding seas extremely rough and dotted with icebergs, then would have to scale the up to 200-foot ice wall that surrounds most of the region, blindly venture hundreds or even thousands of miles inland, through the world’s harshest and deadliest climate to a potential edge or high mountain wall of totally unknown distance, turning the incredibly perilous ground trek into a mountain-climbing expedition (with many ranges said to be in excess of 15,000 feet), then make it back, and having managed to avoid being blocked (on the basis that entry is prohibited, for safety, environmental protection, or other reasons) or killed by government or the elements (not necessarily even directly, where ground conditions could be sabotaged in advance, causing death or impasse), tell his or her story to an establishment-owned media. Were the azimuthal projection to be true, it would be impossible to traverse much of the continent before reaching territories of ‘Five Eyes’ nations and core-NATO Norway, which have been shown to be in the pocket of a single, supernational power structure. Any person with the wherewithal to make it to Antarctica would undoubtedly be aware of all of these factors, and the odds that it has been tried more than a few times are minute. Jarle Andhøy’s exploits show the likely outcomes (link) (link). The same is true of attempts to reach extremely high altitudes, where any unauthorized craft, manned or unmanned could be detected, intercepted, and taken offline in short order. Lastly, it does seem highly peculiar that NASA, the Antarctic Treaty System (signed in Washington), and the US Antarctic Program were all founded within a year of each other, in 1958-1959, with some of the Western signatory nations, including the US, having had Antarctic overflight agreements since the 1920s; the first alleged manned spaceflight was in October 1957. By far the deepest-inland research station, the Amundsen-Scott station, is operated by the US, who patrols the region and recognizes no other nations’ claims to it (link).

Objection: Gravity, as a force, is an indispensable concept in physics and proves the Earth is a sphere.
Answer: In any earthly observations, the concepts of and laws around density and buoyancy can be substituted for gravity, meaning gravity was never needed to explain natural phenomena. Objects fall or sink in air and water because they are more dense than their mediums, and float or fly in them, i.e. are buoyant, when less dense. Newton (who was severely brain-damaged from self-administered mercury ‘therapy’) and Einstein had and have many detractors, with Newtonian physics repeatedly proven wrong, and Einstein accused by many of being a plagiarist and a fraud (link). He published his treatises out of nowhere, with no experience or education, credited no one and made no citations even though all of the material had been discussed in the decades prior, and several friends reported him poring over the works of Henri Poincaré and others in the years prior, whom he claimed to have never heard of and whom it is claimed he plagiarized. Experiments in the wake of Einstein, e.g. the Sagnac experiments in 1913 (link), disproved special relativity but were ignored. The other lynchpin of heliocentrism, characterized by Earth’s orbit around the sun at 66.6k mph, is gravity, said to be discovered by Newton in 1666. As a general rule, any personality promoted at such length and revered with such fervor by a proven malevolent, mendacious establishment should raise eyebrows and be put under the microscope. If you think the existence of gravity has gone unquestioned, see the following: (link) (link) (link). The manner in which children are taught about gravity is silly: an apple falls on Newton’s head, which is said to prove gravity is a force, when all it proves is that unsupported objects that are denser than air fall down. Why would one expect them to float, or even muse on the possibility? From Newton’s apple, students move directly on to claims they can neither test or observe, as they are taught about the globe and heliocentrism. Observations such as terminal velocity could represent a density threshold at which air resistance is overcome by sufficient density and aerodynamic margins in which to make no difference, like a floating feather or light mist in the path of a running man or a freight train will not hinder either of them in a measurably different way.

Objection: We’ve known the Earth was a sphere that revolved around the sun since the Ancient Greeks.
Answer: Ancient Greek thinkers were said to be geocentrists who in some cases asserted a globe Earth. But study of the Greeks itself is tricky. The more one digs into them, the more problems one finds. Clearly there was an Ancient Greek civilization, but very little is known about the lives of some of their most famous figures and the custody of their works wasn’t at all secure, with gaps of hundreds of years unaccounted for, major libraries raided and destroyed, and sudden emergence of translations in European libraries. When it comes to who certain Greek figures were and what they said, we are putting much of our trust in the hands of Renaissance and early-modern European monarchs and their court scholars, not in evidence from antiquity.

The only experiment by an Ancient Greek that is said to prove that Earth is a globe was performed by Eratosthenes, with other Greeks either agreeing with him or merely musing on the possibility. However, a striking fact is that Eratosthenes’s calculations also work on a flat, azimuthal projection, if the sun is roughly 32 miles in diameter and at an approximately 3,000-mile altitude, which would be a plausible size and probably the most likely altitude range for a luminous object needed to light half the Earth. For perspective, this would be equivalent to a lightbulb-sized object (lighting half the room or a swath 31.5-feet wide, perhaps cast towards the edges of the room) revolving approximately 8 feet above a circular room that is 63 feet in diameter. Whether it would be possible for a human, who would less than one-millionth of an inch tall in such a room, to see the bulb at a given distance is beyond my pay grade.

Objection: The transit of Venus and Mercury and solar eclipses prove heliocentrism and globe Earth.
Answer: There are several possible answers to this apparently stubborn transit problem. The first is that Venus and Mercury, as well as the moon, may orbit above Earth but below the sun, occasionally passing in front of it, with the other planets orbiting above the sun, which is in accordance with the Aristotelian, Ptolemaic, and medieval models (link) (link)  which obtained in the West for almost 2,000 years. This also could apply to solar eclipses, where on extremely rare occasions the moon orbits irregularly or in retrograde and crosses in front of the sun. Obviously this would entail a relatively tiny and low-altitude Mercury and Venus, but the sizes we have been told of are nothing anyone has borne witness to, only extrapolations from heliocentrism’s mathematical underpinnings. It’s clear by virtue of their cosmologies and theologies that all astronomers of antiquity believed the planets to be far smaller than both the Earth and the sun. The second possibility, if planets must be orbiting around the sun at the same altitude, is that Mercury and Venus simply have different orbits, where the other planets also move in patterns above the Earth but don’t pass in front of the sun. Again, in the spirit of scrapping erroneous presumptions, just as there is no good, independent reason to believe Earth is like the planets, there is no good reason to believe the so-called planets are all alike, since they are only a few in a number. The ancients studied the planets painstakingly for thousands of years, achieving great feats of the intellect in doing so, and called them wanderers or wandering stars, not circuit-ers or orbit-ers. The planets may wander differently according to different celestial rules, just as there are stars that move and stars that do not move, e.g. the North Star. A third possibility is that the sun makes small changes in altitude throughout the year, perhaps coincident with the seasons, allowing Mercury and Venus to pass both below and above. A fourth is that transits, which happen for only a few hours once every 5-10 years, are being faked. A Google Image search of ‘plane and Venus in front of sun’ will show how easily it could be done. Lastly, the Tychonic and Egyptian cosmological models, which have been called ‘geoheliocentric,’ assert that Mercury and Venus orbit the Sun, explaining transit, the sun and moon orbit the Earth, and the other planets orbit the sun and Earth at higher altitudes and in broader orbits.

A worthy standalone line of inquiry for this section is that non-NASA, real footage of stars (e.g. Sirius, Arcturus, among many others) looks nothing whatsoever like how stars have been depicted by artists, certainly not like burning balls of gas (link) (link) (link) (link). If one searches for close-up images of stars, what will come back are artists’ renditions of stars, non-close-ups, or the strange objects linked. Similarly, a search for images of supernovae will come back with clearly enhanced or artistic images, or the very same images of the same kind linked in this paragraph, which are ‘regular’ stars, not supernovae. Were one to believe none of the NASA images were artists’ renditions, one might ask why they appear nothing at all like amateur footage? This is certainly not just an issue of photo clarity. This is just one example of a ‘positive’ piece of evidence, with the focus here on answering and neutralizing common objections to skepticism of heliocentrism. There are many other standalone points; for example, the horizon (as the meeting point of land and air) does indeed always seem to rise fully to eye level, which can be seen in video footage from 130,000 feet in altitude. The horizon line would pull slightly but visibly above the Earth once a certain altitude was reached, were Earth to be spherical (granted, such an altitude, which would need to be upwards of 100 miles for clearly visible ‘horizon detachment’ of a spherical Earth, has never been reached). A few others: that the North Star does not move, and has historically been used for orientation; that compasses point to the North Pole as if it is a magnetic world center.

As there are several geocentric cosmological models (e.g. the Tychonic, Aristotelian) that expand beyond the Biblical, as well as ‘multiversal’ models where multiple dimensions and multiple Earth-like realms exist in addition to ours, I don’t wish to be considered or characterized as a flat Earther. What I do see are reasons to believe heliocentrism and ‘globe-ism’ may be false or at least be heavily involved with deception, and should thus not be ‘settled’ and spared scrutiny. Even a geocentric spherical model could be possible, where the universe is an enclosed sphere with a supported or unsupported spherical Earth at its center, if unsupported, held in suspension by forces we cannot explain (which incidentally was the view of Plato). This isn’t what I believe and I don’t claim to have knowledge of the true Earth or universe model, and remain open to evidence for any and all models.

While I’ve attempted to work through some of these common objections, I admittedly do not understand advanced physics or mathematics, and much of the above was ‘rattled off’ without thorough review. Were a reader to need the word of accredited specialists that the aforementioned geocentric models are indeed functional, consider this by world-renowned Cambridge theoretical physicist George F.R. Ellis, which I came across after writing this post (Ellis would hardly be the only such voice and I haven’t yet tried looking for more, I only stumbled onto him): “I can construct for you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.” Tesla voiced a similar sentiment in a 1935 interview on the theory of relativity, which by itself enabled the rejection of aether and opened the door to modern light and gravity theory: “[Einstein’s theory of relativity is] a mass of error and deceptive ideas violently opposed to the teachings of great men of science of the past and even to common sense. . . [it] wraps all these errors and fallacies and clothes them in magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. . . the theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king. Its exponents are very brilliant men, but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists. Not a single one of the relativity propositions has been proved.”

Many people, I too to some extent, have a psychological need to arrive at answers, and an intolerance for uncertainty. If a murder is committed, they say ‘someone must pay;’ whether the case against the person is problematic is unimportant. But one can see enough reason to doubt one model while declining to embrace an alternative. Heliocentrism may offer answers for many observations and phenomena, but there may be geocentric or even flat-Earth-based answers that exist to them, of which we aren’t aware. Were indications of widespread, profound deception to exist around recently adopted Model B, and the vast majority but not all of the observations explained by Model B were also explainable by long held Model A, I think it would be reasonable to entertain the idea that Model A (as general geocentrism, without specificity to the shape) may still be the correct one, but we do not yet comprehend everything about it.

While it is cast as a level-headed, steely perspective, it’s difficult to imagine anything as absurd as the belief that the grandeur and truly awesome intelligence of nature and the cosmos came from a non-divine, un-designed, purposeless space-fart, i.e. the Big Bang theory. It is in my opinion more rational to assume that an extremely intelligent being created an extremely intelligent system. If an intelligent being created such an incomprehensibly complex terrestrial system, it could have designed the heavens to operate by their own rules, rules which by virtue of our mortality and mental and physical limits, we do not and may never understand.

 

Part III: The Heliocentric/Non-centric Universe as ‘Grigorian’ Mathematics

When many think of the Bible, they think of the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments. But there are several ‘non-canonical texts’ that have the same origins and same fundamental grounds for inclusion. They are accepted as canonical by only a few groups, e.g. Ethiopian Jews and the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. Why they were excluded from the books we know as the Bible is a complex subject involving centuries of ecclesiastical councils and conventions, with the desire by men at said councils to hide certain narratives and characters undoubtedly a possibility.

The most well known of these texts is the Book of Enoch. In it, several hundred angels called the Grigori or egrḗgoroi, translated as the watchers, monitor the affairs of mankind. Some of these angels are said to have aided God with the creation of the world, and thus possess knowledge of its nature far in excess of man. A group of rebellious Watchers led by Azazel and referred to as ‘the satans’ share divine knowledge with humans and have sexual relations with them, creating the Nephilim, a race of large, man-angel/demon hybrids, who are said to have been targeted by and wiped out in the Great Flood (where mounds of evidence – historical, geological, and euhemerical – prove some great, global cataclysm, potentially a deluge of some kind, did occur about 11,500 years ago). These fallen ‘Enochian’ angels are said to have enlightened humans on a wide variety of subjects, from metal-working to other technology to language to math to the sciences.

In referring to knowledge of divine architecture, knowledge beyond mortal-human capacity, I use the term ‘Grigorian’ for several reasons. One is that if the premise suggested here were to be true and malevolence and deception were at play, and it seems they would be, the terms divine or sacred for the model would seem inappropriate, and the word Satanic carries too much external baggage. And while I don’t like to contain these ideas within Christian theology in a way that excludes other theological viewpoints (since, in my opinion, it’s most likely that the various theologies refer to shared, transcendent spiritual and metaphysical realities which have been put into allegory to make them more accessible to mankind; which does not exclude the divine intervention into the human world that is chronicled in those theologies), at some point a word must be chosen to describe an idea, and no non-denominational, more universal word exists, as far as I know.

The notion of derivation of information from non-human beings is not at all limited to the Abrahamic religions. One of the oldest known paintings depicts a spirit of some kind who provides a man knowledge of iron-working in exchange for a sacrifice. The large majority of world religions have a major ‘trickster‘ character – e.g. Iktomi, Loki, Anansi; Satan, Lucifer, Beelzebub, and other figures in Judeo-Christian texts – whose defining behavior includes deceiving humans, for one, but also enlightening them with technological and other knowledge that would otherwise not have been possible at that place and time. (And no, there is no basis in evidence to suppose such beings are outer-space aliens, as established in the ‘Fake Aliens and Other Endgames’ post.)

To highlight just a few of the many items of evidence that suggest something even remotely like the Enochian story may have happened, dozens of archaeological sites worldwide show the foundation-block remnants of a pre-cataclysmic or pre-Flood civilization, characterized by massive, highly precise stonework, e.g. in Cuzco Peru, Baalbek Lebanon, Norba Italy, Alacahoyuk Turkey, Egypt, and many other places. Among the theories for this civilization is that they were Atlanteans, perhaps predecessors of the Ancient Egyptians, where the most likely site by far for Atlantis’ ‘capital’ appears to be the Richat Structure of Mauritania.

On another front, the Great Pyramid of Giza (which I believe, due to the clearly ancient age of the accompanying Sphinx, has pre-Flood origins and was merely repurposed by the Ancient Egyptians, who may not have even known the structure’s history) reflects a host of measurements that precisely align with the dimensions of a globe Earth (see below for a potential non-globe-Earth explanation for this) in a number of respects (link), and align precisely with true north. Given the age of the structure, the sophistication of its creators, the archaeological proof for a pre-Flood civilization, and abounding textual and mythological evidence that civilization was aided by non-humans, I hold that these points regarding the Pyramids’ dimensions lend much credence to the hypothesis of this post. It’s remotely conceivable that this knowledge was all human and not originating from direct divine intervention, but that would require it go back prior to the cataclysm, and for the widely scattered myths of non-human intervention to all be false.

Additionally, the main numbers in heliocentrism are rife with significance, e.g. the Earth is said to move around the sun at a velocity of 66,600 mph, now commonly stated as 67,000 mph, and the sun is said to be 93 million miles away, a number also purportedly of occult meaning. As noted above, the supposed force of gravity, probably the most fundamental concept for belief in heliocentrism, was discovered/invented in 1666. A common cop-out to these kinds of points is to accuse the person bringing them up of mental illness and of suffering from pareidolia. However, when the same triple-digit number – where the 1 is a given in the year and 66,6__ are followed by zeros – appears in two highly important numbers of heliocentrism, certainly in the top five or ten most significant numbers, the odds are immeasurably high it is not a coincidence. It would be like rolling the same number twice on a thousand-sided die, which for consecutive rolls has one in one-million odds. Even if there are mitigating factors, such as there being very important numbers of heliocentrism that are not triple-six that should be included in the same set, the odds are still surely at least 1 in 1,000, far too low to ignore.

If one takes the Egyptian measurements as a non-coincidence, which I think is a requirement, and gets into the spirit of scrapping presumptions and reverse engineering things, the following questions come to mind:
A) If the angular resolution limit of the human eye, which is comparably spherical to the globe Earth model, is indeed equal to the curvature drop, an impossible coincidence if true, and
B) the measurements of the Great Pyramid reflect a globe Earth’s proportions, as Fix, Hancock and Carlson have proven,
C) are the Pyramid’s measurement ratios not a metaphor for a globe Earth, but for the workings of the human eye (like a globe Earth model, not a sphere but, again, an oblate spheroid), perhaps as a representation of the mind and of consciousness (and/or as a symbol for a lost or hidden religion)?
D) And secondly, can this knowledge of geometry and the human eye, and its possible expression as a globe Earth and extrapolation to a broader universe model be considered a probable human feat circa 11,000 or more years ago, before the cataclysm — or was this knowledge more likely inspired or seeded by non-human elements, as much mythology holds and as this post supposes?
E) Thirdly, are the array of occult groups (whom we might collectively call ‘the Illuminati’) — who have a strong affinity for Egyptian symbology and most notably, the use of the eye, the pyramid, and the eye-in-the-pyramid as symbols — harboring this hidden knowledge, while using it against us and keeping us in the dark?

Again, this relies on a claim in point A that I haven’t yet verified, and maybe something else is missing here, but the way it aligns alone seems to bear consideration. I came onto some of these connections while writing and haven’t yet worked through the concepts, but there does seem to be some globe-Earth-eye-Pyramid interchangeability or parallels. To be clear, I didn’t think of all this myself, with the ‘eye-[globe]Earth switch’ a subject of a podcast I haven’t watched yet, though I may have made the Pyramid-measurements/ratios connection. Were this all to be true, it would not necessarily illuminate what the true model is, only that a false model had been promoted and great deception perpetrated, though a form of geocentrism in that case might then be assumed.

I’ll end with the potential ‘whys’ of heliocentrism, if it is an invention, and of space fakery, which are simple:

1) In a heliocentric, or better put, non-centric universe, mankind moves from its center or one of its centers to potential obscurity and accident, making atheism and a disbelief in God more tenable – by no means a requirement, only arguably easier to accept; or arguably harder – with atheism a requisite for a world financial-scientific dictatorship, in which the worship of self and humanity, and faith in government and authority, become the new religion, as no power exists above man and his conceits.
2) In the vastness of a heliocentric or non-centric universe, space aliens and Earth-threatening, massive celestial bodies can exist, providing a background for a fake alien encounter or fake extraterrestrial event that has been planned to justify the subjugation of humanity under a world government in the form of a financial-scientific dictatorship.

One of the most important points to make is that, while non-heliocentrism has become conflated with luddism and a rejection and denunciation of all science and technology, it has no direct bearing on almost any field of human knowledge or endeavor, short of the aforementioned NASA shenanigans: almost none of the sciences and none of the arts; meaning that the work of almost no people would become invalidated, nor would any established Earthly science become void. I use technology and believe that it can benefit humanity. The size, shape, and age of the Earth and universe has no impact whatsoever on how any technological thing in our lives today works. The Earth is extremely vast, so much that none of us, no matter how traveled, will bear witness to even a thousandth of its surface; the space above us is vast, reaching an altitude that most humans would again go barely a thousandth towards, and there may be other, relatively-near worlds within our system of which we aren’t aware, so the notion that our miniscule beings would be constrained or limited technologically or otherwise by a smaller, geocentric model is preposterous. In spite of propaganda implying so, doubting heliocentrism has nothing to do with some kind of physical or intellectual dead-end for humanity; and anxiously awaiting and falling for NASA’s latest hoaxes are no edifying activity to be sure.

For the third time, I remain forever open to new information about the nature of our world, and reserve the right to explore further and discard any present conclusions. I hold absolutely no animus towards people who choose not to meddle in these questions, or who choose to firmly believe in the heliocentric model, flat model, or something different. But I think it would benefit us as a people to take a step back from ‘settled’ sciences like heliocentrism, evolution from apes (where evolution is certainly real to an extent, as a means of advantageous trait development over a relatively short period, but does not entail humans came from apes, or that all other species came from one), and ‘climate change,’ which all carry extremely weighty political agendas, all involving huge increases in centralization and control. Rather than surrender our minds to the word of authority and an imagined consensus, we should each fully and fairly consider the merits of alternative views, on an individual, personal basis, which in my mind is the truly scientific perspective.