200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball

Posted by susie on 09/21/2015





Chicago is 60 miles from Lake Michigan and should be .45 mile below the curve. But i's not.





A pillar reflection is only possible on a flat plane. On a spherically curved sea, you'd only have a hotspot.

Just thinking out loud but wouldn't there be a much more defined terminator line if the sun was 93 million miles away? Meaning if the sun is that far away and it covers half of the ball no matter where it is then it shouldn't get dark so gradually like this, if the sun is still above the horizon then why would it be any darker then any other time in the day? The sun is in full view yet the light gradually fades like a spotlight hovering over top..The sky should be lit from the sun until it's under the horizon and night should come almost instantly.Going along with this thought, what about the sunrise...why does it get so gradually light if the sun is above the horizon we should be hit with the full intensity of the sun because we are not any further away we are just rotating towards the sun and the intensity would always be constant and the only thing that would change would be the direction of the shadows not the brightness. Someone may have already pointed this out but i was just watching the sunset today thunking about it. Peace.

Also you can see the stars revealing themselves on the opposite side of the sky from where the sun is at close to sunset.

The point about Shooting Stars here at 10:15

Waykiwayki Interview with Luke De Padey

  A very large building that covers a decent amount of curvature would be be an upside down trapezoid or uncapped pyramid if vertical spirit levels or plumb bobs are used in its construction. Brian Mullins explained it better with diagrams in one of his vids.

  The 3 main pyramids of Egypt were built a long time ago, I imagine that they took a long time to build, they were built to line up to Orion's Belt. They still do and that doesn't make sense if our solar system is break dancing through space.

This will be a post to compile the ways in which the ball Earth model can be challenged using logic and simple reasoning.  If you would like to get right into it, skip the next two paragraphs, as they are an introduction and explanation (and a bit long-winded).

I was introduced to the idea of a flat earth by a coworker about a year ago and have been following the growing community ever since.  Thankfully, my coworker pointed me to Eric's videos and it was not long before I fully embraced this new perspective of our home.  I even recently made the decision to become vegetarian thanks to some of Eric's interviews in which they go into topics outside the flat earth.  I came across the "Beyond the Imaginary Curve" channel and really liked the direction Del is going in his videos.  He talks to strangers and introduces them to an idea that makes them question the reality we have been taught.  I think this approach is key in waking people up to the truth, as it plants a seed that has a better chance of sprouting, as opposed to bombarding someone with flat earth facts.  Many people will be immediately turned off and not think twice about what is being presented.  So I took a few more looks through Eric's videos to put together some concepts and questions that may help plant thought-provoking seeds in those that still think Earth is the third planet from the sun and we've been to the moon.

As most of us have probably encountered, it can be daunting and even embarrassing to try to bring light as to the nature of our world, to those still in the dark.  Hopefully, using this list will allow one to strike up intelligent and respectful conversation without instantly coming across as a dreaded "flat earther".  I am deciding to exclude things that people will quickly dismiss using the widely acclaimed pseudo-sciences that have been used to brainwash the masses, as well as ideas that may lead others to assume you are trying to convince of a flat earth.  For instance, I will not include the fact that all standing water must maintain a flat and level surface by virtue of its own physics.  One would likely denounce this and say gravity allows water to conform in a spherical manner.  Or saying the horizon is perfectly flat, the ill-informed will proclaim that the Earth is far too large to see any curvature, or point out numerous NASA "photos" or obvious fish-eye lens utilizing images.  I understand that these two examples are considered the absolute best proof we have, but we should remember that the indoctrination runs deep and even these two obvious facts can be easily refuted using the lies we have been fed our entire lives.  Some of these may require images or further research (#'s 2, 9, 11, 12) or for the listener to have good conceptualization skills (#'s 1, 3, 7), so it is up to the reader to decide how to go about using these.  And FINALLY, without further ado, here is my personal list to logically deflate the ball Earth model.

1. If the earth is spinning at about 1,000 mph (at the equator), revolving around the sun at 67,000 mph, which is revolving around our galaxy at about 500,000 mph, which is pulling everything in it around the universe at a mind-boggling 670,000,000 mph, how is it that we see the same exact stars night after night, year after year?  How do we see the exact same constellations that have been recorded for thousands of years?  Shouldn't the stars we see, all of which have their own high-velocity movements, completely change every night?

2. Considering all motions in #1 (which is what mainstream science is telling us), how is it possible to get a time lapse image of the stars with perfect spirals?  Shouldn't the motion be much more erratic?

3. If it is night when we are facing away from the sun, in six months, night would mean we are facing the complete opposite direction.  How then, are we able to see many of the same stars and constellations throughout the year?  Shouldn't we see a completely different set of stars?

4. Consider the relationship between earth and sun: shouldn't the sun light up exactly half the earth while the other half is dark, and shouldn't our days and nights be exactly 12 hours each?

5. We are told that our universe is wildly chaotic and earth is a random result of pure luck.  So we are also to believe in the nearly impossible odds that the moon would have the exact rotation and revolution speeds to appear to NEVER rotate!?  I mean really, not a single degree of rotation in thousands of years!?  Also, the sun and moon, though radically different in size and distance from earth, appear to us to be nearly identical in size.

6. The moon is said to cause our tides, yet has absolutely no effect on inland bodies of water.  What a selective moon we have...And it is interesting that the moon, with such a weak gravity relative to the earth, would be able to pull on our oceans so much.

7. Gravity is said to be a constant force all over the earth.  It is gravity that is essentially "fighting" the centrifugal tendency for things to fly off the spinning ball earth.  If both of these are true, how is it that people do not experience any difference at various latitudes.  What I mean is this: someone at the equator experiences ~1,000mph of rotation of the earth, while at the poles it would be 0mph.  So at the middle latitudes it would be in the 400-600 mph range or so.  This means the centrifugal tendency is much higher at the equator and people should feel lighter, OR much lower towards the poles and feel squashed down.  Think of a fast spinning merry go round at a playground.  Standing near the edge will likely throw you off while standing in the middle allows you to stay on with ease.  This concept is completely inexplicable and debunks the theory of gravity.

8. If gravity is so strong as to keep all the water on earth utterly stuck to it, fighting a ~1,000 mph spin, how is it that this force seems to be lost on small flying creatures.

9. When seeing sunlight shine through clouds, they are always angled and form a triangle.  If the sun is 93 million miles away and ~109 times the size of earth in diameter, these rays should all be coming in straight, not angled.

10. If Venus has an average temperature of 864 degrees Fahrenheit and Mars an average of -67 (a range of 931) and their orbits around the sun are ~74 million miles apart, how is it possible for Earth to have a temperature range of 262 degrees (taking highest and lowest recorded temps).  The distance sunlight travels to the equator or the poles is only a difference of a few thousand miles, so shouldn't we see very little variation in climate and temperature. [this one is a bit complex, maybe someone else can explain it more succinctly]

11. There is a natural phenomenon known as the midnight sun that occurs in the northernmost regions of earth during the height of summer every year.  The sun will begin to set but never fully recede beyond the horizon and in fact start to rise again.  In Svalbard, Norway, the northernmost inhabited location, sees sun for several months before the sun actually sets.  How is this at all possible even considering our axial tilt?  Why does this occur only during summer months?  If the distance from the sun is the only thing changing throughout the year, shouldn't this be happening constantly?

12. At Antarctica, there exists a wall of ice that reaches heights of a few hundred feet and spans the entirety of the continent.  Isn't it interesting that something like this exists and that it's existence hasn't become common knowledge? [this one may be reaching a bit, but I found it very interesting and others may be intrigued by this.]

These are what I have gathered so far.  I am sure there are plenty others.  With a broken model that literally disproves itself, there are sure to be more of these.  Please respond with anything you think would be a good addition and I will add it to the list.

This was supposed to be a meme but it turned into something else. Let me know if the physics are wrong (or if you think it can be improved) so I can fix it and upload it again.

Deleted a boring image, I might make something else in the future that's not so bland.

200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball (HD Remastered):



Thanks so much to all the wonderful translators and video editors, just this week we now have 4 new translations (bringing the current total to 25) and a high-definition 2019 updated version of 200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball. Please help share this video and/or the free PDF now available in English, Arabic, Bulgarian, Chinese, Dutch, French, German, Japanese, Korean, Kurdish, Latvian, Lithuanian, Italian, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Russian, Serbian, Slovak, Spanish, Swedish, Tagalog, Tamil, Thai and Urdu: http://ifers.123.st/t63-200-proofs-earth-is-not-a-spinning-ball-foreign-language-translations

Can someone explain to me Point 4/5 of the proofs and Point 10? I really bother, because of various reasons:
1. The argument with the rivers flowing uphill: Ballers often say "uphill on a globe is not uphill regarding sealevel!"
They will argue that Rivers are pulled to the Center of the Earth by Gravity, and this is exactly what is the case, rivers run DOWNHILL regarding sealevel!
2. Regarding Proof 10: Again, Ballers will argue "uphill on a globe is not uphill regarding sealevel!"
So PLEASE, can someone help me explaining why these 2 arguments are debunking the Globe-Theory!
Thank You!

Ben777 wrote:"uphill on a globe is not uphill regarding sealevel!"  

Sealevel and Globe are not compatible terms, you can't have both, you either have one or the other. Could you or anyone experimentally prove the contrary?