This is one of those topics most people simply throw out without taking another look - as I did most of my life. It seems that just about any way of looking at it there are obvious problems.
However, I discovered to my surprise a few creative ways to explain away some of my key reservations.
And as a result of these I have now elevated my respect for the theory from pure nonsense to potentially excellent sci-fi.
Possibly the most significant point that in my mind answers a lot of questions is that of their world model: a disc shaped flat world with the North Pole in the center, and Antartica around the edges. Thinking this through it really does handle a number of issues. And matched with that is the apparent absense of any ship log showing a reasonable travel time around Antarctica (for a globe shaped world), and instead taking as long as one would expect for a flat disc world. And adding to that the military blockade in the way of anyone attempting to cross Antarctica. And no commercial flights over Antarctica despite an obvious time savings (if a globe).
These points all seem to fit fairly well and seem like they could be true.
However, there are of course a lot of unanswered questions and no proof.
The videos I watched seemed more a natural product of how people feel after they find that "ah hah" moment, and attempt to convey this vibe without first proving the premise. Though this works for some I think it turns off the intended audience.
Conveying the vibe, and attempting to decondition the viewer from mind control prior to proving a premise makes any presentation look more like a cult. I doubt they feel this way, it is just how human perception works.
In general, any time this happens I switch to looking at just the premise and then building my own theories on how it could be true. Taking this approach I discovered that a lot of arguments both for and against had time consuming issues to deal with before they could substantiate. So, I then looked for the easiest argument that could definitively prove or disprove a flat Earth.
This is when I came up with the "Southern sky problem". If Earth is a sphere, then as you approach the South pole you'll see the same star arrangement (aside from a rotation) as someone approaching the South pole from the opposite side. While if you approach these opposite sides of a flat disc shaped Earth you'll be looking towards completely different ends of the sky. Looking straight up they may look the same, but angled out you'll see completely different skies in these opposite directions. So, if around Antarctica the stars are arranged the same aside from a rotation then Earth is a sphere. From Australia you'll see stars on the other side of Antarctica also viewed from South Africa. If flat you'll see the same stars looking straight up, but looking towards the edges of the disc (Antarctica) they should be completely different.
This is it, the simplest easiest way to prove or disprove the theory.
Since I personally have not visited the Southern hemisphere I'm going to assume that completely different skies would have been noticed and reported. This should settle the whole subject. Earth is a sphere.
Ironically, having come up with this great disproof - I now have a mathematical model to explain it. This is really cool. There is a way to explain it. And I doubt anyone else will find this. For now I'm keeping this explanation to myself, as I figure out what to do with this great sci-fi movie premise.
Key Reservations with Best Answers
Here's a short list of the reservations I had, plus the best explanation I see on how to solve each one.
I have no problem with the idea of major conspiracies, secret projects, even mind control. If you read my website I not only show that I'm convinced these are probable, I show one form of mind control used.
- How can a plane fly around the world if its flat?
Answer: imagine taking a typical globe of the world, removing the South pole, then stretching out the lower hemisphere in all directions until the entire globe becomes flat. This results in an entirely flat disc shaped world with Antarctica around the edges and no South Pole. The North pole is at the center. Now, imagine the plane flying in a circle over this flat world.
- What about Earth's magnetism? How does that work if its flat?
Answer: a ring magnet. North in the center, South around the edges.
- What about planes that fly over the South pole?
Answer: according to Flat Earther's there is a military consortium preventing planes from venturing to the edge of the world (South pole). They argue that if the world were a sphere that several common commercial flights would save hours of time going over Antarctica, yet they don't. They avoid it. And a military consortium enforces this. I have not yet looked into these claims, though fully intend to.
- What about boats that circumnavigate Antartica?
Answer: according to Flat Earther's the travel logs indicate a much longer distance (roughly 60,000 miles) than would make sense from the mainstream maps (more like 12,000 miles), and much longer travel times (many months). These distances and times make sense for boats traveling around the edge of a flat world. I have not yet looked into these claims, though fully intend to.
- What about all those hi-def images of Earth from space?
Answer: these were all created using software.
- What about the clearly visible rounded horizon you can see from planes, mountain tops, and high altitude balloons?
Answer: some of this is due to camera lenses creating this artificially, and some due to the concave lense effect caused by the various layers of atmosphere (looking down through these layers also creates a concave lense effect). Imagine looking horizontally through a single layer, if Earth is flat you should see forever in a straight line. Then imagine gradually changing your angle of view up or down. As you do this the horizon will appear to drop or jump due to the concave lense-edge effect.
- What about those super powerful telescopes taking ever-better images of things in space?
Answer: In my opinion for the Flat Earth theory to be true, observatories are likely seeing actual lights in the sky, while space born telescopes may be transmitting fabricated image data.
- What about all the Apollo missions and pictures? All fake. Just look at the background, always pitch black. A night sky over the moon will be all lit up (with stars or "lights"), not black. And without an atmosphere getting in the way those stars (lights) should be super bright. Do you ever get to see new pictures? No.
One evening I sat down with a friend to go over this exact point. We pulled up an original lunar landing image and enhanced it as far as we could. At the final enhancement we did see something like six pinholes of light, of exactly two intensities. To be fair these might be all you get from cameras of that era. The lighting threshold may have been narrower, making the star-light so insignificant this is all you get. Conclusions? None - it makes it inconclusive. And to complicate the uncertainty even more are these videos of interviews with original astronauts, apparently unable to see stars while in space. The claim is that to see stars in space requires defraction optics (windows, lenses, helmets), and that these were added to all space missions from a given mission forward, so only interviews with astronauts from the first few missions reveal this issue.
- What about all those satellites, the international space station and GPS?
Answer: some sort of elaborate smoke screen where NASA and other aerospace personnel interact with software and equipment that only seems to involve the space around a spherical Earth. Secret teams of personnel continually whiteboard the logistics to this smokescreen, updating its various attributes here and there.
However, there is a lot of scientific knowledge based on a lot of data. For Earth to be flat we'll have to take a lot of that data and knowledge and say that its wrong. However, one thing I know from the scientific process is that it proves things relative to assumptions, making possible entire systems of thinking that are relative to sets of assumptions that could still be wrong. That in my mind opens the door just enough to keep Flat Earth on the table (pun intended).
Easiest Way to Disprove a Flat Earth
All you have to do is ask someone at the Southern tip of Africa if they can see the Southern Cross, and ask someone at the Southern tip of South America the same question. If the Earth is flat then they are looking at different edges of the Earth, and therefore must have different skies. If they both see it and post pictures of the exact same star constellation then the Earth could not be flat. Out of curiosity you could also check with Australians. If I were attempting to disprove Flat Earth I'd start here, as far as I know there is no counter argument on this point. And I can't think of one at the moment.
Here is wiki on Crux aka Southern Cross. Clearly they depict the same sky for anyone viewing from the South regardless of continent. I can't think of how this could be an illusion or trick. To me witnesses with visual confirmation make this a clear disproof of the Flat Earth theory, though I'll be happy to review any ideas to the contrary.
The only idea that I can think of to counter this would be a duplicate of the Crux constellation to the South of every Southernmost continent (South America, Australia, South Africa). If this is the case then a ship between such Southernmost continents should see two Crux constellations in opposite directions. I can't imagine any sort of illusion natural or artificial to produce just one Crux from all points.
If you can then please e-mail to me this idea. This is the one thing standing between me and investigating this further. I'm pretty good at visualizing alternative explanations, however, I cannot think of one for this specific point. And it seems the most direct, simple, major and available issue to use as proof or disproof of a Flat Earth, which in my mind makes it a waste of time to go into any of the other arguments before first settling this one.
How to Prove a Flat Earth
Line-of-sight tests come to mind, however, with the bending of light these may not be sufficient proof. Going this route will require a test process agreeable by mainstream scientists specializing in light.
Finding the edge is the most definitive, but I don't know how hard that will be with a military consortium in the way. Is there some way to sneak past them with a camera? Proving the premise does not require a specific type of edge, therefore, we'll have to be open minded to any sort of potential "edge condition". It could be a wall, a drop-off, a point where matter ceases to exist, or we simply step into another world. All we need to know for sure is that our world stops at an edge. Or, alternatively, goes on forever past a barrier put there for some other purpose...
...another possible reason for a military consortium is that beyond that point lies a dangerous adversary. The consortium may be designed to keep them out of our realm and us out of their realm. Whatever the case may be we need to see it on film. And if people don't believe the film you could plan trip #2, bringing with you a top news announcer to narrate the whole thing.
I haven't yet heard an explanation for the lights in the sky (since they could not be stars). This should be explained. The only explanation I can think of is an artificial lighting system, which then puts the world inside a box. An explanation that makes sense naturally might be preferred.
by Tony Snyder