## Latitudes and the North Star

For centuries mariners navigating the oceans in the northern hemisphere have used the North Star (Polaris) to determine their latitude. For any point between the Equator and the North Pole, latitude is obtained simply by measuring the altitude of Polaris. For example, at latitude N 30°, Polaris can be seen 30° above the horizon. From latitude N 53°, Polaris is 53° above the horizon. If you see Polaris at an angle of 5° above the horizon, you are at latitude N 5°, and so on.

The relationship between latitudinal position and the apparent altitude of Polaris is due not only to the star's distance and location over the north pole, but also to the earth's spherical shape.

Astronomers have determined that Polaris is 433.8 light years from earth. This extreme distance has two important effects:
1. It is the reason why the star seems to be stationary, directly above the north pole all year around despite the earth's annual orbit around the sun.
2. Light rays from Polaris are virtually parallel when the reach the earth. This means that all light from Polaris meets the earth at the same angle, 90° with respect to the earth's equatorial plane.
The vast distance of Polaris is not an arbitrary assumption. As is explained below, it has to be very far away in order to produce the angles at which it is observed from earth.

Flat-earthers will often protest that it's impossible for Polaris to appear always above the North Pole considering that the earth is traveling around the sun along an orbital path 940 million kilometers in circumference. This argument is actually irrelevant with respect to the shape of the earth and is merely a (bad) argument for a stationary earth. As you will see illustrated below, even if the earth is stationary, its shape can only be spherical.

Nonetheless, flat earthers simply lack understanding of the geometry of the heliocentric model. The distance the earth travels during its annual orbit is minuscule compared to the distance of Polaris.

Consider this:
- The diameter of earth's orbit is about 300 million km (186 million miles).
- The distance to Polaris is around 3.6 quadrillion km (2.4 quadrillion miles).
- That's a distance ratio of  1 : 12,000,000

To put that into perspective, imagine you are staring straight ahead at a distant mountain located 100 kilometers away. Now take a step eight millimeters to the left. Obviously you are still staring straight at the mountain. If you are the earth and the mountain is Polaris, that 8 mm distance is the equivalent of the change in earth's relative position after six months of orbit.

The exact distance of Polaris is not what's important for this discussion. What matters is that it's far enough away that its rays are parallel, that all its light comes in at the same angle. The result of this position of Polaris in relation to the earth -- its location and its parallel rays -- is that the apparent altitude of Polaris above the horizon is determined solely by the  curvature of the earth.

### How Looking Up ↑ Reveals Earth's Curvature

An observer at the North Pole will see Polaris 90° directly overhead. The location of the North Pole is latitude N 90°. At the equator an observer will see Polaris 0° on the horizon. The equator is located at latitude 0°. To a sailor or traveler in the northern hemisphere moving directly south, for every one degree of latitude traveled, Polaris will appear one degree lower in the sky. The altitude of Polaris is therefore always equal to an observer's latitude.

 (click to see full size) The angles at which we observe Polaris from any location in the northern hemisphere match perfectly with the geometry of a spherical earth.

### Polaris Can't Help Mariners Find Their Latitude on a Flat Earth

All of the methods and formulas used in celestial navigation employ the geometry of a spherical earth. The fact that they work is no mere coincidence. In fact, if the earth was flat, the methods would not work at all. The geometry of a flat earth is very different and would require different methods.

For example, the congruous relationship between the altitude of Polaris and latitude of the earth is impossible on a flat earth. To a traveler on a flat earth who is moving away from Polaris directly south, the apparent altitude of the star will decline, but not at a constant rate as would be seen on a globe. In fact, the farther away the observer gets, the slower Polaris will appear to descend. It's a matter of simple geometry. As the degree of altitude decreases, concurrent distances increase exponentially. This means that the altitude of Polaris will almost never agree with an observer's latitude. To see Polaris at an altitude of 0° on the horizon (as is observed at the equator) would actually be impossible because an observer would have to be an infinite distance away. Basic trigonometry reveals why. If you can solve a right triangle (or use an on-line right triangle calculator), you can verify this for yourself.

In the below illustration, which is drawn to scale, you can see that Polaris -- if positioned at a height of 3,100 miles above a flat earth (as an example) -- will have the correct matching altitude angle from latitude N 45°, but not from anywhere else except the North Pole.

 Illustration showing altitude angles of Polaris on a flat earth. Distances are to scale. (click to view full size).
 Where is Polaris on a flat earth? This illustration shows why the altitude of Polaris cannot match an observer's latitude on a flat earth.

There is no way to reconcile this inconsistency of the flat earth model with observable reality. The apparent position of Polaris in the sky, as observed from any location in the northern hemisphere, indicates beyond question the curved shape of the earth. This is empirical evidence that anyone can validate for themselves by simply measuring the altitude of Polaris with a homemade clinometer and comparing the result to their latitude. If they match, you're on a curve. There is no theoretical distance above a flat earth where Polaris could be positioned that can mimic this relationship. It's impossible. A flat plane can't mimic a curve.

Watch this excellent video for more info:

### False Claims About Polaris

Some flat-earthers claim that Polaris can be seen from latitudes well south of the equator, as far as the Tropic of Capricorn at 23.4° S latitude. This is absolutely false, of course, which is why they can't substantiate such claims with verifiable evidence, or any credible sources, i.e., sources other than archaic, pseudoscientific, flat earth texts.

In truth, Polaris is typically not visible from locations near the equator. It's not bright enough. Like most stars near the horizon, its light dissipates due to increased atmospheric interference (a.k.a. atmospheric extinction) and because of light pollution, that artificial skyglow that hangs over populated areas. However, under the right circumstances, from remote locations, Polaris can be observed south of the equator. This is due to atmospheric refraction which will cause objects in the sky to appear slightly higher than their actual positions.

 When light passes from one medium to another it is bent, or refracted, and the same is true when light from a star passes from the vacuum of space into the Earth's atmosphere. The result is to make the object appear at a higher altitude than is really the case, and the nearer it is to the horizon, the more pronounced the effect, even causing objects below the horizon to appear visible. The degree by which the light is refracted is also dependent on atmospheric pressure and temperature. All astronomical observations have to be corrected for atmospheric refraction to obtain true, as opposed to apparent, positions.

Atmospheric refraction is nil for celestial objects directly overhead and increases progressively for objects at lower and lower altitudes. The displacement effect of refraction is well known to astronomers and navigators. Navigators use mathematical formulas to correct for it. The refractive index of air is relatively small, so in general the effect is minor except when objects are close to the horizon.

For example, a star at an altitude of 45° will appear displaced by only about 1 arc minute or 0.016 degrees. A star significantly lower at an altitude of 15° will appear about 3.6 arc minutes higher than its actual position, still only 0.06 degrees off. For objects located very near the horizon, refraction increases significantly and can vary quite a bit depending on the temperature, pressure, and humidity of the surrounding air. Typically, for a celestial object right on the horizon (at an altitude of 0°), refraction will be around 35 arc minutes or about 0.6 degrees.  This means that, from low elevations, Polaris could be visible south of the equator, but it's not likely to be seen beyond 1° S latitude.

Viewing from higher elevations such as from the top of a mountain would also increase the visibility of Polaris from southern latitudes, but again, not by much. An elevation of 10,000 feet for example would allow only about 0.5 degrees of increased visibility "around" the Earth.

The above numbers were taken from Astrophysical Quantities by C.W. AllenFor more information on atmospheric refraction and to further verify those figures, refer to the following sources:

How to find your latitude from Polaris
- How to Find Polaris
- How to Make a Cheap Clinometer

_______________________

### The Sun Also Reveals the Shape of The Earth

It's not just Polaris that doesn't jibe with the flat earth "model". None of the celestial objects above a flat earth would appear where they do in reality, including the sun.

 (click to see full size) Because the earth is a sphere, on the equinox, at solar noon, an observer's latitude is always equal to the sun's altitude subtracted from 90°.  latitude = (90° - altitude)

Like Polaris, the sun is far enough away that its rays are virtually parallel when they reach the earth. During equinox, the sun is positioned directly over the equator, therefore the sun's angle of altitude will be 90° at the equator and 0° at the poles. With regard to latitudinal position, this means that an observer's latitude will always be equal to the sun's angle as measured from 90 degrees overhead (the angle that is complimentary to the sun's altitude). This is called the Zenith angle.

Finding the sun's zenith angle is how celestial navigators use the sun to determine their position of latitude. During equinox, at solar noon, the sun's zenith angle will always be equal to the latitude from which it is being measured.  To find the sun's zenith angle simply subtract its altitude from 90°. For example, if you are in New Orleans which is at a latitude of N 30°, at solar noon, on March 20, you will see the sun at (90° - 30° =) 60° above the horizon. If you are in Edinburgh, Scotland located at N 56° you will see the sun at (90° - 56° =) 34° at solar noon. From Minneapolis, MN you will see the sun at 45° because it lies at N 45° latitude. On a flat earth this would be impossible. As with Polaris, on a flat plane, the sun's altitude is not directly related to latitude, so that simple formula--which mariners have used for centuries to determine latitude while navigating the oceans--cannot work on a flat earth.

This geometric failure of the flat earth model is not a trivial one and is damning for reasons beyond geography and navigation. For example, the sun would never actually set on a flat earth, or even appear close to setting. The earth is way too small. Here's why:

 (click to see full size) On a flat earth, where the sun supposedly sets due to perspective, as the sun’s angle of elevation decreases, concurrent distances increase exponentially. To see the sun 10° above the horizon, an observer would have to be over 17,000 miles away. To see it 5° above the horizon he would have to be over 34,000 miles away. To see the sun 1° above the horizon, he would be 172,000 miles away. This is why the sun would never appear to set on a flat earth.

It doesn't have to be the equinox to determine your latitude using the sun. It can be done anytime of year once the sun's declination has been factored in. Watch the video below to learn how to find latitude using the sun. This is also a way to prove to yourself that the earth is round.

Want to prove to yourself that the earth is round? It can be done using nothing more than a stick and a ruler.
Find out how to do it here:

How To Disprove The Flat Earth

*  *  *  *  *

1. Cool post man, looking forward to more.

1. This comment has been removed by the author.

2. https://youtu.be/VKoeDOSQCVY
25 Flat Earth claims that 'Rocked' my world view 5- 5

3. Earth is covered with a glass dome(firmament) so when you look up your seeing reflections, Polaris is not a planet. It's the reflection of the black hole sun. That's why the path is a spiral just like the flat earth sun.

4. Unknown poster on December 29, 2016... You are controlled opposition. That's a strawman argument and you know it. No one says that polaris is the reflection of the sun.

5. Please let me know if my reasoning is wrong. In northern hemisphere stars rotate CCW; CW in southern. Facing north in New York stars rise from my right side: CCW. Facing south, stars rise from my left side: CW. If facing north in both hems, whether on a ball or a plane, stars rise from the same direction. The reason it's said that stars rotate differently in both hemispheres is simply the direction the observer is facing.

6. That is exactly right, John.

7. So if the earth is traveling 1000 mph in a cycle and orbiting the sun at 66.600 mph and the sun is moving 450.000 thru space then y are all the constellations the same . almost 7000 years of recorded time and they have not moved 1 bit .

8. Not just that y do we see mercury and Venus there closer to the sun then us but we see them at night . We should only see then at day time o we cant see star at day time hmmm ? Wake up people don't believe every thing u are told . If there where a flat earth and we could touch the dome then we would ask someone put this here there must be a GOD . but we live where the satin is the master of this world and a master description . he don't want us to believe in GOD.

9. They have the greeks described ursa major as different to how we see it no. But you wouldnt know that because you dont read.

10. We aren't living on a planet dude, it's a flat plane. You can draw all the little science diagrams and refer to refraction as much as you like but if you actually use scientific method and do these experiments you'll find the truth. The more people that learn the truth for themselves the better this world would be. Neil De Grasse Tyson is only where he is because he swallows the crap theories written before him and applies his bull crap to them. It's just an echo chamber of lies that the majority of people believe because they aren't smart enough to think for themselves. Take this blog for example it's called 'debunking flat earth', you have set out with an agenda to debunk something rather than go and look for the truth whatever that may be due to the actual recordable findings!

11. +cheex
You're just one more commenter who can't address or refute the information presented in this article. It's based on observable, empirical, facts. I understand that you don't like it, but you need to demonstrate why it's wrong.

2. Excellent post! Bookmarked for future reference.

3. the earth doesn't only travel 300 million kilometers a year. the sun travels as well draging the earth along with it.

what about this argument? Viewed from a ball-Earth, Polaris, situated directly over the North Pole, should not be visible anywhere in the Southern hemisphere. For Polaris to be seen from the Southern hemisphere of a globular Earth, the observer would have to be somehow looking “through the globe,” and miles of land and sea would have to be transparent. Polaris can be seen, however, up to over 20 degrees South latitude.

1. Where did you get that information? I'm sure you didn't get it by your own observation because it's simply false. Polaris can often be seen slightly south of the equator due to atmospheric refraction, but, as Neil DeGrasse Tyson recently tweeted, "Polaris is gone by 1.5 deg S. Latitude."

2. so...how would one actually see Polaris if the earth was somehow a fast spinning 1600km/h spheroid speeding around the sun at 66,600km/h, and the earth is now half way around the sun (6 months time), and it is now night time??

3. You can't see Polaris because of atmosphere, light pollution and its weak light.
This what he said.
Then, he must pick up the refraction to justify it.

4. You can't see Polaris because of atmosphere, light pollution and its weak light.
This what he said.
Then, he must pick up the refraction to justify it.

5. You can go outside whatever city you're in, out into a rural area, then you can look up and see the night sky with little or no light pollution. Including Polaris.

6. This comment has been removed by the author.

7. The visible stars are mostly in the same arm of the galaxy as We are, and moving in the same direction as We are. The difference in speed and scale are the factors We need to look at. The difference in speed is much smaller than Our specific speed, and the vast scale makes any changes take lifetimes - many MANY - to observe.

8. Exactly.. So HOW exactly has the calculations been made if it takes many MANY lifetimes to observe just a teeny tiny fraction of a broad scale??? Even IF there are historical records that are reliable and provable that prove a tiny move, it doesn't even come CLOSE to calculating a ridiculous speed that we have never tested or observed.. PLUS..It STILL doesn't prove a ball earth IF the stars were adjusting in the sky either..

9. Even though Polaris is the North Star today, this has not always been the case. The place in the sky that the Earth's north pole points at changes slowly over time. This movement is called stellar precession. In 3000 BC, a faint star called Thuban in the constellation of Draco was the North Star. Polaris did not become the North Star until about AD 500. It will get closer to straight above the Earth's north pole until sometime in 2102. Then it will move away again. It will be the closest star to the pole until about AD 3000.
Source: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polaris_(star)

10. As God said to Job... "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding."
Neither was Wikipedia there 3,000 years ago. They are 'suggesting what they think was the North Star', but they do not know. Plus they prove themselves time and again to be untrustworthy and agenda driven. The only way to clear up this question is to compare the allegations with reality. An example of that is the Earth's atmosphere. The behavior of water and air teach us that were this world actually spinning, both the water and the atmosphere would have been tossed off like from clothes in a spinning washing machine - eons ago. Water doesn't bend and the song is right, you can't pin a cloud to the sand.

4. the sun travels 500,000 mph around the Milky Way, while the entire galaxy rockets a ridiculous 670,000,000 mph. so the earth travels across the milky way 4 380 000 000 miles per year. over 2000 years that is 4,380,000,000,000. shouldn't this effect us viewing the stars? just a honest question i want to figure this out.

i am also excited to how you answer the star argument thess are a couple of them. i haven't seen it adressed anywhere.

9) Viewed from a ball-Earth, Polaris, situated directly over the North Pole, should not be visible anywhere in the Southern hemisphere. For Polaris to be seen from the Southern hemisphere of a globular Earth, the observer would have to be somehow looking “through the globe,” and miles of land and sea would have to be transparent. Polaris can be seen, however, up to over 20 degrees South latitude.

100) If Earth were a ball, the Southern Cross and other Southern constellations would all be visible at the same time from every longitude on the same latitude as is the case in the North with Polaris and its surrounding constellations. Ursa Major/Minor and many others can be seen from every Northern meridian simultaneously whereas in the South, constellations like the Southern Cross cannot. This proves the Southern hemisphere is not “turned under” as in the ball-Earth model, but simply stretching further outwards away from the Northern center-point as in the flat Earth model.

103) There are several constellations which can be seen from far greater distances over the face of the Earth than should be possible if the world were a rotating, revolving, wobbling ball. For instance, Ursa Major, very close to Polaris, can be seen from 90 degrees North latitude (the North Pole) all the way down to 30 degrees South latitude. For this to be possible on a ball-Earth the Southern observers would have to be seeing through hundreds or thousands of miles of bulging Earth to the Northern sky.

104) The constellation Vulpecula can be seen from 90 degrees North latitude, all the way to 55 degrees South latitude. Taurus, Pisces and Leo can be seen from 90 degrees North all the way to 65 degrees South. An observer on a ball-Earth, regardless of any tilt or inclination, should not logically be able to see this far.

105) Aquarius and Libra can be seen from 65 degrees North to 90 degrees South! The constellation Virgo is visible from 80 degrees North down to 80 degrees South, and Orion can be seen from 85 degrees North all the way to 75 degrees South latitude! These are all only possible because the “hemispheres” are not spheres at all but concentric circles of latitude extending outwards from the central North Pole with the stars rotating over and around.

1. None of those spurious arguments, whether you buy them or not, changes the fact that the positions of the celestial objects as we observe them in the sky are impossible on a flat earth.

2. I totally agree with saladin89, if we're travelling at these speeds, we wouldn't even see th light travveling as we wouldn't be In its light path.. And if we are on a ball, and we see the northern star becuz it's the light still travveling, then we would see It in multiple positions at the same time in the sky, we don't, we see one.. why don't we shoot past new galaxy's, or collide into another one, why does water always find its level. Why do no sattelites have a live stream, why do none of them ever get wiped out by the thousands of metorites every day.. cm'on man, so many questions, we haven't even been through the van Halen belt, a nasa astronaut even said that

3. No they aren't impossible "Saul" As you've been told time and time again. Being ignorant isn't going to cut it anymore. Those celestial patterns so to speak are a result of magnetism.

Thermal imaging proves the world is flat, it can't be hidden, it's over.

4. Apparently, you didn't understand the above article. I'm not talking about "celestial patterns so to speak", I'm talking about the angles at which we observe the celestial bodies. They are geometrically impossible on a flat earth. If you can prove otherwise, please do.

5. Thermal imaging does not prove the world flat. Please provide a thermal image of the sun from a location after the sun has set.

6. What frame of reference are you measuring these speeds in, specifically the speed of the galaxy?
Other galaxies are moving away from us, resulting in them appearing to be red-shifted.
But the nearest galaxy is 2.5 million light years away, so that speed isn't going to do much.

The sun is orbiting the galactic centre, But the orbit is also quite large and the other stars are orbitting it as well, so it changes angle at a very slow rate.

So yes, all of this will effect the stars, and mean their position is not constant, but at a very slow rate.
The north star has not always been Polaris and Polaris isn't directly above the north pole, it is slightly out.
In the year 3000 Gamma Cephei will become the north star due to these movements.

9 - It isn't. Polaris is not visible significantly south of the equator. The best reference for that was a navy captain referencing a pole star without specifying Polaris. He could have been referring to Sigma Octantis, the south pole star. No one has ever been able to show Polaris from a significantly south position.

100 - No. This depends on how close to the pole they are. If they are above the north pole, like Polaris or Ursa Minor, then they can be seen simultaneously.
If they are not, then it will be dependent on Earth facing that direction.
The same applies to the south.
The Southern Cross is not a south pole star, it merely points the way to the south. The southern cross is only 60 degrees south. That means when it is directly overhead some location, it will be visible on that meridian up to roughly 30 degrees north, and 180 degrees around Earth, it will only be visible below 30 degrees south.
This is quite simple to do. Treat the location as number, from +90 (north) to -90 (south). For the southern cross that means -60. Then add and subtract 90 to that to get the range (and truncate at + or - 90, or you can figure out what it would be on the other side). That means it ranges from -60+90=+30, to -60-90=-150 (so all the way to -90, and on the other side it would extend to -90 (SP) -(-150--90)=-30.

You can also do a range. The southern cross isn't just at -60. It ranges from -55 to -65. For the range, take the north extend and subtract 90 and the southern extent and add 90. This means it will range from (-65+90)=+25, to -55-90=-145, so due south. The only time that gets more complicated is when it goes over the pole, which I wont go into.

It won't appear to everyone in the southern hemisphere at the same time, just like the sun doesn't, even when it is over the tropics.
The other issue is the day light making it hard to see the stars.

103 - This is akin to the southern cross.
Ursa Major is a large constellation which extends from 30 to roughly 65 degrees north.
It is not as close to the North pole/Polaris as this argument pretends.
Its position means the constellation in its entirety would be visible at times up to 25 degrees south, and partially up to roughly 60 degrees south.

The rest is the same.
Vulpecula is located between 20 and 30 degrees north. As such you should be able to see it down to 50-60 degrees south.
Taurus, Pisces and Leo are located between 0 and 30 degrees north, so they would be visible down to between 60 and 90 degrees south.
Aquarius and Libra are the same but in the south.
Virgo is in the middle, ranging from 10 degrees south to 10 degrees north, meaning it should be visible in its entirety between 80 degrees south and 80 degrees north.
Orion ranges from 20 degrees north to 10 degrees south and thus would be visible from 70 degrees south to 80 degrees north.

All of these are consistent with a globe Earth. In every case it is visible for a hemisphere.
None of those are impossible on a round Earth.
But every one is inconsistent with a flat Earth.
If Earth was flat everyone should be able to see every star. Polaris should be visible from Antarctica, but instead it disappears at the equator.

So those points don't show Earth is flat. They show it can't be flat and that observations are consistent with a round Earth.

5. Here are some websites that help you calculate distance.

www.timeanddate.com

www.tripit.com

www.distancefromto.net

www.worldatlas.com

www.freemaptools.com

www.travelmath.com

If your favorite isn't listed here, like Google maps, then use whatever is most familiar to you. Now we are going to look at two specific groups of cities. The first group is going be from the area around Australia, including New Zealand. We'll call it group one.

GROUP 1

Melbourne, Australia

Sydney Australia

Perth, Australia

Auckland, New Zealand

Christchurch, New Zealand

Hamilton, New Zealand

The second group is going to be some cities in South America, all in the Southern Hemisphere. I mention this because if you go high enough you will run into a few cities that won't work.

GROUP 2

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Sao Paulo, Brazil

Brasilia, Brazil

Buenos Aires, Argentina

Lima, Peru

Santiago, Chile

Again, there is a link in the description with many other airports. Now these two groups are interchangeable as you would imagine, so you can start or end with either group one or two, the results will be the same, and just to make it interesting, I'll use a slightly different example which a fellow flat earther did the legwork, and show you that even these two groups aren't exclusive.

So you take anything from group 1 and anything from group 2 and you get some distances, ranging from 6 to 8 thousand miles, roughly. That's all I want you to do here is get that part in your head, noticing that the route is bent, because they have to account for the curvature of the earth. All these directions are what you expect, a straight shot over the South Pacific ocean.

Now just to prove it's not an exclusive route, Instead of starting in say Rio and landing in Auckland, I'll start from what should be the opposite side in Cape Town South Africa, which is roughly the same distance on a globe earth, coming in at 7300 miles. Notice on the map it's still a straight shot through the Indian ocean, and not crossing any countries. An easy route.

I try to book my flight. For this example we used travel math, but you can use whatever is easiest in your country, like price line, Expedia, Travelocity, it will make no difference because they're all tied into the same system. And this is when everything goes wrong.

So the first leg the airlines don't send me due East, but instead shoot me 4700 miles almost due North, to Dubai. Ok, maybe we're just picking up people. Seems a bit excessive but I'll go with it. I'm probably comfortable in my seat drinking vodka tonics.

And from Dubai it should be a straight shot home to Auckland right? Err, no. Now they send me South East to Melbourne, a mere 7300 miles. And then finally a third leg from Melbourne to Auckland coming in around 1600 miles. I'm rounding up or down to make the math easier. Regardless, the total miles for this flight is almost double what is expected, coming in at 13600 miles. In addition, the trip took me 37 hours! How long should it have taken? In a 777, about 12.

The connections kept coming in like spam windows. Start in Christchurch, go to Auckland. Start in Auckland, go to Sydney. Start in Sydney, go to Dubai, or Los Angles, or somewhere else that makes no sense. Some of these connections took the trip over 50 hours to complete.

Go ahead, try it yourself. You may find one non stop, but even then the strangeness doesn't end there, because the speed is wrong. For reference I included an optimum cruising speed guide from a commercial pilots forum that lists all the international aircraft used in these routes.

It is until you pull up the flat earth map and look at the farthest two points, which just coincidentally are anywhere in Australia, and most of South America, or my example of lower Africa, which you can see isn't West at all.

to sleep through it. And then it hits you, well the pilots would know right? They fly all day every day, certainly they would have figured it out by now.

1. So the fact there is no direct flights somehow proves a flat earth, but all the other evidence which proves a globe earth and cannot be explained on a flat earth are accounted for... how? Magic? God? They seem to be the only two answers FEs come up with when pushed.

2. There are direct flights between Sydney/Santiago. Quantas QF27/QF28, and the times/distances agree with the fact that the earth is a globe. Mentioning that usually pushes flat earthers into full tilt denial mode.

3. Did try to buy a ticket, was not able to! If this flight is real, and so many people travel this every day, a non-stop flight, why not see more proof of this, as it proofs round earth? They do have a fuelstop! This supposed flight, that turned out not to exist after all, was one of several reasons I stumbled on the real truth, world isFE/ growthhouse-model! Look at stars through telescope, they do not look like sun's, it is like beeing at the cinemas, watching the movie at the cinema through a pair of binoculars!

4. All this argument proves is that flat earthers flight finding abilities are about as good as their geometry.

Look properly and you'll find approximately 10 direct flights per day across the southern hemisphere (72 per week).

Tell you what: I'll do it for you, and then you can go check them for yourself (I recommend skyscanner.net)

Johannesburg and Perth
Johannesburg and Sydney
Johannesburg and Sao Paolo
Santiago and Auckland
Santiago and Sydney
Perth and Mauritius
Auckland and Buenos Aires

Some fly every day, some a few times a week. Have fun! :-)

5. No you won't Typer. Spouting flight paths isn't going to work because you need to do further research.

Many of the direct flights have been removed due to pressure by people finding out the truth and calling them out on it.

You cannot and never will be able to book one of those flights. Get a group of people together and attempt to book the flight and you'll get 2 different answers: Flight is either full and you can't book, or the flight is too empty and won't fly. How does that work? How can you explain, "You" being told the flight is full, while your friend who is also trying to book it is told the flight is empty? Think about it, it isn't that hard.

Go pull up a flight tracker and just watch, you'll never see a flight traverse the southern hemisphere oceans, EVER. Flight Aware? Sorry, that's NASA owned, don't come to us with NASA owned flight trackers. Go to FlightRadar24, or plane finder or the numerous others. You'll never see a plane cross those oceans, EVER.

For future reference, do not bring forward an argument without fully doing the research behind it first; makes you look absolutely stupid. You are the same type of person that would say "but but but but there are pictures of round earth, look online".

Spare me, I guarantee you've made that argument before without actually ever looking up who is responsible for the earth's pics. If you did you'd be pointed to 1 individual (Robert Simmons) linking you right to his blog on the NASA website. They don't even hide the fact there are no photographs, among all the damning evidence, here is the most damning of all, the piece that you yourself will look at and think "holy crap am I stupid, I couldn't even bother to look this up.

Here is What Robert Simmons said on the NASA webiste:

"Then we wrapped the flat map around a ball. My part was integrating the surface, clouds, and oceans to match people’s expectations of how Earth looks from space. That ball became the famous Blue Marble. "

wrapped a flat map around a ball, integrated stuff to match people's expectations.

Game over Typer, and for the rest of you globetards as well who seem to not be able to comprehend this thing called "research"

6. Actually I am looking right now on "flight aware" and there is a plane crossing the Atlantic eastbound maybe 300 miles north of Capetown
It's not true what you are saying. I took screenshots but I cannot send pics here. Flight saa223 from SÃ£o Paulo to Johannesburg

7. The flights don't exist? Not even hardcore flatards like Jeranism believe that anymore.

Even though they got the interpretation completely wrong - magnetic declination, anyone? - the video of Max Igan at least convinced some flat earthers that the "flights don't exist" angle was no longer viable.

8. Misinformation.
Go to Flightaware and you can see flight times,arrivals and departures of all of theses routes flying direct,on time, nonstop... going back years.

9. flights are real jeranism proved they're real, why don't FE'ers get some Australian mates and some Santiago bros to prove it ain't real by watching the plane depart and arrive and by videoing passengers getting on and off, making a fuel stop and still completing flight in 12 hours only further hurts FE position, there is no conceivable FE model where you can go from Sydney to Santiago in 12 hours. don't forget the cargo ships, hundreds of them that make same journey in 17 days, guess those aren't real either?

6. If the Earth is spinning around the sun and through the universe. How come the ancient structures still align to the stars today?

1. Actually, they don't (align to the stars today). The pyramids in Egypt and South America actually align with the position of the stars AT THAT TIME (not "today"). The shape of constellations is still there, but the position of these stars is not the same today and at the time when these structures were built. They are yet another proof of a round Earth and heliocentric model. Everything fits perfectly into this model, and not at all in flat earth idea.

7. All this can easily be explained on a flat earth/ growthhouse-model:

1. No. It can't.

2. Yes it can, because the earth is flat. Thermal imaging proves the world is flat "Saul" and i do recognize your name and you have been told this before.

All you need to do is drag yourself to a military surplus store, spy store, or order a thermal attachment for your smart phone and go do the test yourself.

Thermal imaging proves the world is flat. Remember the beloved plane argument? ya that one, the one you have no answer for how a plane lands on a spinning ball..

It's game over Saul.

3. Your alleged thermal imaging "proof" is unrelated to the information presented here. Care to explain why the information in my article is wrong?

4. This comment has been removed by the author.

8. Thermal imaging proves the world is flat so your argument is dead in the water.

Thermal imaging debunks atmospheric refraction because it cannot detect mirages. Anything were told is a mirage that we see from a distance can immediately be put to rest by pointing a thermal imaging camera at it.

Sorry folks, it's game over, your ball earth doesn't exist.

1. what are you talking about any electromagnetic radiation such as visible light and infrared "light" are subject to atmospheric refraction who ever told you it was not... let me guess the same guy who told you the earth was flat lol

2. i knw you will want to check for yourself here u go http://www.haystack.mit.edu/edu/pcr/Atmospheric/spaceweather/webpagephysicsofwaves.html or find your own they will all say the same thing

3. Infrared mirages are well documented.

9. Hey NASA. Put these flat earthes to rest. Post a live streaming video from one of the Satellites showing the earth is round and spinning at 1.609kph.

Show us NASA.

1. It's already been done, and not by NASA, but by JAXA. Check out the Himawari-8 Real-time Web:
http://himawari8.nict.go.jp

NASA does post multiple daily images of the earth from the DSCVR satellite, but not exactly in real time. You can see the images here:
http://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov

2. Strange, there's not a single star in the photos. Where have they all gone? Saul Trane.

3. It's not strange at all if you understand how exposure settings affect a photographic image.

4. There are 1000s of other satelite orbitting, it should see some other satelite from one satelite.

Do what they want to show u is cgi but not a very logic eay

10. take pics of the sun from the same spot at nite till it's gone. check the pics and see its getting smaller. not possible if it is 93 million mi away. the distance the supposed ball earth moved isn't even a drop in the bucket......you've been duped.

1. No. The sun does not get smaller as it sets. You're the one who's been duped.

2. your right it just gets farther away and appears to. here is both sun rise and set.......
care to eat more crow just reply

3. No. The apparent size (angular size) of the sun does not change as it sets. The problem with your video "evidence" is that the sun is being filmed without a solar filter. When a digital camera photographs a bright light, the overexposure creates an artifact, a "glare" effect called "blooming". What the you are seeing in the video is not a shrinking of the sun's apparent size. What you are seeing is the sun getting dimmer as its light gets increasingly filtered by the atmosphere. As it get's dimmer, you get less blooming around it.
Look here:

The moon's apparent size doesn't change either which would also happen on a flat earth.

4. here is another example and no need for a filter.....all explained in the middle of vid.

5. You have to have a filter. There's a reason why he "doesn't like" using one. It's because a filter would debunk his theory absolutely. Without a filter you cannot tell the sun's true angular size. An overexposed sun will always appear larger than its actual size.
The sun has been observed by astronomers for 1000's of years from countries all around the world. It has NEVER been reported to grow and shrink in apparent size throughout the day. Sorry, but you've been duped.

6. first off you can see the size change which is really getting closer and farther away before there is glare etc. you don't need a filter period. but here is one with a filter and proves my point.

7. You're wrong again. You need a filter. The video you linked to either had an inadequate filter, or they did not know how to properly adjust the exposure. Do you see in the video how the edges of the sun are fuzzy? When the exposure is set properly and the camera is in focus, the sun will have a clean, sharp edge.
Like this:

8. again you don't need a filter before there is any glare etc you can see it getting bigger or smaller depending on sun rise or set. it is just getting closer or farther. I could go on all day/wk debunking you bs but you barely have any views and is not worth it. tell ya what show a whole sun set or sun rise using the filter. LOL you know who is right. Also does it look like we are moving or is the sun coming or going........

9. OK, so do you have an explanation for why the sun's apparent size does NOT change when a proper solar filter is used, like in the videos I posted above?

Your position is very silly. If what you're saying is true -- that the sun appears to grow and shrink throughout the day -- the heliocentric model is absolutely invalidated. There is no accounting for such observations. The sun should NOT vary in apparent size (daily) according to that paradigm. So if it's true, flat earthers should be putting ALL their effort into proving it. It would be VERY easy to prove with a decent camera equipped with a proper filter. Why do they waste so much time with weather balloons and lasers when all they need to do is get some clean photographs of the sun throughout the day?

And can you explain why the moon's apparent size never varies? Shouldn't it grow and shrink also as it rises and sets?

Here's some study material for you:
https://app.box.com/shared/static/7pp2qtvtx0obv9b86iczlnpx4n8t90yg.jpg

Good luck.

10. It changes in size just like say cars coming or going away on the highway. going away get smaller, coming get larger. the filter vid shows the same. here is reality deal with it.
great link btw I will use it to explain to others. perfect to explain perspective with out having to watch a vid.

11. Ever had a flashlight shined in your face at night? If you had then you would realize the light from it looks flipping huge, until your eyes adjust and the bloom effect goes away. Looking directly at bright light makes it appear larger than the source...

11. Saw Plane is a government shill. He was all over the 911 Truther Ace Baker and now the Flat Earthers. You're so full of shit.

1. OK, so the government is paying me to post this information. But that still leaves a very big question: How does the government get the positions of the stars and sun to match perfectly with the geometry of a spherical earth?

2. I remember seeing you posting on other sites, as well as, some youtube videos. You've been told before and it's been proven to you that it's flat. It was so bad on your part that you've removed your own comments when people commented under yours how to prove the world is flat.

Can't have the truth exposed in plain site now can we? So what do you do? You delete your comment to hide it.

3. Nice try. As is evidenced by the comments here, I don't delete comments.
Instead of dishonestly attacking me, how about addressing the subject of my article? You're great at tangents and red-herrings, but don't seem to have any answer to the evidence presented here.

12. How do the flat earthers explain Solar and Lunar Eclipses and the lighting effects on the Earth when they occur?

1. Sun and the moon are the same size. But a better question, how can the moon provide the exact same reflection on the ocean surface as the sun when we are told the reason for the moon's light is due to the sun? We see clear images of the bogus moon landing of the moon's surface a big pile of dust, so how exactly does a giant dust ball provide an equal reflection pattern on an ocean surface as a giant ball of fire?

Think about it.. this isn't hard.

2. And after this Law I saw an other Law dealing with the SMALLER luminary which is called the moon.

Enoch 73:1

13. Earth is proven flat through thermal imaging. Thermal imaging scopes only work in a straight line and it's mainly uses for surveillance and search & rescue purposes so it needs to be deadly accurate. This is easily verifiable by anyone who picks up a thermal cam and there are available everywhere (even as attachments to smart phones). Military uses said technology over hundreds of miles.

NASA has already graciously provided us with the earth curve calculation of 8 inches per mile which compounds the further you go away. 3 miles away = a 5ft drop whereas 100 miles = a 6500 ft drop or 1.2 miles down. That means the earth can concretely be proven either flat or curved through thermal imaging. Does a thermal scope exceed the curvature and go jetting off into the atmosphere, or can it detect objects over vast distances? Well ask the military (Navy) they use it over hundreds of miles. Sorry peeps, the world is flat and there is technology to prove it for people who want to. It's so damning that it caused Neil Degrasse Tyson to abruptly kill one of this Q&A feeds when a caller brought this up with over 400,000 people listening/watching.

All people really need to do is just go google who is responsible for the pictures of earth, key word "pictures". A name comes up "Robert Simmons" and there a link to his blog directly on the NASA website, he tells people right there how the pictures are done, but again, as I'm in a good mood, I'll graciously post a damning quote

"Then we wrapped the flat map around a ball. My part was integrating the surface, clouds, and oceans to match people’s expectations of how Earth looks from space. That ball became the famous Blue Marble."

Soooo, where is the actual photograph? The guy behind all those beautiful pictures we see point blank tells us they take a FLAT MAP, wrap it around a ball and integrate all the clouds, land, and oceans to match OUR expectations of HOW earth looks from space. Really now, why not just give us a photograph...

More damning proof right in front of people's faces, go look up the Red bull jump, and look at the view from the inside the Pod vs outside the pod before he jumps.

Inside the pod you have a beautiful flat white horizon, then when outside the pod, the bright white flat horizon disappears, and we are given an image of earth that has literally no oceans on it and varying rotational speeds from dead still to considerably fast.

Think people.. this isn't that hard. If you really want the truth, it will literally take you 30 min to find it.

1. Why people ask does thermal imaging prove the world is flat if you can see objects from hundreds of miles away through it? It's a mirage right?

Wrong, a thermal cam cannot detect mirages. Mirages aka heat hazes will show up just as that in a thermal cam, a heat haze, much like what you'd see if you pointed it at a cooking BBQ, you'd see the haze emitting off the BBQ.

The thing with thermal cams though is there so deadly accurate, they can easily see if you've wet yourself from over 100 miles away. That includes if you are standing between 2 red hot BBQ's, they will still detect your body shape, eyeballs, nostril heat, and even if your wet yourself, that pee stain can clearly be identified.

proof is proof. Can't be hidden, this is why Neil Degrasse cut his live feed, and this is also why many shills out there delete their comments when someone mentions thermal imaging proof under them. They can't have the proof sitting in plain site.

2. You're dead wrong. Infrared mirages are well documented.

Do you have anything to say regarding the actual topic of this article?

14. No timelaps-video on the Amundsen-Scott South Pole base shows 24 hours of sun, that is weird! Try contact the base, or anyone working there(they are hard to come by, as it is a secret), no one can provide such a video!

15. If the world was flat, people looking south from Australia and South America would be looking in opposite directions, yet they see the same stars .

1. It really is a very silly "theory".

2. Yes they do see the same stars but not at the same time ! The same stars that are rotating around a fixed point (Polaris) polaris is visible at as much as 20° S of the Equator under certain conditions...1.5°S according to Neil-The-Ass-Tyson....which is impossible on his Chubby Around The Middle (Pear-Shaped) Oblate Spheroid Globe Hypothesis.....

3. SPOT ON!! EVERYTHING is Unimaginably Impossible on a spinning globe style of Earth!!! No matter how much you point out that what they THINK they know is actually just a personal belief, therefore simply put - that they have faith in their Religious Belief - the more & more that they just don't wanna let go of their beloved Ball!! A MASSIVE disorder: "Cognitive dissonance" in which almost every Oblate-Head has a chronic case of! - That is ONLY until they decide to once and for all - begin to SERIOUSLY investigate THEIR impossible theories & models, and more importantly - the actual REAL Model - the Truth - in which we ALL reside - YES - EVEN all of the Oblate-Heads ironically enough, live on a massively wide completely stationary, flat plane with a firmament which surrounds us all and keeps the air pressure at optimum levels within!! At least You & I completely understand what all occult organisations (inc. freemasons, illuminati, jesuits etc...) have within their secret archives - which is the REAL Truth, and not the "Truth" in which the worlds top scientismists all tell us about!!! (LoL!)

16. The argument of parallel rays from Polaris reaching Earth is not applied on the flat earth model. But the logic, that Polaris in some distance from Earth, is used for the flat earth model so the angles should be like at the picture. Which is really not consequent.

It's the mix of arguments of the flat earth model without consequent point about how stars, including Polaris, are positioned/projected according to the flat earth model.

17. The problem is the distance to Polaris - the so called light years is all theory and couldn't be further from reality and the truth. Give me a break also with they think they know the size of Polaris as well. Pseudo science to say the least. The earth can be proven to be flat just observing real real photos and videos and from planes, balloons, from 30,000ft to over 120,000 shows the earth to be flat and motionless. Only in NASA CGI photos and videos do you see curvature. People are brainwashed as this post is nothing more than garbage.

1. You're ignoring the undeniable fact presented in this article which is that the angles at which we observe the celestial objects match perfectly withe the geometry of a spherical earth AND would be impossible on a flat earth.
Care to explain why this is?

2. No No No!!! The Onus is actually upon YOU to show how the angular measurements within the geometrical shape being spherical somehow, as you say, points towards the earth being a globe & not a continuous flat & completely motionless plane!!
I would LOVE to hear your elaborate explination please....

3. I explained it in detail in the above article. Try reading it before commenting please.

18. Are Flat-Earthers Being Serious?
Flat earthers anticipating

19. Measuring the altitude of Polaris doesn't provide the correct determination of latitude- your statement is wrong. The measurement must be corrected for "Q" which is based upon the LHA ♈ (Local Hour Angle of Aries). Without the Q correction any latitude measurement can be very inaccurate.

1. This article was not intended to be a guide for navigation. I understand that Polaris is not positioned exactly at the celestial north pole, but is off slightly by about three quarters of a degree. For precision navigation, yes, that should be corrected for, but for the purposes of this discussion it's unimportant. I'm simply introducing the fact that angular measurements of Polaris reveal the spherical shape of the earth.

20. The level of water on earth is flat on surface NO MATTER WHAT, the globe earth suggests it curves all along its curvature, So Foolish idea. The earth is flat WAKE UP!! THE LORD IS AT THE DOORS FOR HIS COME!

1. All Oblate-Heads can NEVER awake from their Religion! Their faith is simply to strong, but unfortunately, also too misplaced. If ONLY they would put aside all of their BIASES, their IMMENSE FAITH in their ridiculous RELIGION, and mostly, leave their EGOS at the door - then, once they delved deep within PROPER SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH into BOTH SIDES - the preposterous heliocentric/spinning ball theory - and then especially the TOO MANY TO COUNT sources of REAL PROOFS & HARD-HITTING EVIDENCES about the FLAT EARTH TRUTH - THEN and ONLY THEN - can they TRULY SAY that 99% of all so-called "facts" about the heliocentric ball-earth theory is actually all totally INDOCTRINATED PARROTING about PSEUDOSCIENCE and SCIENTISM which OPPOSES actual REAL SCIENCE in every way possible, whereas all facts about the flat earth truth have, in actual fact been carried out using nothing but the SCIENTIFIC METHOD!!! KABOOM!!!!!!!

2. Clearly the troll known as Alex doesn't understand levels, the massive size of the earth and gravity. He has tied flat earth to his belief in god, and so there is no arguing with him. He is ignorant, willfully so and sees it as a beneficial thing.

21. The level of water on earth is flat on surface NO MATTER WHAT, the globe earth suggests it curves all along its curvature, So Foolish idea. The earth is flat WAKE UP!! THE LORD IS AT THE DOORS FOR HIS COME!

22. I have a question.. if earth is travelling at 1600mps plus sun travelling 55mps.. once a rocket leave earth and when it want to return, how the rocket will chase the earth at this speed?

1. HOW??? - Easy peasy!! Just Use Heliocentric Globe Earth Trigonometry with Cosine Tangents and Cerebrovascular Geometric Cerebellum Algebraic Quinellaric Farction and then divide the entire sum by 0.
E.g:
5384930+232344x4.45[233332]x[1]3h878b4902{0}/10025abc}957273b55c44x9671a71710563x0{bdc88a}3+1=7464559+33455+455+33242343a11b22c33{1029}x9+33191+31-110328468+102-90087/0= 0

Therefore the actual calculations from the heliocentric model itself states that the actual heliocentric model does not function, therefore it is simply a fabrication!! The MATH itself proves this, therefore ANY denial from now on is simply an emotional plea of misplaced logic within a non-working theory to which any believers in the theory are simply just that! - believers in the Religion of heliocentism & the Impossible spinning ball-earth theory. They have faith in it - therefore to them - it SEEMS real - but to real science - it absolutely does not - and cannot - in any way, shape or form!!! KABOOM!!

23. No need complicated maths..Just tell me the curvature between any 2 cities on this planet...yayaya..can't find it, even Google doesnt know ..why?? Because it doesnt exist as the Earth is flat plain..try finding out

24. Lots of Good information in your post, I favorited your blog post so I can visit again in the future, Thanks.

flat earth

25. Next question

We all know water is always level in any containers.

The earth surface have more than 70% of water, and the sea is at its level. How possible the water curve on a spining globe?

1. look at Mars you can see south polar ice caps and North polar ice caps guess density is holding it upside down?

2. Easy, water isn't always level, it's dependant on gravity. Better question water always flows, so why hasn't it flowed off the edge yet if the earth is flat.

3. hahahah are u serious? flat earth and EDGE? u dont even know the correct flath earth model idiots.... how is that helium baloon go up no matter the gravity? where is Virgin Galactic?? Mars One? .... die sheeple

26. This website exposes that the flat earth is flat this site discusses Earth maps in earth measured

27. Gonna ask the simplest question in existence then. The people that live at the edge of the "flat earth" because yes there are some. Why haven't they taken at least a picture or said to someone "hey! I live next door to a goddamned cliff into the abyss! Also if the earth was flat cats would have ignorantly knocked everything off the planet by now.

28. The Abysmal Plains are about the change the whole game...time to bring this thread back.

1. A new mystery: why are FE fans suddenly excited about the long-known existence of the fairly flat and smooth muds of abyssal plains?

29. 2 Videos which prove that the sun and moon are indeed small and within our atmosphere...in other words - they are both OURS, not somewhere hundreds of thousands or even almost one hundred million miles out in the dark void of so-called "outer space"!!

These 2 Videos will help to dispell any argument which says that the sun and the moon should appear to shrink away as they both set beyond our line of sight, past the point of convergence - IF the earth is indeed flat.

Well, these 2 videos MUST be watched from start to finish in order to fully grasp the entirety of the understanding of what is actually going on within our skies!!

All I will say as a primer to these videos is 2 words, and then you will have these as a seed planted within your subconcience in order for the videos to make that much more sense than if nothing was said beforehand...

ATMOSPHERIC LENSING"

30. cant we ask bill gates to finance us so we can have proof that the earth is either flat or round. because nasa will keep up their reputation of "one small step for man, one giant lie to mankind"

31. I have a simple question; Why is it that every time a video has reasonably credible information that debunks a round earth, the video gets removed from the internet? Could this be a form of censorship? Ala Ray Bradbury and George Orwell? The question then is.. why? Who cares so much if this investigation is consummated? Here's another in a series.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKoeDOSQCVY&feature=youtu.be

32. In school we were taught that Earth orbited a stationary sun. Modern astrophysics now proposes that the sun is rotating within the Milky Way, which is rotating within the local cluster of galaxies, which is rotating within the super cluster of galaxies at ~2,000,000 mph dragging Earth along with it. That means Earth has to accelerate greater than 2,000,000 mph to get around the spiraling sun, then decelerate or get left behind. I balanced a raw egg on its sharp end for ~30 minutes before a truck came by and it fell over. Impossible if Earth is constantly accelerating and decelerating while moving in a curved path. Earth has to be stationary.

1. It's an interesting point that no one can answer. I get the concept that our Sun and Polaris are parallel and that we're so far away that the Earth's rotation around the sun has nominal impact on Polaris location in the night sky, however NO ONE can explain the physics when you bring up our solar system in rotation inside our galaxy... Consider that and Polaris seemingly fixed position makes no sense.

2. It makes perfect sense if you understand the distances involved. The physics are well understood. That fact that you don't understand it doesn't mean it's not explained, or that it's not true. Educate yourself.

33. Keep up the fantastic work, I read few posts on this website and I think that your web blog is real interesting and has got circles of fantastic information solar path lights outdoor waterproof bright

34. If sun and Earth are moving and Polaris is stationary as modern astrophysics contends, heliocentrism makes no sense. Assumed distances are also absurd. How can something 93,000,000 miles away heat the earth?