This article is not to criticize those who believe in Flat Earth, but rather to shed light on the flat-earth deceivers who are fooling many with their fallacious arguments and leaps in logic. Thousands of people are believing videos from the Flat Earth Society which are making huge leaps in logic and with some arguments which are patently false.

Let me begin by saying that we have no proof the Earth is either round or flat. I personally believe it is a round spherical globe; but there is no real evidence one way or another, and all the “evidence” for a flat earth is false.

The common way that a flat earth teacher discusses goes like this:
“What science tells us doesn’t add up, therefore the Earth is flat”. But does it prove the Earth is flat? No, it only proves that what science told us was wrong or doesn’t add up.

It is a leap in logic to assert that since for example there is much evidence that the Moon landings were faked that therefore there is no space and the Earth is flat. I can’t walk to Antarctica from Sweden, but it doesn’t prove that Antarctica doesn’t exist, it only proves exactly what was stated: that I can’t walk from Sweden to Antarctica.

The lack of spin argument

The majority of the arguments for a flat earth all stem from inconsistencies with the spinning earth model. But the Globe Earth is a mutually exclusive concept from the Spinning Earth model. The globe Earth is the shape of the Earth, whereas the motion of the Earth has nothing to do with it.

The famous Michelson-Morley experiment was supposed to prove the spinning Earth and the absence of the aether wind, but it failed catastrophically. The experiment was repeated multiple times but failed every time. But it has nothing to do with the shape of the Earth. Rather, it suggests that the aether wind exists and the Earth is not moving.

Likewise, the experiments of stellar aberration (starlight) in a water-filled telescope such as the 1951 Fizeau experiment, where water was in a telescope which should be able to provide evidence as to whether it was the Earth or the stars which were moving, were supposed to prove that the Earth was moving but also failed, thus suggesting a stationary Earth. Again, this has nothing to do with the shape of the Earth.

These and other experiments are cited by flat-earthers as evidence for a flat Earth, but they are nothing of the sort. Instead, they suggest a stationary, unmoving earth which does not spin, or the existence of the aether wind, or both. But they do not give any credibility to flat earth theory.

An alternate model which would completely discredit flat earth logical fallacies like this would be that there is a globe, stationary Earth. A fixed, unmoving Earth therefore immediately eliminates the overwhelming majority of “proofs” for a flat earth.

“NASA is fake” argument

Another major component of “evidence” for flat earth is that NASA has done so many fake images, fake moon landings, fake space missions, fake pictures and CGI videos in space, as well as faking so many videos of astronauts on the ISS and in space. There are so many inconsistencies that anyone with a clear head can see that something is amiss.

But even if NASA is nothing but a Hollywood film studio money laundering operation and entertainment company that doesn’t really go to space and fakes most or even all of its content, this does not prove the Earth is flat. It does, however, call into question the legitimacy of the NASA organization.

The flat horizon argument

Then there is the problem with the horizon. Flat earth believers blindly believe flat earth teachers when they talk about the fish eye lens and therefore the Earth is flat. However this is a major mistake and a misunderstanding about the sheer size of the Earth. He says that in a plane you look out and without the fish eye effect, you see a flat horizon. But a flat horizon is what you should see even on a globe earth, due to 3 points:

1) The altitude of a plane of only a couple miles on an 8,000 mile wide Earth will not see a curve. It’s still effectively on the surface.

2) You can only see about 20 miles in any direction, and therefore will not be able to see the curve across such short distances. And,

3) On a sphere, when you look at the horizon, your frame of reference will cause it to look flat in every direction no matter how large or small the sphere is.

It is merely incidental that a fish eye lens is used. In the fish eye lens argument, the teachers of flat earth are right that you are not really seeing the curve and it’s an illusion. But the truth is that you shouldn’t see any curve even if it were not using a fish eye lens and if the Earth really is a globe. You are barely above the surface of the Earth even at several miles high, and therefore you will not see the curve even on a sphere.

I personally did a scale demo of the size of the Earth versus the height of a plane, and I came to the absolutely proven conclusion that from the perspective of a few miles above an 8,000 mile wide sphere, the horizon will look flat, even though the shape of the whole sphere is round. It’s proven, I proved it with my own eyes on a scale model.

“Trains and planes don’t adjust for curvature” argument

Flat Earth proponents argue that train engineers don’t adjust their mathematics for the curvature. However, this argument is false, because it is not necessary. The Earth is not a perfectly smooth ball. It has topography, hills and valleys, mountains and plains. Therefore when engineers calculate distance and material needed, they measure across the topography. Because they measure the topography itself, they do not need to adjust either on a flat or a globe Earth, because they are measuring across the terrain.

Planes do adjust for curvature. Not directly, but indirectly. There are two main devices a plane uses. Pilots use a device called an altimeter which keeps the plane at a fixed altitude above the Earth. Regardless of the shape of the Earth, this device would automatically adjust for curvature. Pilots also use a gyroscope with a horizontal indicator which keeps the plane in line with the horizon, which would also automatically adjust course with any curvature.

So, neither argument proves a flat Earth. On a sphere as large as Earth, which has terrain and is not perfectly smooth, it is not necessary to adjust for “curvature”, only to adjust for terrain; and both engineers and pilots do adjust for terrain. So the flat earth argument falls through.

They also argue that there are no direct flights from the northern to southern hemisphere, but this is untrue. There are such flights.

“We can see too far” argument

One of the most popular arguments says that we can see farther across lakes and surfaces that we should be able to on a globe Earth. However, this argument is a myth, as I have personally done research with other actual scientists who have definitively proven that in fact we can see the curvature of the water causing distant objects to sink below the horizon, thus proving a curvature. The people who argue we can see farther than we are supposed to have not done any real scientific research themselves, or they would find that this argument is nothing more than a pervasive myth, and untrue.

But what about the mirage across the lake of Michigan? It’s true that we should not be able to see the city skyline across the lake of Michigan, and flat Earthers would say this proves a flat Earth. However, they are wrong because it does not prove a flat Earth by itself, it only calls into question that more research needs to be done to explain the mechanisms of light bending across the surface of water or other surfaces. It is often called a “mirage”, and in fact mirages are known to exist, where light behaves strangely in the presence of certain conditions, such as in a desert. This doesn’t prove a flat Earth, but it does prove that science does not fully explain this phenomenon.

The gravity argument

A final and major argument, but not the last of them, is that gravity does not behave as it seems it should, if it’s gravity keeping the oceans on Earth while the Earth is spinning at thousands of miles per hour. But on a stationary Earth model, as in the first argument, this argument does not hold water, pun intended.

Yes it does seem that Newton’s simplistic explanation of this unproven force of “gravity” can be better explained by the density of mass and buoyancy of less dense objects in denser mediums, like balloons in an atmosphere or a ball in water. But this does not prove a flat Earth.

Even if the whole theory of gravity is wrong, that is mutually exclusive from the shape of the Earth. It is a fallacy, that is, wrong logic, to say that just because buoyancy better explains what goes up or down, that the Earth is flat. It gives no such proof.

In conclusion, there are no proofs that the Earth is flat. Other arguments like “why is the government hiding Antarctica” doesn’t prove that the Earth is flat; and the Van Allen Belt radiation may prove we haven’t been to the Moon, but it doesn’t prove the Earth is flat. And when you consider the possibility of a fixed, stationary Earth, this dismisses almost all of the most powerful arguments for a flat earth, and thereby there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to prove a flat Earth, although there is evidence to suggest the Earth may not be spinning, or that NASA is full of fakery and lies. But it doesn’t mean the Earth is flat.

Those who believe in a flat earth are victims of a dangerous psyop used to discredit “conspiracy theorists” from anyone who questions the official narrative. It is my belief that there is a very good possibility that the Flat Earth Society and major proponents of flat earth theory may be actual disinformation agents whose job is to actually discredit “conspiracy theorists” by providing false evidence for a flat earth and convincing some to believe it. But given the preponderance of arguments of which absolutely none, not one, hold water, then it is safe to say that you can totally dismiss flat earth once and for all, if you had not already done so.

---

---