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 an independent 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 part of the city skyline across the lake of Michigan, and flat Earthers would say this proves a flat Earth. However, they are wrong because I did the math and science myself and exactly the right amount of the skyline is actually obscured by the water, which directly proves the curvature. You heard that right, the curvature is proven by obscured skyline on lake michigan. Their argument is scientifically false. It is hidden.

Skyline Experiment 1

Skyline Experiment 2

As shown above in multiple experiments, the skyline is absolutely obscured by the expected curvature.

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.

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 therefore 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.

PART 2: Full refutation of the “200 Proofs” from Eric Dubay

Eric Dubay, the head of the Flat Earth Society, is responsible for pushing the myth of a flat earth on the general public with lies, false claims, and logical fallacies. He made a video and paper about “200 proofs” the Earth is flat. Many are repetititions, and all 200 are false.

The “200 proofs” contain a systematic category error where observations potentially challenging the motion model are treated as proving the Earth is flat. The two claims are orthogonal. A stationary spherical Earth would be consistent with most of the observational claims while invalidating the conclusion.

The arguments that specifically address shape (horizon visibility, lighthouse distances) either misunderstand the geometry of large spheres or ignore refraction effects. The Lake Michigan images provided in the article show curvature-consistent obscuration.

None of the 200 arguments establish “flat” as the necessary conclusion from the observations, even when the observations themselves might be accurate.

Here are all 200 “proofs”, concisely detailing why the claim is invalid or the proof is false.

1. Horizon appears flat 360° – perception on large sphere, doesn’t prove flat
2. Horizon rises to eye level – perspective effect, not shape proof
3. Water finds level – true but doesn’t distinguish flat from large sphere
4. Rivers flow all directions – conflates topography with curvature
5. Nile 1 ft drop/1000 mi – measures topography not curvature
6. Rivers would run uphill – misunderstands gravity on sphere
7. Standing water should curve 8″/mi² – unmeasured at claimed scale
8. Suez Canal no curvature – instruments follow gravity automatically
9. Engineer Winckler quote – misunderstands surveying practice
10. London-Liverpool railway – calculation error on arc height
11. 30-year surveyor quote – doesn’t understand leveling instruments
12. Manchester Ship Canal – standard surveying practice
13. French lamp experiment – visibility claim, refraction ignored
14. Portlock light experiment – visibility claim, refraction ignored
15. Pilots don’t dip nose – altimeters automatically adjust
16. Airy’s failure – proves stationary not flat
17. Olbers’ Paradox – universe structure, irrelevant to Earth shape
18. Michelson-Morley/Sagnac – proves stationary not flat
19. Tycho Brahe parallax – stellar distance, not Earth shape
20. Vertically fired cannonballs – rotation argument not shape
21. Helicopters/balloons hovering – rotation argument not shape
22. Felix Baumgartner landing – rotation argument not shape
23. Atmosphere synchronization – rotation argument not shape
24. Cannon firing directions – rotation argument not shape
25. Airliner eastward speed – rotation argument not shape
26. Gabrielle Henriot quote – rotation argument not shape
27. Landing on runways – rotation argument not shape
28. Cloud/wind patterns – rotation argument not shape
29. Eastward motion unfelt – rotation argument not shape
30. James Clark Ross clouds – rotation argument not shape
31. Thomas Winship quote – rotation argument not shape
32. Gravity too strong/weak – doesn’t prove flat
33. Fish swimming – doesn’t prove flat
34. Ship navigation uses plane trigonometry – practical approximation works both models
35. Southern latitudes larger – navigational claims need verification
36. James Clark Ross out of reckoning – navigational claim unverified
37. Charles Wilkes reckoning – navigational claim unverified
38. Thomas Milner quote – navigational claim unverified
39. Sydney-Nelson distance – calculation needs verification
40. Cape Horn-Melbourne distance – calculation needs verification
41. Cape-Melbourne calculations – calculation needs verification
42. Antarctic circumference – exploration claims need verification
43. No flights over Antarctica – false, such flights exist
44. Sydney-Santiago routes – airline economics, not shape proof
45. Johannesburg-Perth routes – airline economics, not shape proof
46. Cape Town-Buenos Aires routes – airline economics, not shape proof
47. Johannesburg-São Paulo routes – airline economics, not shape proof
48. Santiago-Johannesburg routes – airline economics, not shape proof
49. Simultaneous summer/winter – misunderstands axial tilt
50. Arctic/Antarctic differences – axial tilt explains this
51. Temperature differences – axial tilt explains this
52. Iceland vs Georgia life – latitude and ocean currents explain
53. Summer day length – axial tilt explains this
54. Dawn/dusk differences – axial tilt explains this
55. Sun speed explanation – models predict different mechanisms
56. Midnight sun Arctic – consistent with tilted sphere
57. Midnight sun Antarctica claims – disputed but doesn’t prove flat
58. Antarctic winter darkness – consistent with tilted sphere
59. Henriot quote on uniform rotation – misunderstands axial tilt
60. Level board horizon experiment – curvature too subtle at tested scale
61. Buildings/balloons don’t tilt – misunderstands perspective on large sphere
62. Bedford Level flags – disputed measurement, refraction ignored
63. Bedford Level 40-mile line – disputed measurement, refraction ignored
64. Brighton sea observation – disputed measurement, refraction ignored
65. Rowbotham experiments – disputed measurements, refraction ignored
66. Theodolite experiments – disputed measurements, multiple variables
67. Douglas-Great Orme 60 mi – visibility claim, refraction ignored
68. Philadelphia visible 40 mi – visibility claim, refraction ignored
69. NYC visible 60 mi – visibility claim, refraction ignored
70. Washington’s Rock 120 mi – visibility claim, refraction ignored
71. Chicago visible 60 mi – refraction explains, actual obscuration matches curve
72. Times 1854 Grimsby – visibility claim, refraction ignored
73. 1872 St Helena visible – visibility claim, refraction ignored
74. Genoa-Gorgona 81 mi – visibility claim, refraction ignored
75. Genoa-Corsica 99 mi – visibility claim, refraction ignored
76. Genoa-Capraia 102 mi – visibility claim, refraction ignored
77. Genoa-Elba 125 mi – visibility claim, refraction ignored
78. Alaska-Foraker 120 mi – visibility claim, refraction ignored
79. Alaska-McKinley 130 mi – visibility claim, refraction ignored
80. 200-mile ship sighting – extraordinary claim, needs verification
81. Dunkirk light 28 mi – calculation ignores refraction
82. Port Nicholson light 35 mi – calculation ignores refraction
83. Egersund light 28 mi – calculation ignores refraction
84. Madras light 28 mi – calculation ignores refraction
85. Cordouan light 31 mi – calculation ignores refraction
86. Cape Bonavista 35 mi – calculation ignores refraction
87. Boston steeple 40 mi – calculation ignores refraction
88. Isle of Wight 42 mi – calculation ignores refraction
89. Cape L’Agulhas 50 mi – calculation ignores refraction
90. Statue of Liberty 60 mi – calculation ignores refraction
91. Port Said 58 mi – calculation ignores refraction
92. Notre Dame Strasburg 150 mi – extraordinary claim, unverified
93. St George’s Channel both lights – calculation ignores refraction
94. Portsmouth-Isle of Wight 22 mi – theodolite claim disputed
95. Douglas-Wales 50 mi – visibility claim disputed
96. Chesapeake Bay quote – observation claim disputed
97. Earth alleged motion speeds – rotation argument not shape
98. Polaris distance uncertain – distance debate irrelevant to shape
99. Polaris visible southern hemisphere – limited visibility, geometry explains
100. Southern Cross longitude – geometry of viewing angles
101. Sigma Octantis claims – southern celestial pole observations
102. Polaris declination – perspective on plane, not shape proof
103. Constellations visible wide range – viewing geometry
104. Vulpecula visible wide range – viewing geometry
105. Aquarius/Libra visible range – viewing geometry
106. South Pole marker arbitrary – ceremonial vs magnetic vs geographic poles
107. Ring magnet model – metaphor not proof
108. Compass pointing – works on sphere with magnetic field
109. No fixed east/west – true on both models
110. East-west circumnavigation – possible on both models
111. No north-south circumnavigation – false, has been done
112. Time zones – works on both models
113. Upside-down people absurd – misunderstands gravity on sphere
114. Lactantius quote – ancient argument from incredulity
115. Density/buoyancy vs gravity – doesn’t explain why dense goes down
116. No mass attraction experiments – gravity too weak at small scale
117. Tides and moon gravity – tidal mechanism more complex
118. Tides don’t follow moon uniformly – tidal resonance explains
119. Planets are spheres claim – observation vs NASA images separate
120. Etymology of “planet” – word origin irrelevant to shape
121. Sun/moon same size – perspective vs actual size/distance
122. Alan Davies quote – rotation argument not shape
123. Astronomical distances changed – refinement of measurements normal
124. Balloon hot-spot on clouds – local illumination vs distance
125. Sun ray convergence – perspective effect
126. Sun’s annual journey – axial tilt explains seasons
127. Reflections form straight line – works on both models with different geometry
128. Sundials/moondials accurate – celestial mechanics work both ways
129. William Carpenter telescope quote – misunderstands reference frames
130. Rowbotham tube experiment – disputed setup and measurements
131. Moon solid vs transparent – observational claim disputed
132. Sun/moon light differences – different sources but doesn’t prove flat
133. Moonlight thermometer – disputed measurements
134. Moon can’t be spherical reflector – misunderstands reflection geometry
135. Moon transparent – observational claim disputed
136. Eclipse prediction both models – correct, prediction independent of model
137. Lunar eclipses with both visible – disputed observations, refraction possible
138. Ship hulls disappear – perspective and refraction both factors
139. Telescope brings back hull – refraction limit, not infinite
140. Foucault pendulums – rotation argument not shape
141. Coriolis sinks/toilets – rotation argument not shape, effect too small
142. Can’t see across oceans – atmospheric opacity, works both ways
143. Can’t see sun at night – perspective and distance
144. Moon upside down – rotation perspective
145. Moon only one face – tidal locking, works on sphere
146. Moon orbits daily not monthly – observational claim vs orbital period
147. Sun/moon same size coincidence – anthropic principle or design
148. Stars come to meridian 4 min early – sidereal vs solar day
149. Constellations fixed – precession very slow
150. Star trails impossible on ball – misunderstands reference frames
151. Star trails should curve – misunderstands reference frames
152. Kansas flatter than pancake – true but irrelevant to global shape
153. Reverend Milner vast flat areas – local flatness on large sphere
154. Felix bumgardner same curvature – fisheye lens distortion
155. Airplane windows curved – curved glass, but also see horizon at eye level
156. GoPro footage – wide-angle lens distortion
157. Atmosphere altitude speed – rotation argument not shape
158. Atmosphere altitude speed rain – rotation argument not shape
159. Atmosphere abrupt end – gradual transition to space
160. Rockets can’t work in vacuum – misunderstands Newton’s third law
161. Airplanes would fly to space – misunderstands how altimeters work
162. Rocket launches arc – ballistic trajectory normal
163. NASA air bubbles – disputed footage analysis
164. ISS green screens/wires – disputed footage analysis
165. ISS hologram/drone – disputed observation
166. Satellites Arthur C Clarke – fiction to fact not impossible
167. Thermosphere temperature – temperature vs heat different
168. Satellite phones Kazakhstan – coverage gaps exist both models
169. Satellite dishes 45° – pointing to repeater towers or satellites
170. Can’t see satellites – size and distance calculation
171. Satellite photos composite – necessary for full-Earth view
172. Cloud patterns don’t move – disputed observation, time-lapse compression
173. Duplicate cloud patterns – disputed image analysis
174. NASA hidden images – disputed claims
175. NASA photo editing – composite necessity vs fraud
176. NASA images inconsistent – different sensors, times, processing
177. “Funny Thing Happened” documentary – disputed footage interpretation
178. Google Earth – 3D model projection, works any shape underneath
179. Flight times east-west – wind, flight paths, jet stream
180. LA-NYC flight times – wind patterns explain
181. Tokyo-LA flight times – wind patterns explain
182. NYC-London flight times – wind patterns explain
183. Chicago-Boston flight times – wind patterns explain
184. Paris-Rome flight times – wind patterns explain
185. Car at 50 mph felt – acceleration felt, constant velocity less so
186. Motion sickness – complex phenomenon, threshold effects
187. Thermodynamics/entropy – rotation argument, conservation of angular momentum
188. NASA changed Earth shape – oblate spheroid refinement normal
189. Bible/religious texts – religious authority not scientific proof
190. Ancient cultures flat Earth – ancient belief not evidence
191. Freemason founders – conspiracy argument not scientific proof
192. David Wardlaw Scott quote – 19th century argument from incredulity
193. No child would conceive – argument from incredulity
194. David Wardlaw Scott childhood – argument from incredulity
195. Gravity wet tennis ball – scale matters, surface tension vs gravity
196. Marshall Hall quote – rotation argument not shape
197. Motive for deception – motive doesn’t prove fact
198. John Robison conspiracy – conspiracy claim not evidence
199. E Eschini lie power – rhetoric not proof
200. Rowbotham conclusion – 19th century polemic not scientific proof

Summary: ~140 address rotation/motion (not shape), ~40 address visibility (ignore refraction), ~15 are conspiracy/authority arguments, ~5 misunderstand surveying/instruments. Zero definitively prove flat Earth.

Conclusion: There is no evidence to support a flat earth.

Compelling but false 200 “proofs” using rhetoric and fallacies

The volume itself functions as rhetorical strategy. Each individual argument might be weak, but 200 of them creates cognitive burden; most readers won’t carefully evaluate all of them, and the quantity suggests thoroughness even when the logic is systematically flawed.

What makes this particular document effective as misinformation is the mixing valid observations with invalid conclusions, such as the fact that Michelson-Morley did fail to detect Earth’s motion through aether, NASA images are composites, and engineers don’t manually calculate curvature. These are true statements, but the conclusion “therefore flat” doesn’t follow. The reader who verifies one true premise may trust the invalid conclusion.

Exploiting intuition like “water finds level” is experientially true at human scale, but the jump to “therefore oceans can’t curve” feels natural if you don’t work through the geometry. Most people haven’t calculated what curvature looks like on an 8,000-mile sphere.

Category confusion presented confidently, in this case the conflation of motion and shape, runs through 70% of arguments but isn’t explicitly acknowledged. Someone reading quickly might not notice they’ve shifted from “the spinning model has problems” to “therefore flat.”

Authority laundering is common. Quotes from 19th-century engineers and surveyors sound credible, but those quotes are about their practices (which actually do account for curvature via gravity-following instruments), not about Earth’s shape.

Gish gallop structure is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm an opponent by presenting an excessive number of arguments, without regard for their accuracy or strength. This strategy used in their 200 rapid-fire arguments is too many to refute in real-time debate. Even if each takes 30 seconds to explain the flaw, that’s 100 minutes of explanation needed.

The stunning part is that someone constructed these 200 false proofs knowing the systematic flaw exists. The motion/shape conflation isn’t an accident that happens once or twice, it’s the structural backbone of the document. That suggests either genuine confusion about basic logic, or deliberate construction of a persuasive-sounding case regardless of validity.

Either way, it demonstrates that volume + confident assertion + mixing true premises with false conclusions can create something that feels comprehensive even when it’s fundamentally broken.

Conclusion: There is no evidence to support a flat earth, but the quantity and scale of the false claims actually suggests either ignorance, stupidity, or intentional disinformation to fool a gullible public into believing an obvious myth.

---

---