Below you will find answers to many of your questions. If there is a question that I have not answered yet, feel free to scroll to the very bottom of this page and fill out the “ask” form or click here. Please remember that this is a work in progress and all questions and answers have not been finished yet.

These FAQ’s are community driven and are the current “best possible answer” but in no way does that mean that they are 100% correct. The good thing is that the answers can and will be changed as new evidence comes to light. If you would like to contribute to our FAQ’s, please scroll to the bottom of this page and fill out the “submit an faq” form or click here. Thanks so much for your patience.

Are you available for an interview?

If you would like me to be on your show or would like a quote from me for an article or book,  feel free to email me and put  “interview” in the subject line. I will get back to you as soon as possible and if I have time, I would be happy to be on your show or to help with your article or book. Email me at jeranism at yahoo dot com

Can we donate to you?

Sure!  We’d love that!  You can help us in many ways and you can even help just by shopping at Amazon but through our links. You can find lots of ways to help support us by clicking HERE. You can also click here for our Patreon page where you can help us spend more time trying to change the world. If you don’t have anything to donate… no problem!  Our videos will always be 100% free! I simply ask you to share the videos you like and post them to your social media. Feel free to say, “Look, this guys actually believes the Earth is Flat” before you post the link. The hope would be that people seeing my videos even once would be compelled to watch more. We sincerely appreciate any support you can give us.

How do I contact you?

You can contact me by filling out the form here.

Are you retarded?

No.  To add to that, I wouldn’t use that word anymore.

If you are referring to a low intellectual ability, the terms retarded, retardation, and mental retardation are now usually perceived as insulting. There are several acceptable alternatives. In general, someone with a mental, physical, or emotional disability may be described as developmentally disabled, or as person with a developmental disability. If it is specifically a mental disability, the person may be described as cognitively impaired or intellectually (or mentally) disabled. Such a person may be referred to as an individual with a cognitive impairment or a person with an intellectual (or mental) disability. These classifications have usually been diagnosed by a doctor or medical professional. Today, the slang term “retard” is a term of abuse used especially by children or teens, though much less commonly than in the past. In both of its meanings, retard is perceived as insulting to disabled people as well as their families and friends.

To date, no medical professional has ever diagnosed me as anything but normal. Sorry, you’ll have to come up with another way to simply dismiss my beliefs.

Is this site a joke?


Does your chat have rules?

The Chat does have rules.  

Also, you may have been given this link if you have been muted or banned from the jeranism chat or are getting close.

Let me explain why there are rules…

I created the chat room as a place for “like minded individuals” to come together and talk about the flat earth, share images and links and to discuss videos. Part of good science is debunking and challenging the current accepted beliefs, but there is no need for you to do the opposite. If you are pushing the globe model, please understand these 3 things.

1. You are wasting your time in the chat because you are going against its purpose.

2. We were taught by teachers the same thing you are continuing to spew. We found problems with those teachings and are attempting to find more truth and to debunk the current scientific findings by testing and experimenting. If you have a good case for something so important that you came here to “teach” us all… well then the world needs to hear it too so please leave the chat and go make a video and post it on YouTube… it is free.

3. I cannot be in the chat at all times and my moderators know what expectations I have set. It is supposed to be a fun place to come and enjoy. If you start flooding the chat with bs, no matter how “right” you think you are… if you are creating an unpleasant experience for others… you’re gonna get booted. You are in the wrong spot.

Moral of the story is that this chat was made for like-minded people to discuss all the things in regard to where on Earth we live. You can discuss too but if you get unruly, you’ll end up banned. Remember that we know all of the things you have to say and after a close study of them, have determined that they are wrong and were taught to us as truth when they are in fact beliefs. You repeating what we already have heard and even were tested on is a waste of both your time and ours. You should be worried about testing the globe model you are so willing to fight for. If you’d like, I can show you over 50 emails from people who while trying to debunk this idiotic idea that the earth is flat, found out that the idiotic belief… is the truth.

Remember you were taught that believing in a flat earth was stupid.

Signs that my moderators look for…

name calling
repetitive comments
Unwilling to listen or consider alternatives

We don’t expect you to conform to any model so don’t do the same and you’ll be fine.



Does the position of Polaris work on a Flat Earth?

The problem of Polaris has been a stubborn one for those investigating the Flat Earth. The crux of this problem has to do with viewing angles, distances and elevation. Using trigonometry, one should be able to measure the height of any object from any particular distance. Unfortunately, the math just doesn’t seem to add up. Using the supposed radius of the Earth – which is 3959.16 miles – we should be able to figure out the height of Polaris based upon the viewing angle and distance from the North Pole.

The two assumptions – the radius of Earth and the distance from the North Pole – are generally agreed to values from both FE (Flat Earth) and GE (Globe Earth) people.

The viewing angle (“VA”) is where the problem starts – and ultimately will be resolved. GE theory states that the viewing angle of Polaris is equal to the particular latitude the observer views Polaris from (ie. 49th parallel has a viewing angle of 49°). The distance from the 49th parallel to the North Pole is 2,597.55 miles or the radius of the Earth at that parallel. In the GE theory, the viewing angle is dependent upon the curvature of the Earth (ATAN(Height/Radius).
In the traditional FE view, Polaris is approximately 3600 miles above the North Pole. However, the viewing angle from the Equator is supposed to be 1° but according to trigonometry, the viewing angle should be around 42° – Hence the paradox (or in GE theory, proof of a globe). I would like to point out that in a new model that has been developed, the height of Polaris would be 2513 miles. The full model can be seen here:


This diagram can be broken down into 5 observations:

  1. distance between degrees on a sphere/circle are equal (degrees of parallel)
  2. distance between degrees on a flat plane are not equal (this is important)
  3. as the height of an object from a flat plane decreases, the angle of view decreases and tends towards infinity (law of perspective using geometry). As the observer increases distance from the object, the angle of view decreases.
  4. the viewing angle is inversely proportional to the distance from the object. As the viewing angle doubles, the distance to the object is reduced by half.
  5. an object of 3959 miles from a flat plane would have a viewing angle of 10° and would be at a distance of 22,962.2 miles.

Here is a simple example of how this works:
Imagine a mountain that is 2.5 miles in height. To observe that mountain at a 1° viewing angle you would have to be 144 miles from the mountain. To observe it at 2° you would have to travel 72 miles; to observe it at 4° you would have to travel 36 miles; etc.
So you get:
1° = 144 miles
2° = 74 miles
4° = 36 miles
8° = 18 miles
16° = 9 miles
32° = 4.5 miles
64° = 2.25 miles
As the distance to the mountain decreases, the viewing angle increases at a faster rate. I highly suggest watching a video by p-brane that presents the convergence of parallel lines due to perspective:



The important thing to notice is that the total distance traveled for the first 32° is 139.5 miles (or 97% of the journey) while the remaining 58° only requires 4.5 miles (3% of the journey). The total space occupied by the mountain (from peak to base) must also follow the same ratio. The bottom of the mountain will not expand until the last 3% of the journey since the parallel lines have converged. Think of a set of roman blinds that open from the bottom up or a grabbing a slinky from the top:

We can apply this same logic to Polaris. The area underneath the star (the sky) will converge or compress just like the base of the mountain. As you approach the mountain (or star) the area will decompress and reveal the space underneath but at a non-linear rate.  So even though Polaris is actually at a viewing angle of 32° (see Image 1) at the Equator, the area underneath the star is being compressed due to perspective and will appear as if it is only 1° from the horizon. As you move closer to Polaris the area underneath will slowly begin to expand.
If you would like a more detailed explanation along with a working model, please visit

Thank you Jason for this FAQ

Why does it matter?

It matters because truth matters.  If you’d rather live your life in lies… enjoy that. I will be doing anything and everything i can to bring truth back where it belongs.

Is there other YouTube Channels You Suggest We Watch?

If you are looking to keep up with the flat earth, please subscribe to some of these other channels that are doing great work. I will update this list as I remember more channels doing a great job or find some that are on the list that have gone to “Dave Johnson Land.”

Click HERE for a great list!

Why do boats appear to go over the horizon if earth is not a ball?

Why does the sun appear larger on the horizon vs. above your head?

Many people assume that the sun should appear smaller when it is disappearing because its setting is due to perspective and so they don’t understand why it actually looks larger and not smaller as it recedes.  The sun to us always looks about the same size because as it recedes into the distance there is also a magnification effect caused by the rays of light passing through the atmosphere.

This can be seen everyday by looking at images of cities in the distance or even car headlights on the freeway. This phenomenon may be noticed, to a greater or less degree, at all times; but when the air is moist and vapoury it is more intense. It is evident that at sunrise, and at sunset, the sun’s light must shine through a greater length of atmospheric air than at mid-day; besides which, the air near the earth is both more dense, and holds more watery particles like mist, dust, fog, dew etc. hence the light must be dilated or magnified, as well as modified in color

When you watch the sunset, you’ll notice how the sun is much hazier, diluted, and less intense than when it is overhead at noonday. This tells us that its rays are passing through a thick horizontal atmosphere, much like the light rays from a distant street lamp. The sun’s intensity is so diluted when it is low in the sky that it is possible to look directly at it without squinting. If you’ve ever seen a city at night you would know that distant light sources appear magnified from afar because they are shining though an atmospheric medium. The farther you move away from the source, the more medium you put between you, the more magnified the lights appears. As you move towards the source the magnified lights shrink in appearance. As you move away the lights grows in diameter again.

Here is an image that shows this point.


You will notice that the distant lights in the scene appear magnified and intense, mostly the white ones in the upper left of the image. You should note that most of the the lights in the background are about as big as the lights in the foreground. This is entirely contradictory to what one would expect. The background lights are much farther away and the distant bulbs are all smaller than a single pixel of the screen. The orange lights maintaining their size in foreground and background is a great example of the magnification effect of the atmosphere balancing out the natural shrinking to perspective.

As an analogy for the enlarging of the sun at sunset, lets imagine that we are in a dark room with a flashlight. We shine the light upon the wall, creating a distinct circle of light. If we walk backwards and recede away from the wall the spot of light grows in diameter. When we walk towards the wall the spot of light becomes smaller again. The same effect happens with the distant sun at sunset. Instead of a solid surface, however, the rays of light are shining upon the semi-transparent fog of the atmosphere between the observer and the sun. This is how the sun’s diameter is maintained throughout the day.

Headlight Example

The light from these incoming headlights are a constant size down the highway as far as the eye could see.


Notice how it is only the intense headlights of the cars on the incoming lane which are magnified. The headlights on the lane coming towards us are all the same size. The intense light from the headlights have caught onto the atmosphere between the source and camera to create a magnification of the light. This magnification increases with distance, allowing the headlights to appear the same size down the entirety of the lane.

In contradiction, the red tail lights of the cars driving away from the camera are not intense enough to catch onto the atmosphere and are appropriately shrinking into the distance.  Many people also ask, “Shouldn’t the sun get blurrier if it is being magnified?” The answer is that the sun actually does get a bit fuzzier when it is at the horizon compared to overhead at noonday.

What do you believe about 9/11?

I believe that it is totally obvious that the investigation that would always take place after such an event, did not take place. They destroyed, altered and tampered the evidence. This is not a conspiracy theory, this is fact and has been admitted.  Please see this video for more info:

A great video to start with if you are new to this deception is the September Clues Video found here:

Do you have a recommended resource for the Apollo missions?

Absolutely and without a doubt, I suggest you read NASA Mooned America by Ralph Rene.  I liked the book because it covered many aspects of the Apollo missions and shows the clear and outright discrepancies that at this point cannot be reconciled. Also, the start of the book shows clear evidence of NASA faking a Gemini photo with Michael Collins inside of the “Vomit Comet.” So, there is no chance that the missions were legit and there is no reason to trust NASA if they started lying to us in 1966.  I have included a link for you to save or to read online.   Enjoy

Microsoft-Help-300x300 (1)

Do you think NASA has landed on the moon?

I absolutely think that there is zero chance that humans have ever been to the moon. There are many reasons why I feel there is no chance we went to the moon but I am especially sure we never went to the moon during the Apollo missions of 1969-1972. The reasons why are listed below.

  • There is footage of Apollo 11 where you can see someone outside of the spacecraft while it is supposed to be in space.
  • The lunar lander appears to be made of cardboard and construction paper. It also achieved speeds up to 4,000 mph and was NEVER even tested on earth.
  • The lander also had an inexplicable ability to maintain life support for several days (the Apollo 17 astronauts were supposedly on the moon for 3 days, 2 hours, 59 minutes and 40 seconds)
  • The lander ascent engine had NEVER been tested and must have included one miraculous air conditioning system in the harshest environment imaginable as the temperature on the moon varies from -387 Fahrenheit (-233 Celsius), at night, to 253 Fahrenheit (123 Celsius) during the day.
  • There was no blast crater caused from the Lunar Lander’s 10,000 lb. thruster
  • The craft, the Apollo suits, and cameras had no protection from radiation, micrometeorites, and the other elements on the moon and in space including immediate temperature fluctuations of 540 degrees Fahrenheit while in and out of the shade
  • A long list of photo fakes and patent proofs of photo editing, e.g., the Michael Collins faked spacewalk photo (for starters, review the photo analyses of Jack White –
  • There is evidence of astronauts suspended by wires
  • Things look like they were in slow motion, yet everything should have moved quicker
  • Close resemblance to 1960s movie technology, i.e., artificial backdrops (visible scotchlite glass screen) with visible lines;
  • There are thousands of beautiful studio qualify photos without the ability to manually adjust aperture, use the viewfinder, etc. and without secondary light sources
  • There is no picture of the stars – ever, even when the astronauts were supposedly orbiting on the dark side of the moon and using long exposure times
  • There is proof of secondary light sources and major shadow discrepancies, including a 130 degrees shadow direction shift over a small area that is clearly not perspective
  • The ridiculous Lunar Rover – like NASA would have ever risked attaching a dune buggy on the Lunar Lander or the possibility that it would break down or cause a part to shake loose on one of the astronaut’s suit due to it hitting a large bump or crashing (think about this one)
  • The rover would have flipped on many turns seen during the Apollo films
  • They used the circular windows to fake an unremarkable image of the earth, with a cloud that spans the entire earth
  • No one has been beyond 400 miles above the earth for nearly 44 years (last time on the moon was December 14, 1972) and yet were able to do it easily in 1969 and travel a minimum of 234,000 miles to the moon;
  • The astronauts sat on top of a 10,000 lb. thruster but noise was not an issue in the recordings;
  • Evidence of a disappearing Lunar Lander on the moon in the photos and repeated use of similar mountain backdrops in what should have been different areas;
  • Strange and nonexistent tracks of the Lunar Rover
  • Lunar Rover tracks when the Lunar Rover hadn’t been unpackaged
  • The sun appears to be a giant light bulb
  • The American patriotic symbols – always perfect in the photos
  • Perfect and remarkable boot prints with no moisture
  • The ascension stage of the Lunar Lander – laughable footage filmed by the astronaut who stayed behind to watch and who idiotically panned out and up (of course NASA claims it did it by remote 234,000 miles away) and then beamed the footage back to earth – and we didn’t even have decent television remotes at that time
  • The Command Module orbits a fake moon
  • The billowing American flag – oops
  • The 200 yard touchdown pass – wait how come we didn’t see that or other great feats?
  • Astronauts should have been able to jump 10 feet high.
  • The Van Allen Radiation Belts and other severe cosmic radiation
  • The first moonwalker press conference – the unwilling liars’ affair
  • The video footage of the docking Lunar Lander appears eerily similar and fake as Kubrick’s “2001: A Space Odyssey”
  • The discrepancies of the moonwalkers, did they see stars or not?
  • Perfect performing 1960s technology that cannot be matched today
  • Apollo guidance computer had 1/7 of the computing power of the first Nintendo Game Boy.
  • The “proof” photos of the landing sites on the moon … wait a second they suck
  • NASA losing the footage, diagrams, etc.;
  • The radio controlled dune buggy;
  • The moon rock that became petrified wood and the fact that von Braun just happened to take a trip to Antarctica with NASA’s management shortly before the Apollo moon landing missions, which is the same very place where moon rocks can be found on earth;
  • Third party stage hands appearing on video when there should only be two astronauts;
  • The inadequate space and impossibility for three astronauts to live for approximately 12 days in space in a tiny craft while stuck only in a sitting position;
  • The gray color of the soil on the moon is the wrong color and the reflection does not match what we see
  • Impossibly quick answers between those supposedly on the moon and NASA (timing delay off);
  • The earth is pictured too small from the moon (the earth would be 4x the diameter of the moon);
  • The unreasonable jump to landing on the moon and alleged jumps in technology in a span of only 11 years;
  • The Command Module did not have enough fuel to make it to the moon and back since the gravitational pull of the earth extends all the way to the moon;
  • The Apollo astronauts’ suits were clearly not pressurized – they should have looked like the Michelin Man
  • 60% of the much simpler Lunar Lander testing vehicles crashed (supposedly used by the astronauts to prepare for actually landing the real Lunar Lander)
  • Von Braun said in his book ‘”Conquest To The Moon” (published in 1953) that it would be impossible to send anyone to the moon because of the sheer size of craft needed to do the trip; taking Von Braun’s calculations into consideration, a spaceship that needed to travel that distance would have had to be 266 times bigger than the Saturn 5
  • The broken strut on the Lunar Lander;
  • The lunar soil in the Apollo pictures is nothing more than Portland cement
  • NASA has now admitted that the Van Allen Radiation Belts (“an area of dangerous radiation”), prevent human travel: “Radiation like this can harm the guidance systems, onboard computers, or other electronics on Orion . . . Naturally, we have to pass through this dangerous zone [Van Allen Radiation Belts] twice – once up and once back . . . Sensors aboard will record radiation levels for scientists to study. We must solve these challenges before we put people through this region of space.”
  • The best alleged “proofs” that NASA made it to the moon – the moon reflectors (proof of nothing, which would be covered in dust by now anyway), plus they shot lasers off the moon in 1962
  • The landing site photos, (a laughable and PhotoShop joke), the testimonies (varying and peculiar), moon rocks (which are unaccounted for and can be found on earth and sometimes turn into petrified wood)
  • the moon/hammer experiment (possibly faked with wires and impossible with the pressurized suit to hold the feather with finger tips), and the ham radio operators (how did they know the transmission came from the surface of the moon and not just a satellite, assuming they weren’t paid shills) – is this really the best NASA could think of to prove such a historic event?

There are so many more reasons but for now I will stop here. If you’d like more reasons, contact me but honestly… if you have done the research… you know we never went.

What about gravity?

Gravity is make believe. Yes, I know… I am very impressed with your ability to hold up a pen and drop it to the ground to show me “proof” that gravity exists. However, you are simply showing one of the natural properties of weight, wherein items that weigh more than the substance around them fall and if they weight less than the substance around them, they rise.

A balloon filled with hydrogen, which is the lightest of the gases and lighter than nitrogen, oxygen and the rest of the elements that make up air, will rise if released. A balloon with helium will do the same because it is also lighter than the air around it but will rise up slightly slower. If however you have a baseball and release it, it will fall to the ground, not because of gravity as you were taught but because the baseball weighs more than the air around it.  Gravity is simply a magical word used for an all encompassing force that does whatever is needed of it and in most cases it is used to prove a ball earth. Take a look at this paragraph from wikipedia and tell me if you really think gravity is capable of these most amazing attributes.

As a consequence, gravity has a negligible influence on the behavior of sub-atomic particles, and plays no role in determining the internal properties of everyday matter. On the other hand, gravity is the dominant force at the macroscopic scale, that is the cause of the formation, shape, and trajectory and orbit of astronomical bodies, including those of asteroids, comets, planets, stars, and galaxies. It is responsible for causing the Earth and the other planets to orbit the Sun; for causing the Moon to orbit the Earth; for the formation of tides; for natural convection, by which fluid flow occurs under the influence of a density gradient and gravity; for heating the interiors of forming stars and planets to very high temperatures; for solar system, galaxy, stellar formation and evolution; and for various other phenomena observed on Earth and throughout the universe.


If you are a thinking individual and know when your leg is being pulled, you will have course see this as nothing but nonsense in word form. Gravity does not exist and is simply a tool used to convince people that they live on a ball.

Do surveyors factor in the Earth’s curvature?

You would think that a surveyor, one who is attempting to retrieve the most accurate results of the ground they are surveying, would have to adjust for or take into account, the curvature of the earth. This is simply not how it is done. Notice to begin chapter 2 below… it states that most surveying activities are performed with the pseudo assumption that measurements are being made with reference to a flat horizontal surface.

Then in diagram 2.1 comes a classic line. “By definition, the curved surface of a sphere is termed a level surface.”  This is not a joke. I am not pulling your leg. I swear. No, really… I am being honest.

Screenshot_43 Screenshot_45Screenshot_41

What is the calculation for the curvature of the earth?

You can find that here.

Do they consider the Earth curved for air flight purposes?

Nope. It isn’t just for flight either. When they build bridges, they do not take curvature into account. Same with those who do land surveys as well as those who build tunnels.

In the case of aviation and flight mechanics, the virtual FE world overlaps nearly completely with virtual globe world. Which one is reality, and which one is virtual? The differences between the two are huge, but they don’t seem to matter. Really? Why?

——from this 1988 NASA document here——————–

1.1.2 Making assumptions
In this summary, we want to describe the flight dynamics with equations. This is, however, very difficult.
To simplify it a bit, we have to make some simplifying assumptions. We assume that . . .
•There is a flat Earth. (The Earth’s curvature is zero.)
•There is a non-rotating Earth. (No Coriolis accelerations and such are present.)
•The aircraft has constant mass.
•The aircraft is a rigid body.
•The aircraft is symmetric.
•There are no rotating masses, like turbines. (Gyroscopic effects can be ignored.)

More links to flight and the flat earth.  Also check flight simulators and in their instruction guides and details it will also describe the need for the modelers to uses a flat earth.
To study stability and control, both F=ma and M=Iα are needed, and the resulting equations are referred to as the 6DOF model. An overview of airplane flight mechanics is presented in Chap. 1.
Part I: Trajectory Analysis. This part begins in Chap. 2 with the derivation of the 3DOF equations of motion for flight in a vertical plane over a flat earth and their discussion for nonsteady flight and quasi-steady flight.


What does “Water will always find its flatness” mean?

Water is always level. It cannot have a large curve. It can however be in the form of waves or “Swell” as is often seen in the ocean. However, these waves or swell are searching to find their flatness. Many people point out that water drips in spheres but this is on its way to a puddle or somewhere else where it will become flat.

Also pointed out often is the fact that water “in space” is in the form of a ball or sphere. This would be great if the oceans were also in space. However, ocean water is on earth and therefore must follow earth’s rules including the fact that water will always remain flat. Remember how they taught you about the ocean’s water in school?  They took a jug or bucket of water and twirled it in a circle to show the water did not go flying about the room. Problem with that demonstration is that both a bucket and a jug have sides and the sides contain the water. The earth does not have sides to contain it.  If you want to test this at home, first grab several towels. Then grab your bucket of water, turn it upside down and spin it incredibly fast. Does the water remain in the bucket?

Sorry about your floors.

Is there an online place to calculate distances?

Sure, I like to use the measure distance tool here.

It is easy to use. Just click once on one point, then click again on the second point. The distance should then be displayed. You can click more than two points in order to build up a continuous route too.

You can also switch between the miles, km, nautical miles, and yards to help measure distances in whatever unit you prefer. The Autopan option will move the map as you click the points.

The Quick Find text box allows you to quickly get to an area you wish without spending time zooming and panning to find it. For example if you wish to find the city of Rome in Italy, type “Rome, Italy” and then click go. The map will then go straight to Rome.

Toggle markers will show or hide the markers if they get in the way.

Clear last will remove the last point from the map

Zoom to fit will zoom and pan the map to get the best fit of all your points on as large a zoom as possible.

Clear Map is a reset button that will clear all points and allow you to start measuring a distance again.

You can edit the position of any existing points by dragging the marker (when they are displayed) and dropping the marker in it’s new position.  You can also adjust the height of the map to have it large, medium or small in size.

Is there an online horizon calculator?

I like to use this site. Click Here

You can also find an easier version HERE


Why do we see a ship appear to go over the horizon?

I can understand why people long ago believed in a spherical earth.  They saw boats appear to go over the horizon in all four directions. At a distance, the ship’s hull seems to disappear before the sails and those ancient geographers felt this would only happen if the ship  was dipping behind the convex curvature of the spherical earth.  This assumption is actually incorrect and if they would have timed or measured the distance that each boat had gone before dipping below the so-called curvature, they would have seen that the “ball” they thought they were on was far too small for their other calculations.

The reason for this is simply the result of perspective. This exact thing will happen on earth whenever something is moving away from the observer. Take a vehicle for example, on a long and flat stretch of a highway. If you watched a car that was driving away from you, the car would appear to slowly get lower and the tires would morph into the road. Soon the body of the vehicle would appear to be scraping the road. So, one may assume that the car has gone over some sort of curvature, but again, this is not correct.

One way to prove this is to bring out a pair of binoculars or even a telescope. When the object in question begins to morph or “sink” below the horizon, looking at it again with the aiding instrument will bring the item back into full view. Did the telescope manage to bend over the horizon to see the item in full again? Of course not. The binoculars were able to allow you to see further and therefore the item reappeared in full to your perspective.

So, next time someone tells you that the ship going over the horizon is proof that we live on a globe… tell them about a little thing we here in reality must deal with called the Law of Perspective.  The boat that they think has disappeared from sight can be seen again through a telescope and this was in no way caused by it going over a hump of curved water.  Which as we know, is impossible anyway!

Look at the clouds. If we lived on a curved earth, we'd be able to see more of the underside of each.

Look at the clouds. If we lived on a curved earth, we’d be able to see more of the underside of each.

Where can I see some Flat Earth maps?

Here is a good spot to find many flat earth maps.

A list of NASA astroNOTS

Here is a downloadable excel file of all of NASA’s astrNOTS

Do you have free ebooks to download about Flat Earth?

Well of course we do.  Simply click here and download anyone you want!

1988 NASA document describes earth as “flat and motionless”

You can link to the page below or click the pdf to download the document.

Microsoft-Help-300x300 (1)

200 Proofs That The Earth Is Not A Spinning Ball by ERIC DUBAY

Microsoft-Help-300x300 (1)


Submit a Question

If you have a question you would like to see answered in the FAQ’s, please enter it here.  If you are looking for a personal response, please use this form instead.

Submit an FAQ

If you would like to add to the FAQ’s, please submit a complete question and answer below.  For further instructions see the page here.

Would you like a response regarding whether or not your submission will appear on the site and a reason?
Yes, please replyNo, no reply needed

If and ONLY IF you want your name to appear below the FAQ as the submitter, please enter your name below EXACTLY as you want it to be listed