In @ericdubay's "200 proofs" list he claims that rivers such as the Nile, the Paraná, the Congo, the Paraguay, and the Mississippi "flow uphill". The rationale behind it seems to be that rivers which flow from north to south (in the northern hemisphere), or south to north (in the southern), and therefore towards the bulge at the equator, will flow into mouths which are further from the centre of the earth than their sources. For example: http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html As with most (all?) of Dubay's 'proofs', no explanation or evidence is offered, and it appears he is merely quoting from one of the Victorian 'first-wave' flat earth texts. In this case, rather than Rowbotham, he uses 'Terra Firma: The Earth not a Planet', a scripture-inspired book written in 1901 by David Wardlaw Scott. https://ia800209.us.archive.org/6/items/cu31924031764594/cu31924031764594.pdf How he arrives at the figure of 11 miles he doesn't say, though he does reference an 'Imperial Gazetteer' article, so it's possible he took it from this. In any case, I think we can assume that he did a rough calculation that went something along the lines of: 1. Earth's radius is 13.5 miles larger at equator than at poles 2. Length of Mississippi @3000 miles is 48% of the distance from the north pole to the equator (6215 miles) 3. Radius to mouth - radius to source = approximately 48% of 13.5 4. Answer is that the mouth is 6.24 miles 'higher' than the source (after subtracting 1,475 feet for the elevation at source) 5. Write down 11 miles, 'cos reasons. Now, in actual fact the Mississippi is 2,320 miles long, while its 'as the crow flies' distance between source and mouth is 1,288 miles, and the distance between the lines of latitude at its source and mouth 1,248 miles. Using the above technique, this would make the mouth 2.44 miles 'higher' (further from the centre of the earth) than its source. That's just a rough figure, of course, but one I would have expected a Victorian flat earth 'scientist' to have arrived at. And using more modern methods, such as a geoid height calculator, I find a figure of 3.72 miles. So there you go! The mouth of the Mississippi is not 11 miles higher than its source, it's a little under 4. Which is not an explanation of how this is possible, but another example of how Dubay repeats incorrect information without ever checking it, and yet presents it as fact. The explanation is a little more straightforward than the laboured 'background check' above: http://onetuberadio.com/2014/11/07/why-the-mississippi-river-flows-uphill/ Why my calculation was 0.4 miles different to theirs, I'm not sure. But similar enough to debunk the "11 mile" claim. And whatever the figure, the explanation is still the same. Sorry it was so long: I just like 'taking it back to the source' and uncovering the shoddyness in these "proofs". Cheers.