Debunked: The Flat Earth Theory. 14 Ways the Flat Earth Theory is False

Not open for further replies.
1. The flat Earth. Nothing debunks the flat Earth model like seeing it in action (duration 3m22s)-

2. The tidal locked Moon. According to flat Earth consensus, the Moon circles 3,000 miles above a flat Earth. In which case we would have to see every side of the Moon each day, and the phases would cycle every 24 hours. Example illustration-
On flat earth, Africans could simultaneously see the opposite side of the Moon from South Americans. And when the Moon is over the same time zone as Quebec, Canadians above the Tropic of Cancer would see the front of a nearly full moon, while Chileans in the same time zone below the Tropic of Capricorn would simultaneously see the dark backside of the Moon. But here in reality, we all only ever see the same side of the Moon, with an insignificant change in orbital viewing angle because it is 238,900 miles away. This point alone is an irrefutable debunk of flat Earth.

3. Star Trails. If Earth is flat, how can billions of people see two different sets of constellations rotating in opposite directions, around two opposite poles? How can people in the southern hemisphere essentially stand in a circle with their backs to each other, and all be facing the same southern constellation? Illustration-

Anyone in the Southern Hemisphere may observe how stars rotate clockwise around the South Celestial Pole, where Polaris, Ursa Minor, Ursa Major, and Cassiopeia are absent - while anyone in the Northern Hemispshere sees stars rotating counter-clockwise around the North Celestial Pole, where Crux, Centaurus, and Carina are absent - On flat Earth, it is geometrically impossible to see these two completely different skies, rotating in opposing directions around two different poles.

Google "star trails" to see thousands of photo and video examples from around the world, and the star rotation direction always corresponds with the polar hemisphere. From the Equator, you can see stars rotating simultaneously around both, opposite poles. Here is a 360 degree panoramic timelapse showing stars simultaneously rotating clockwise and counter-clockwise-

4. Earth bulge. Anyone may observe Earth curvature at sea level depthwise (going away from you) by viewing thru a telephoto/zoom which greatly flattens depth. It is why Toronto appears hundreds of feet below sea level from across Lake Ontario-

Chicago appears hundreds of feet below Lake Michigan-

The CN Tower appears over 600 feet below lake Ontario-

For thousands of years, humans have observed that all ships sailing over horizon always disappear bottom first -

If you think this was cheated by "editing," here is an uncut example-

And _no, "perspective" has nothing to do with objects appearing to sink below sea level. Perspective merely means that objects appear smaller and closer together with distance, and will not cause bottoms of distant objects to appear to flatten into nothing near horizon. "Parallax" is why objects may appear to slide up and down behind the horizon, as a result of changes in viewing angle, which only proves Earth curvature. On a flat Earth, there is no reason for a calm sea level to appear to rise up hundreds of feet between observer and a target. Animated illustration-

And no, increasing magnification will not ccontribute to a parallax shift, because there is no change in physical distance between observer and target. Magnification will only enlarge your view, and will not allow one to magically see behind the horizon. Here are photo examples of ships over horizon where increased magnification does not cause them to appear taller-

5. Sunsets. Billions of people observe the Sun set below horizon daily, like this - If this occurred on flat Earth, the entire world would be cast in darkness at the same second, and there could be no time zones.

6. No accurate flat earth map. If Earth were relatively 2-dimensional geometry, then well-established geographical dimensions should appear proportionately correct on a 2-dimensional map. But they do not at all. The flat Earth map grossly distorts continents, and inexplicably stretches longitude and latitude lines to fit. Russia is known to be 6,000 miles long, and Australia is about 2,500 miles long, but on the flat map, Australia is as large as Russia! How would you account for this discrepancy? Here is a flat Earth map with continental dimensions preserved- It is geometrically impossible to accurately fit Earth geography into a 2D disc shape, because Earth is a sphere. It is like trying to make a deflated basketball lay flat with all of the skin facing up.

7. Flight durations. Already discussed. Even a former flat Earth advocate admitted Earth cant be flat due to polar flights from Johannesburg to Sydney travel time of 12 hours- and he commendably deleted all his flat Earth vids.

The same flight distance on flat Earth would take FIVE times longer-

8. The ice wall of doom! Anyone may book a flight to or over Antarctica, just as tens of thousands of people do annually.

A380 takes the polar route to Sydney. *"The crew takes in spectacular views of Antarctica"*

Antarctica tourism and South Pole flights -

Antarctica flights-

Tours in The Antarctic
"over 45 thousand people visited Antarctica during the recent Argentine summer: it's a seven times growth in the last 16 years. " (2009)

Discover Antarctica

Antarctica Voyages-
"A complete circumnavigation, from Incan empires to Brazilian beaches, icy Antarctica to the steamy Amazon — all roundtrip from Ft. Lauderdale aboard ms Prinsendam."

Best Antarctica Cruises

*Tourism in Antarctica* -

Antarctica flights-

First skiers in Antarctica-

U.S. Department of State- Open Skies Treaty-
" one of the most wide-ranging international efforts to date promoting openness and transparency of military forces and activities. "

Antarctic Treaty System "establishes freedom of scientific investigation and bans military activity on that continent. " "in the interests of all mankind that Antarctica shall continue forever to be used exclusively for peaceful purposes and shall not become the scene or object of international discord." the USAP deploys roughly 3,000 people to Antarctica every year to conduct scientific research, or provide support to researchers through the operation and maintenance of the research stations and vessels.

Jobs in Antarctica-

9. Space travel. All space travel must be fake. Debunked in my video (linked to start at 7:41)- The interior Skylab footage at 9:32 is irrefutable evidence of astronauts weightless in space. Wires could not possibly accommodate their intertwining motion without becoming tangled, the shot is too long to take place in a diving plane where reduced gravity only lasts 25 seconds, and this was the cutting edge of photoreal computer animation in 1972- Therefore astronauts have traveled into space.

10 illustrated disproofs of flat Earth by Astrobrant2. of Flat Earth?sort=6&page=1

11. List of historic circumnavigations.

12. More meteors seen after midnight because your local part of the Earth is facing the direction of its orbital motion around the Sun

13. Implausibly mammoth conspiracy requiring involvement of over 50 space agencies around the world, and every news agency, all telecommunications companies, and shipping companies, and universities, and millions of dedicated professional physicists, engineers, meteorologists, pilots, navigators, oceanographers, cartographers, are all lying, bribed or threatened into participating in a global super conspiracy of the last century, along with their families, without any clear motive, and without a single leak or whistle blower, not one single, deathbed confession or drunken admission ever.

14. Coriolis Effect. There would have to be an awful lot of confused experts.

FIELD ARTILLERY, VOL 6, BALLISTICS AND AMMUNITION"The next important factor in drift is *Coriolis acceleration.* ... It would be present if the projectile were fired in a vacuum. It does, however, depend on the latitude and gearing of the gun and on its range. Its effect is opposite north and south of the equator. For long range guns it is sometimes almost as great as the gyroscopic effect."

Marine Corps Manual- Field Artillery Manual Cannon Gunnery- "Deviations From Standard Conditions. - *Rotation of the earth."*

*Modern Exterior Ballistics* (McCoy, Robert [1999]) _a comprehensive text covering the basic free flight dynamics of symmetric projectiles._

Coriolis effect of a 7.62mm Ball M80 Bullet.
500 yards - .6 inches
1000 yards - 2.8 in
1500 yards - 7.6 in
2000 yards - 15.9 in

"The basic principles of ballistic science are developed from a comprehensive definition of the aerodynamic forces that control the flight dynamics of symmetric projectiles. The author carefully starts with the basic vacuum point mass trajectory, adds the effects of drag, discusses the action of winds, simple flat fire approximations, *Coriolis effects* and concludes with the classic modified point mass trajectories."

The Paris Gun - "The distance was so far that the Coriolis effect — the *rotation of the Earth* — was substantial enough to affect trajectory calculations."

INS for Guided Missile Systems - Pg 2 "Moreover,the desired navigation solution typically is formed relative to a second, *rotating Earth-centered* Earth-fixed (ECEF) coordinate frame, (ie, je, ke), having angular velocity ie, relative to the inertial frame. If the position vector of the missile, r, over the Earth’s surface is desired (latitude, longitude, and altitude), then a model for the ellipsoidal shape of the Earth’s surface must be used.

Nat Geo Encyclopedia on Coriolis- "Military aircraft and missile-control technology must calculate the *Coriolis effect* for similar reasons. The target of an air raid could be missed entirely, and innocent people and civilian structures could be damaged. "

From Principles of Guided Missiles and Nuclear Weapons - "The CORIOLIS FORCE must also be compensated for. It is *caused by the earth's rotation,* and tends to deflect a missile to the right in the northern hemisphere, and to the left in the southern hemisphere." "The amount of deviation produced by the *coriolis force* depends on the latitude, length, and direction of the missile flight. "

Arms Guide, "Coriolis effect affects everything not firmly attached to the Earth’s surface." , "the vertical component of the trajectory is called Eötvös Effect. " -

Long Range Shooters "Coriolis makes the projectile appear to curve" -

Applied Ballistics, "There are horizontal and vertical components to Coriolis acceleration." -

Ballistics calculators that incorporate coriolis must be wrong? - at JBM,

Gunwerks, lang range ballistics manufacturer and instruction (in my video)-

An airplane's Inertial Navigation Systems (INS) "must continually correct for a plane's tendency to drift off course because of _Earth's rotational acceleration,_ a consequence of the so-called _Coriolis force."_ From *Inertial Navigation And Flight* -

From Newton's Laws Applied to Navigation - "A firm understanding of four concepts is required to obtain (velocity) from Newton's Laws: gravity, attitude, Earth-referenced velocity and the _Coriolis theorem."_ navigation system earth coriolis&f=false

And from Institude of Flight System Dynamics - "In a sequential process of levelling and gyro compassing the initial orientation could be derived, when the Earth’s rate of _rotation_ can be sufficiently resolved..."


Wind patterns have _everything_ to do with coriolis effect, illustrated here- Flat Earth theory has no explanation for trade winds, westerlies and easterlies-
" In meteorology, the horizontal component of the Coriolis force is of primary importance, "

American Meteorological Society- "The Coriolis force is defined as always acting perpendicular to the direction of motion; to the right in the Northern Hemisphere to explain rightward turning, and to the left in the Southern Hemisphere to describe leftward turning. It is all necessary *because Earth turns!"*

Hong Kong Observatory- "The apparent deflection of a moving air mass caused by the Earth's rotation is called the Coriolis effect."

Meteorology. By Professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences University of Wisconsin-Madison -
"... in the midlatitudes, the Coriolis force is strong; thishas important implications for how we understand midlatitude weather." coriolis&f=false

Univ of Illinois- "As air moves from high to low pressure in the northern hemisphere, it is deflected to the right by the Coriolis force. "


"Each successive layer of water underneath is effected further by the Coriolis effect (but the foward movement of water is less) creating an Ekman spiral"
"Winds drive surface currents in the ocean, and these currents are effected by the Coriolis effect. "

A Laboratory Demonstration of Coriolis Effects on Wind-Driven ocean currents-

Oceanography: An Invitation to Marine Science - effect oceanography&f=false

geostrophic ("Earth turning") currents. "On a nonrotating Earth, water would be accelerated by a horizontal pressure gradient and would flow from high to low pressure. On the rotating Earth, however, the Coriolis force deflects the motion,"

Ocean in Motion: Geostrophic Flow Background-
"A balance develops between the Coriolis force and the force arising from the horizontal water pressure gradient such that surface currents flow parallel to the contours of elevation of sea level. This current is known as geostrophic flow."

Coriolis and Ekman Transport, Penn State Dept of Geosciences,

TX A & M Univ- Geostrophic Equations-
Cornell Univ- "The force balance is between the centripetal force and Coriolis force"
Early Astronomer Described Coriolis Effect Centuries Before Coriolis

Explaining the Coriolis Effect on the Tethered Satellite

Orbital mechanics-

"Objects orbiting around L4 and L5 are stable because the Coriolis force keeps them spinning around the Lagrange point."

[Admin: Post copied from: ]
Last edited by a moderator:
David, how do they explain the fact that the motion of the sun in your video (circling overhead, rather than arcing from eastern to western horizon) is not what we see in reality?
David, how do they explain the fact that the motion of the sun in your video (circling overhead, rather than arcing from eastern to western horizon) is not what we see in reality?
One of the common ones is the vanishing point, which rather than being at infinity is always at a specific distance and resting on the horizon, so the sun simply vanishes at the horizon level when it's a certain distance away because reasons.

More exotic versions include complex refraction (which in reality makes the sun appear higher in the sky, not lower) and magnetic field effects (magnetic fields don't bend light).
Last edited:
Thanks, Hevach, but I still can't see how they'd explain the sun passing north of them, in its circular path, if they were in the US, for example, especially in winter, when the sun is circling the tropic of Capricorn. They'd have to tie themselves in knots to explain that.
David's list of proofs and his amazing videos are awesome. But I notice flat earthers still come up with answers for most of them. Which has got me wondering...what are the questions to ask a flat earther that completely stump them? I mean, I know anything in the above should do the trick, but when they're armed with magic perspective and a belief that every single thing NASA has ever done is fake...well, it ain't easy.

Anyway, from the above, I would select:

1. How did NASA fake the SkyLab footage from 1973?

2. Why can't we see the 'bottom quarter' of Toronto from 30 miles away?

3. If 2 people in Australia and South America are standing with their backs to the north pole, and therefore facing in different directions, how are they all able to see the southern pole star (Sigma Octantis)?

And others from elsewhere:

4. How high is the sun exactly? And does its altitude vary?

This one because, though flat earthers traditionally believe it's "about 3000 miles above the earth" they don't seem to know exactly, though it should be easy to calculate given that angles to the sun can be measured for ourselves. In this video the guy uses triangulation to calculate the sun's position over a 3-hour period and comes up with figures ranging from 2,668 miles to 3,052 - which I guess implies a sun which varies in altitude throughout the day - while in this video a height of 3,594 miles is arrived at. The technique there is using two points on the equator when the sun is 60 degrees east and west from each (I also used this technique for places with the sun at angles 30, 45, and 55 degrees and arrived at figures of 3,600, 3,105, and 3,473 miles respectively).

In a nutshell, it doesn't work.

5. How far is the north star above the north pole?

For some reason, they seem to be able to explain away all the south celestial pole impossibilities, so I thought another simple angle-measuring exercise would be better. Again, it contains things which can be measured ourselves, such as angles and distances. And, again, it's pretty impossible to fudge.

Position of the north star on a flat earth:
Flat earth if the north star is 3,100 miles above the earth:

6. When we see the supposed ISS in the sky, what are we really seeing?

Too complicated for them.

6. If the Mount Keck observatory in Hawaii is looking towards Los Angeles, why can it see stars on the horizon, but not the much more powerful glow of LA?

I found this in a comment on youtube. One of my favourites. :)

7. What does the flat earth map look like?

A bit of bait, this one, since it doesn't matter whichever map is presented, there'll always be something wrong with it. Also, attempting to make a map, and failing at it, is the only thing I've seen bring serious, dedicated flat earthers back to reality.

8. Has anyone made a physical model of the interaction between the flat earth, the sun and the moon which demonstrates what we experience in every day life? (I believe they're called tellurions or osseries.)

I'd love to see them try this: the impossibility of making it work would seriously scramble some eggs.

Links to tellurions: moon-sun- model-- 1597470.html





9. When I was looking into direct flights in the southern hemisphere I found 74 per week, going between New Zealand and Australia, and South Africa, Mauritius, Brazil, Argentina, and Chile. How is this possible?

Too much scope for weirdness with this one (fake flights, superspeed planes) - too complicated too - and that Max Igan compass confusion didn't help things.

So those are the best 8 questions I can think of. Obviously there are hundreds that should do the job equally as well, but what I'm thinking is: simple, to the point, verifiable, and as closed to illogical insanities as possible.

Any other suggestions, or flaws in my selections?

PS Cut and paste-friendly list here:

1. How did NASA fake the SkyLab footage from 1973? (

2. Why can't we see the 'bottom quarter' of Toronto from 30 miles away?

3. If 2 people in Australia and South America are standing with their backs to the north pole, and therefore facing in different directions, how are they both able to see the southern pole star (Sigma Octantis)?

4. How high is the sun exactly? And does its altitude vary?

5. How far is the north star above the north pole?

6. If the Mount Keck observatory in Hawaii is looking towards Los Angeles, why can it see stars on the horizon, but not the much more powerful glow of LA?

7. What does the flat earth map look like?

8. Has anyone made a physical model of the interaction between the flat earth, the sun and the moon which demonstrates what we experience in everyday life? (I believe they're called tellurions or osseries.)
Last edited:
Hi guys! I'm new here; glad to have found the site. Greetings!

With the pleasantries out of the way: Rory, great fav list. I've been pondering the same thing - just a few simple questions that will keep their noodles baked.
Needless to say, in real life, I've ran into two or three people believing Flat Earth-or at least they were arguing for having "an open mind" about it; which is fine though, funny enough it did not end up (yet) in uneasy discussions about right or wrong but rather two grownups discussing points. Which is the way it should be if you are going to discuss it, I suppose, regardless of different beliefs. But still....lately I came up with this one so obvious one might almost forget it (I hope I didn't overlook it in any of the suggestions above):

If the Earth is flat, why does the Moon, looking at it on the Northern Hemisphere, is on its vertical flip side looking at it from the SH? Or, to be more precise, it does change its appearance looking at it going from North to South and back.
Not to mention that the phases appear to go in the "other" direction ;)

Obviously one hefty rebuttal could be the "but it's all a screen, the whole heaven we see is a projection" thingy, but even then, how would North and South parts of the un-illuminated part (on a flat Earth or a sphere, doesn't matter) see two flipsides of the same "projection"? I'm sure there are people who have come up with answers....

It's on par I think with seeing Sigma Octantis simultaneously while looking in three different directions. I think that's my new favourite :)

It does make sense right? I must admit, thinking about it does make my head hurt a little.... ;))

See ya!
Yeah I saw that one by now; since I posted I digged a little deeper :D and one of the better explanations was that the Moon was a flat disc, and looking up to the downside would produce the upside down view.

If this is all in the fifth dimension, I'm okay with it I guess :D


My personal favourite for things that don't work on a flat earth is simply the 24 a day sunshine in the Antarctic summer.
I was at Scott Base when Anthony Powell made the (linked) timelapse movie. So far the only come back to any and every video that shows this phenomenon is "it's faked!" Which seems like a bit of a cop out to me. Flat earthers all seem to be about believing your eyes, unless what you see goes against their ideas! No one has a good explanation for 1000's of people experiencing the middnight sun (in some areas for months at a time) in Antarctica.
In the flat earth model this would mean that not only does the sun circle a single point in Antarctica (which is the outer ring in their models) but it can also be seem simultaneously from the entire outer ring!
One guy said something about "maybe there's 2 suns" or something...grasping at straws a little.
Of course they all say that no one can go there because of the Treaty, but they obviously haven't actually read the Treaty because it says nothing of the sort! Also they discount the 100's of ordinary base support workers that live on the bases there.
PS Cut and paste-friendly list here:

1. How did NASA fake the SkyLab footage from 1973? (

2. Why can't we see the 'bottom quarter' of Toronto from 30 miles away?

3. If 2 people in Australia and South America are standing with their backs to the north pole, and therefore facing in different directions, how are they both able to see the southern pole star (Sigma Octantis)?

4. How high is the sun exactly? And does its altitude vary?

5. How far is the north star above the north pole?

6. If the Mount Keck observatory in Hawaii is looking towards Los Angeles, why can it see stars on the horizon, but not the much more powerful glow of LA?

7. What does the flat earth map look like?

8. Has anyone made a physical model of the interaction between the flat earth, the sun and the moon which demonstrates what we experience in everyday life? (I believe they're called tellurions or orreries.)
Scratch number 6. I posted it in a forum and was rightly asked, "well, has this ever been done?" So I emailed the Keck Observatory and they told me they don't point the telescopes lower than about 20 degrees.

Ah well. Maybe it's right in theory, but if it's never been put into practice, I guess it's an easy one to shoot down.

Number 5 was fun to post, though: several hundred comments, but nobody brave enough to have a stab at the answer. Quite mind-boggling, really.

The main objection to it seemed to be: "how can we trust the distances on maps?"

They really don't trust anything, these people, huh? (When it suits them.)

So what I did then was rephrase the question to show that we don't necessarily need to know the distance to the north pole, just the distance between latitudes, which we can measure for ourselves:

Okay, let's try again with the question: what is the altitude of the north star above the north pole on a flat earth?

This time I was thinking a more straightforward and mathematical approach. So in the picture below you will see 3 cities on the flat plane of the earth. At each of the cities is the angle at which the north star can be seen. This information can be checked online, or if you don't believe it, it can be measured for yourself (or by a friend who lives in one of these cities).

The most common way to look at this would be to say, okay, Minneapolis is approximately 5000km to the north pole, therefore the altitude of the north star is also 5000km (high school trigonometry).

The problem comes, though, when we look at the angle from New Orleans, which is 30 degrees. New Orleans is about 6700km from the north pole, which means the altitude of the north star is 3870km.

Likewise, we can look at Kansas City - 5670km from the north pole - and from that calculate the altitude of the north star as 4590km.

Clearly, something is amiss - from these figures alone we receive a huge range of answers, none of which match up. And using further locations only complicates matters further - from Glasgow, Scotland, we receive a figure of 5632km, and from Mexico City, an altitude for the north star of 2705km.

To those with an elementary mathematical understanding, this represents one very simple demonstration of why the flat earth theory doesn't work.

As can be seen and measured for oneself, the range of figures for the altitude of the north star spans at least 3000km, and none of them match up.

So the question for flat earth believers is "why not?"


Below are some of the common responses to this question, and responses to those responses.


SUGGESTION 1: The north star isn't really a star, it's some other kind of light.

EXPLANATION: It doesn't matter whether it's real or not. The fact that there is something there that can measured to is all that matters.

SUGGESTION 2: The distances on the map aren't accurate.

COUNTER-SUGGESTION 1: Where on the map are the distances inaccurate? Using satellite images we can see our own houses and roads. We use odometers and walk and see that the distances tally with what we experience in reality. The maps have been used for centuries, by billions of people, and not once has someone shown that they are inaccurate.

It is not impossible that the maps are inaccurate, but it has never been shown, and to almost every thinking person, so completely unlikely that they are inaccurate to any significant degree as to be irrelevant.

Still, if a person puts that forward as an argument, it is probably up to them to show somewhere on the map that doesn't match what we experience in reality.

COUNTER-SUGGESTION 2: It probably doesn't matter anyway. Because the viewing angle of wherever you are to the north star can be verified, and the distance estimated to a fairly accurate degree for oneself by driving, etc, we can see that even if the map was slightly wrong somewhere, the angles to the north star wouldn't add up.

Example: you're in New Orleans and you measure the angle to the north star as 30 degrees, and calculate the altitude as being 3870km. Then you drive north until you're at the same latitude as Kansas City and measure the angle as 39 degrees.

The map tells you that you've travelled 1030km - and yet, for the angles to match (ie, to meet at the same point), you would have to have travelled almost 1900km.

Is it possible that the mapped distance between New Orleans and Kansas City is incorrect by approximately 900km, and no one has noticed?

And, that likewise, all mapped distances are similarly incorrect?

SUGGESTION 3: We don't know how far it is to the north pole.

COUNTER-SUGGESTION: While the assertion is highly unlikely, as far as this calculation goes, it also doesn't matter. If we can measure the distance from any one place to another - from New Orleans to Kansas City to Minneapolis, for example - we can still work out the altitude of the north star.

For example, in the diagram below, the triangle NO-KC-NS (north star) has angles of 30, 141, and 9 degrees, and a base of 1030km. This returns an altitude of around 3300km.

The triangle KC-MN-NS has angles of 39, 135, and 6 degrees, and a base of 670km. This returns an altitude of 4033km.

As one can imagine, similar triangles can be plotted between any two points on the earth and the north star, all returning different altitudes.

Therefore, not knowing the distance to the north pole is no impediment in being able to calculate the altitude of the north star on an apparently flat plane.

SUGGESTION 4: The stated angles to the north star are incorrect.

COUNTER-SUGGESTION 1: The north star has been successfully used by navigators for countless centuries. The measurements of the earth's latitudinal lines were meticulously calculated in detailed surveys taking many years. No one has shown there to be a fault in the recorded angles of latitude, and the corresponding angles to the north star.

COUNTER-SUGGESTION 2: Even if it was suggested that the angles to the north star could be wrong, they would have to be wrong by a huge margin of error - as demonstrated above with regard to distances - in order for even just a few places to "line up".

For the angles from Minneapolis and New Orleans to agree, for example, New Orleans would have to be at 37 degrees, or Minneapolis at 38 degrees.

Of course, all other angles and figures would all have to change.

Is it possible that centuries of measurements, made by tens or hundreds of thousands of people, are inaccurate by 7 or 8 degrees?

CONCLUSION: It's impossible to make the figures add up, even factoring in an enormous (and undemonstrated) degree of error. Doing the measurements and calculations for oneself demonstrates the impossibility of the flat earth.

There are many similar ways to demonstrate this, but this is one of the simplest to understand.

Attempts to debunk the above, of course, are welcome.

Content from External Source
That seemed to go down even less well. Stoney silence...
Last edited:
Forty years ago, as a cadet at Texas Maritime Academy I studied celestial navigation. to successfully navigate in the days before GPS satellites existed, sailors would use sextant and chronometers to make daily sun and nightly star sightings. Using those observations and mathematical formulas developed which can only function on a spheroid earth they were able to chart courses and arrive at their desired positions.

I am not unique in this knowledge ;) , many millions of sailors and ships have used celestial navigation.

If any Nabob wants to claim a Flat Earth, let him show that he has at least taken an approved mariner's celestial navigation class. If he can show to have passed the class and still believe in 'flat earth', he is a liar.
here is the US Coast Guard's list of approved courses, equivalents are available worldwide at the various Port State Authorities.
Not open for further replies.